Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I start by acknowledging all those that continue to serve our nation in uniform, our veterans and their families. And I note that the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifices that they have made through peacekeeping missions, natural disasters, humanitarian and combat operations. In recognition of their service, it is incumbent upon us in this parliament to ensure that Defence Force members, veterans and their families are treated with respect and dignity and get the appropriate support that they deserve.

Today I rise to speak on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill. This legislation implements key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a landmark inquiry that was established by the former coalition government. It was in 2021 when I stood, in government, in the corner, and looked up and saw families of those whose sons had died by suicide sitting in the gallery holding photos of their sons and saying that we must have a royal commission. The coalition called it. The Labor government is implementing it, and I thank the minister for his genuine bipartisanship through this process.

When we established the royal commission, we said its aim was to shed a light on the critical steps needed so we can reduce the heartbreaking cases of suicide. The findings confirmed what service members of the Australian Defence Force, veterans and their families have been saying for years. They deserve truth, accountability and genuine reform. With more than half a million Australians having served or currently serving, we have a profound obligation to ensure that issues identified are acknowledged and that necessary action is taken.

The coalition believes we have a personal responsibility to care for the physical and mental wounds of our Australian Defence Force personnel past, present and future. Our Defence Force and veteran community must always be recognised for the incredible sacrifices they have made and continue to make, and their unique health challenges must always be prioritised and addressed. We've seen far too many of our brave men and women succumb to their war within—their invisible wounds. That is why, at the last election, the coalition committed to implementing an agreed response to the royal commission to deliver better outcomes for the Defence Force and veteran community. The coalition remains committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide among Defence Force and veteran communities.

This bill provides the necessary framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63. It also introduces reform to the military justice system, which is an integral framework underpinning military discipline and command. The coalition understands that delays in resolving discipline matters adversely affect morale, welfare and operational effectiveness. Prolonged uncertainty places a strain on personnel that can undermine unit cohesion and trust. A fair, effective and timely system is essential for protecting personnel and ensuring that the Australian Defence Force remains mission-ready.

I'll turn to the specifics of the bill. Schedule 1 directly implements several of the royal commission recommendations designed to protect victims and enhance accountability. Recommendation 18 called for enhanced safeguards to ensure alleged victims are not required to work alongside alleged perpetrators during investigations. This sounds like something that shouldn't have occurred, but it has occurred in many units over many years. Currently, a member suspected of a minor service offence can be suspended, but a member suspected of a serious civilian criminal offence, such as rape, sexual assault or even murder, often cannot be suspended. This can create inconsistent and unsuitable outcomes where serious criminal offences do not trigger the same protective actions as minor service matters. The bill resolves that inconsistency by introducing a new suspension power where a member is under investigation by civilian authorities.

Furthermore, schedule 1 implements recommendation 20, requiring service tribunals to consider victim impact in sexual offences cases. It also addresses rank disparity in sentencing. We also see the implementation of recommendation 21, establishing a framework to ensure serious service convictions are disclosed to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission for inclusion in the national policing records. Additionally, in line with recommendation 63, the bill removes stigmatising language like 'malingering' from the Defence Force Discipline Act, replacing it with descriptions that do not carry the same negative connotation for wounded, ill or injured members.

Schedule 2 streamlines superior tribunal procedures. This gives effect to recommendation 34, which required a review of provisions where court martial panels were not required to give reasons for punishment. This legislation now requires that any conviction and sentencing decision by the superior tribunals or reviews is to be accompanied by formal reasons. By requiring these reasons, this bill seeks to enhance transparency and accountability within the system. This schedule also makes changes to the trial phase, where the complex task of sentencing is becoming the responsibility of the judge advocate and not a lay panel. The government has stated that these measures are intended to align the practice of the superior tribunals more closely with those of the civilian justice system. The bill also provides for matters to be prescribed by a regulation, enabling the framework to remain responsive to future reforms and developments across civilian judicial jurisdictions.

