The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicides, recommendation 30, stipulated there should be a prioritisation of an inquiry into the weaponisation of the military justice administrative system. This article is to help young digletts and dugtrio’s understand what a beneficial submission may be and how to prepare same.
The IG:ADF has commenced this inquiry at its initiative, with submission open until 22 June 2025.
While the IG:ADF may not have a complete understanding of what weaponisation is, let’s put that aside for now and just assume weaponisation of the military justice administrativesystem is exactly what it sounds like. The IG:ADF’s scope indicates the military justice system comprises four (4) elements:
1. Investigations, prosecutions, proceedings under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth);
2. Administrative inquiries and fact finding;
3. Administrative sanctions; and
4. Complaint handling.
Briefly, while the IG:ADF may be unsure of what weaponisation of the military justice administrative system is, Justice Logan is not and has gone so far as to write an article on the subject – “March in the guilty bastard”.
Let’s look at how to prepare and draft a submission using a hypothetical scenario.
Situation.
1. A member, who was concerned about inappropriate expenditure approvals by a CO, made a formal complaint to the Fraud Control Investigation Branch (FCIB).
2. The member was then issued with a PM008: Unit referral to psych (PM008). This resulted in no action required.
3. The member was subjected to a Fact Find, based upon unrelated conduct. The Fact Find resulted in a finding that there wasstrained relationships, but nothing else.
4. The CO then immediately initiated a Notice to Show Cause: Formal Warning based upon the findings within the Fact Find(hot tip, this is a bad idea).
Submission Format – Suggestions and Points
Background.
1. Provide a dot point background of your matters administrative history and and involved processes e.g: “On 1 Janurary 2025, I was was issued with a Notice to Show Cause”.
2. Where you refer to a document, include either a footnote to the full name of the document or name the document after the paragraph - e.g: “Paragraph 2 document”.
3. Correctly setting out the background in chronological order allows the reader to understand the narrative of your circumstance and will generally assist in understanding where the fault arises.
Weaponisation.
1. Set out, in clear terms, how you see the weaponisation arising from the background or any critical commentary within the documents referred to within same. Where possible, cross-reference to the document you are referring to and use pinpoint referencing.
2. Defence writing standards directs decision makers to use paragraph and sub-paragraph numbers. Refer to those where possible within your document.
3. In the above hypothetical matter, the allegation of weaponisation may read as simply:
a. the CO did not have grounds to initiate a Notice to Show Cause: Formal Warning but did so regardless;
b. the CO only commenced the Fact Find after the PM008 failed to result in the member’s involuntary separation on medical grounds;
c. the Fact Find’s Assessment reconciled the OC097: Record of Conversation (ROC) and confirmed no conduct occurred which warranted further administrative action or sanction;
d. the CO has improperly relied upon the ROC(s) and failed to have regard to the Fact Find in its entirety;
e. the CO initiated the PM008 as reprisal action because of the member’s complaint to the FCIB;
f. the CO referred to ROC(s) in commencing the Notice to Show Cause: Formal Warning and intentionally omitted the Assessment within the Fact Find, as its inclusion would warrant no action be required.
g. the CO, by initiating a Notice to Show Cause: Formal Warning, and PM008 process failed to address or deal with a bias which arises within the matter; and
h. the CO’s conduct demonstrates such a intentional divergence from command obligations and the Defence Values that a holistic approach should be taken in respect of their further retention, particularly insofar as it relates to the possible reputational risk, reduction in moral, and damage the CO poses to the wider ADF. Their conduct is repugnant, and should not be entertained.
4. Your matter should be explained in two (2) to three (3) pages. If you submit 300 pages with no context, chronology, or understanding of what the reader is looking for, don’t expect much.
Key Lessons.
• Be concise, use brevity, and don’t over-explain.
• The IG:ADF is looking into more than ‘military justice’ and is also looking into ‘military administration and sanctions’ (or their use).
• Reference your documents within the background so the reader can logically track to what you are referring.
• The IG:ADF is not always useless, some of the Inquiry Officers are quite good and occasionally drop a #HateCheck hammer on the hierarchy.
• When going through these processes, there’s nothing wrong with telling the ADF to go check their facts.
