Australia's military justice system has attracted significant scrutiny following the accidental release of a long-awaited review led by former high-ranking officials. This review, which had been kept under wraps for over six months, came to light after being briefly published on the website of the Royal Commission investigating Defence and Veteran Suicide. The subsequent uproar has underscored controversies surrounding the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) and highlighted broader issues concerning transparency and oversight within Australia's military structures.
The review, initially commissioned by outgoing Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty, was penned by former Federal Court Justice Duncan Kerr, with assistance from former Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson. It was meant to assess the operations and independence of the IGADF amid serious allegations concerning its ties to the Australian Defence Force's (ADF) command structure.
Upon its release, the 141-page document provoked accusations of governmental secrecy. Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie, who had campaigned for the report's disclosure for months, along with Greens senator David Shoebridge, lambasted the government for its lack of transparency. "It is absolutely disgusting," exclaimed Lambie, referencing the government's attempts to obscure the findings. The review's release correlates with heightened concerns about the integrity and accountability of the military justice framework at a time when Australian Defence personnel have seen growing instances of mental health crises and suicides.
The report itself suggests sweeping reforms to the IGADF, recommending legislative changes to establish the office as more independent from the military hierarchy. Specifically, the review criticized the IGADF for being "umbilically linked" to the ADF command, which contributed to widespread perceptions of ineffectiveness and bias within its investigations. Further recommendations included boosting resources and establishing clearer protocols for handling misconduct and deaths among Defence personnel.
Despite the urgency behind the review's findings, the government's reaction has been tentative. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles responded to criticism by stating the need for cross-referencing the review with the Commission's final report. His spokesperson emphasized, "To respond to one report in isolation of the other would be impractical and ineffective," indicating some hesitation to implement immediate changes.
Many Defence advocates have voiced fears over what they describe as "a weaponized" military justice system, which they argue has become detrimental to the welfare of Defence members. This sentiment was echoed in the recent findings from the Royal Commission, which highlighted numerous accounts of mishandled administrative law claims and failures to support families of personnel who committed suicide.
The tension reached its peak on Wednesday when Shoebridge attempted to table the recently released review during parliamentary proceedings, only to find it had vanished from the government's official publication. This incident triggered Lambie and Shoebridge to convene for a press conference, attacking the government for what they saw as deliberate obfuscation of significant findings. They insisted on the need for accountability and called for urgent reforms to the military justice system.
Former military lawyer Dr. Glenn Kolomeitz criticized the content of the review, stating it was insufficiently rigorous, reflecting the constraints set by the IGADF itself. He articulated concerns about the inherent flaws within the military justice system and remarked on the damning conclusions reached by the Royal Commission, noting how they fundamentally contradicted the internal review's findings.
Australia's military justice system has been marred by controversies related to historical allegations against Special Forces members, particularly surrounding their conduct during operations in Afghanistan. The tension continues to build as military advocates and senators alike push for reform. The fallout from this report may lead to significant changes within the defence sector, reshaping how military misconduct is addressed and potentially rebuilding trust among serving personnel and veterans.
At the core, the report and its fallout spotlight the fragile relationship between the military and its oversight mechanisms, raising key questions about how best to serve and protect those who serve the nation. With the recent upheaval, the stakes are higher than ever for the policies guiding Australia's military justice.