To strengthen procedural fairness, the schedule also introduces reforms allowing either the accused person or the prosecution, prior to a plea being entered, to apply for the election of the reform or mode of trial. This includes the ability to seek a trial by judge advocate alone, the escalation of proceedings from restricted court martial to general court martial or a referral of a matter from a Defence Force magistrate to court martial. To reduce the likelihood of retrials and improve trial continuity, the Registrar of Military Justice is granted flexible powers to appoint and substitute judge advocates and panel members in response to illness or operational demands. This is reform that seeks to ensure the wheels of justice do not halt due to the unique pressures of military service. We note measures to align court martial proceedings to contemporary civilian practice may prove more difficult in practice owing to the unique nature of court martial, where it could be argued that there is no direct equivalence between a court martial and a civilian jury.

Schedule 3 updates the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act concerning the management of mental impairment in service tribunal proceedings. Part 1 of the schedule updates the powers of service tribunals. We're dealing with those suffering from mental health impairment, with part 2 establishing a defence mental health tribunal as a specialised decision-making body. The current framework lacks the mechanism to address mental health conditions that fall short of legal incapacity but still impact an accused person's wellbeing or the fairness of superior tribunal proceedings.

This bill introduces new diversionary measures permitting a service tribunal to adjourn proceedings for up to six months. Under the proposed subsection 137E, a service tribunal must dismiss a charge entirely where 'reasonably satisfied that the accused person is suffering from a mental impairment', the judge advocate rules that 'trying or continuing to try the charge is not in the interests of maintaining discipline in the Defence Force' or 'the prosecution has had an opportunity to be heard'. Factors that must be considered to dismiss the charge include 'the nature, severity and expected duration of the mental impairment' and 'the nature and seriousness of the charge'.

Part 2 of schedule 3 establishes a Defence mental health tribunal. This will allow for the provision of a clinically informed alternative to the outdated custodial provisions, which are currently in the Defence Force Disciplinary Act, allowing for orders related to treatment, care or appropriate detention. These orders will be reviewed every six months, ensuring that the restriction of liberty is always proportionate and subject to clinical oversight. This is a trauma informed approach that supports the wellbeing of the accused while also maintains confidence in the discipline system. This part is to commence by proclamation or on 1 January 2028, to allow for the negotiation of state and territory funding to access facilities. We urge the government, and will work with the government, to expediate these discussions.

Schedule 4 seeks to simplify the middle tier of the disciplinary framework, creating the summary contravention scheme. The current three-tier system can be complex and a major source of delay and inefficiency. This bill replaces that system with a single streamlined scheme. The new scheme is administrative, not criminal, and uses the civil standard of proof. It allows Defence to manage minor misconducts in a proportionate way while reducing escalation into the service offence system. This balances the need for efficiency with the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Schedule 5—this is the one I had a little bit of concern about—contains 16 parts. It's very big and it covers a broad range of amendments. In particular, the part that I am concerned about—and I thank the minister for allowing some defence members to go through the process with me—is the establishment of a clear statutory basis for Defence Force police members to carry, handle and use specified policing equipment. That means MPs, military police, would be able to hold tasers. MPs can't use tasers on the civilian force; they would only be able to use them on those still serving or to defend a military base against those who have broken in.

As a former enlisted soldier, I am concerned because the likelihood of who these tasers would be used upon would be enlisted soldiers. I have some concerns around this. I spoke with three service people yesterday, including a warrant officer class 1. In some jurisdictions they already carry the taser. I am sceptical of it. I am worried that it's going to be used on enlisted soldiers more than on officers. I think we've got to keep an eye on this. I know what I was like when I was a soldier! I'm glad there were no tasers then!

Part 1 does allow for specified military police to use specified policing equipment: tasers. Part 2 amends the DFDA to update prescribed quantities for drug offences by repealing definitions of 'controlled drug' and 'controlled plant'. Part 2 also repeals a new definition of 'prescribed quantity'. This will align the DFDA definitions to other Commonwealth legislation.

Part 3 amends the DFDA to enable the disclosure and protection of certain information in proceedings before service tribunals or for law enforcement purposes.

Part 4 amends DFDA service offences, removing outdated location based elements and modernises the scope of assault and harassment related offences. These amendments seek to ensure that service offence provisions reflect contemporary expectations.

Part 5 amends the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed by a restricted court martial from six months to two years.

