Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is the final report of the current Judge Advocate General, Major General the Hon. Justice LW Roberts-Smith RFD. His Honour was first appointed to the position of acting JAG in June 2002. In that time, he has been a forthright advocate of many matters to do with problems that have been much discussed within the military justice system within this country. He has also been a vocal contributor in reforms currently being implemented following a report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee some two years ago now. This, his final annual report before he vacates the position, is no exception.

His Honour repeats his criticisms of some of the reforms that have been introduced to date by government. They include, as we know, the formalities of appointment of judicial officers, terms of appointment and the processes for removal of judges on the new Australian Military Court. His position is the same as that of a joint party committee recommendation—from memory, late last year. He recommended then—as we, as I recall, also recommended—about the then proposal for the establishment of an Australian Military Court that it be established under chapter III of the Constitution, that appointments be for life and that appointees be appointed and removed by the Governor-General alone. Just as the government in its wisdom chose to ignore some of the recommendations of the committee, it also rejected His Honour’s view.

The JAG realised that the new court could only be independent of the military if it were established under chapter III of the Australian Constitution. The government, it must be said, went some way to paying regard to these views by way of subsequent amendments introduced into both houses, but it stopped well short of the recommendation proposed at that stage by the committee. His Honour maintains his displeasure—and rightly so, I suggest. The government’s entire attitude to reform of military justice was that civilian standards and processes within the military were inappropriate. Why? Because military discipline could not be compromised. Thus the Judge Advocate General reminds us of the importance of the principles he advocated to the committee and with which the committee in its report agreed.

As one of the members of that committee, I think it is appropriate to congratulate His Honour on his commitment to maintaining an improvement to military justice—even though, as it turned out, the entirety of the model that he advanced was eventually thwarted by government decision. We on the committee certainly welcomed his expertise and appreciation of military law and its functioning. We respected those views and, as it turned out, provided full support to his particular set of recommendations.

It is a notable feature of the Judge Advocate General that his independence is such that his views can be so energetically promoted. I only suggest and hope that his successor, as appointed in due course, equally prizes his independence with vigour. I also trust that the committee does not lose sight of the strengths of the principles of the arguments that Major-General Robert Smith advanced in that committee and which were adopted by the committee, because they were pertinent, relevant and exactly on time.

Finally, as the relevant Senate committee retains its brief on military justice, we keep at the forefront for further consideration, as opportunity permits perhaps at some future stage, the ability to put forward some of those principles into legislation.

Question agreed to.