Part 6 amends the DFDA to ensure that a reviewing authority cannot consider a petition relating to proceedings that it has already reviewed under section 152 as part of the automatic review process. This is seen as a fairness measure.

Part 7 amends the DFDA to increase the maximum term of appointment of legal officers appointed under section 154 from three years to five years. This part also clarifies that a reviewing authority should not commence a review without obtaining a report on the proceedings, which can be provided by a legal officer appointed under section 154 or a DJAG.

Part 8 makes amendments to vest all statutory discipline powers to the CDF rather than with the CDF and other service chiefs, allowing the CDF to delegate those powers to service chiefs and other Defence Force officers at or above the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore.

Part 9 amends the Defence Act 1903 and the DFDA to update the title Director of Defence Counsel Services to Director of Defence Legal Assistance. This is to reflect the increased scope, over the years, of the director.

Part 10 amends the DFDA to expand the statutory functions of the DMP to include representing the CDF and other service chiefs in specified Federal Court and High Court proceedings relating to the DFDA.

Part 11 amends the DFDA to modernise and harmonise the termination provisions for the JAG and the DJAG, aligning with contemporary judicial office termination standards.

Part 12 amends section 146 of the DFDA to enable regulations to apply, adopt and incorporate evidentiary rules that operate in the Jervis Bay Territory, for use in the DFDA proceedings.

Part 13 amends the DFDA to modernise and broaden the concept of the investigating officer. These amendments ensure that DFDA investigations are conducted appropriately by appropriately trained people and support the professionalism of Defence investigative practice.

Part 14 amends section 84A of the DFDA to expand the existing removal order power so that it applies not only to cyberbullying offences under section 48A but also to any service offence that involves the provision of intimate images of another person via social media or electronic services. This ensures service tribunals can order the removal of harmful intimate image material whenever it is posted or otherwise shared as a part of the DFDA offending, not only when it constitutes cyberbullying.

Part 15 creates a power to extinguish historical homosexual service offences.

Part 16 amends the DFDA to relocate all disciplinary infringement provisions from part IA into a standalone schedule 1. The aim of this amendment is to improve readability and simplify the numbering of infringement provisions.

Finally, schedule 6 provides a transitional rule-making power to the minister. This will allow the minister to make rules by legislative instrument. The government sees this as a necessary measure to deal with unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues as we move from the old framework to the new. The coalition expects the minister to use the powers judiciously, ensuring that the rules made are in the interests of justice and accord fairness to all proceedings.

The highlight of the bill, for me, is around streamlining and marrying up the offences. If you're in Defence and the Defence Force are investigating you, you get stood down and are given appropriate support, and it's up to the command element around your pay structure, but, if you're investigated by the Queensland Police Service or another state police service for a serious crime, then at this stage you would not be stood down. We have seen cases in Townsville, Darwin, Brisbane and Tasmania, at different units, where an alleged perpetrator of sexual assault was working with the alleged victim. That is not good enough, and this is a protection to make sure that that doesn't occur, because in many cases where an alleged perpetrator does get convicted and becomes the perpetrator, this poor victim has been made to work with the person that has assaulted them, sexually assaulted them or been convicted of raping them. I do think this is an appropriate change, and we do support this. It marries it up and makes a lot of sense to me.

We remain deeply committed to addressing the high rates of suicide among our defence and veteran community. I know that is a bipartisan statement in this parliament. Last year the coalition supported the legislation to establish the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner, which was recommendation 122 of the royal commission. It is imperative that we work together to roll out these recommendations. We will continue to engage with key advocacy groups to ensure the unique challenges of Defence personnel and veterans are prioritised.

No good ideas come out of Canberra. No good ideas come from politicians. They come from the experts, and it's our job to listen, work and deliver for those ESOs and defence groups and veterans that come to us and say, 'Hey, why aren't we rolling out this?' or, 'How do we move it quicker?' We will not stand in the way of this bill. A strong, fair, effective military justice system is essential to maintaining discipline, operational effectiveness and the confidence of the Australian people in our Defence Force. Our servicemen and women deserve a system that is transparent and timely. We must do better by those who defend us, our families and our way of life. The implementation of the royal commission recommendations is a critical step in that direction.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context