|
senate vote 2021-12-01#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-05-13 11:46:36
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-12-01.206.3) that the bill remain as it is. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that the bill "*stand as printed*". Because this vote was successful, the Senate can now decide whether they want to pass the bill.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-12-01.206.3) that the bill remain as it is. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that the bill "*stand as printed*". Because this vote was successful, the Senate can now decide whether they want to [pass the bill](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/).
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2122a/22bd033), the purpose of the bill is "*to improve and simplify the operation of the military discipline system by:*
- * *removing the subordinate summary authority and restructuring the summary authorities to simplify the process for dealing with minor disciplinary issues*
- * *expanding the disciplinary infringement scheme to deal more effectively with minor breaches of discipline*
* *introducing new service offences in relation to the failure to perform a duty or carry out an activity, cyber-bullying and failure to notify change in circumstances particularly with regard to receipt of benefits and allowances.*"- * *introducing new service offences in relation to the failure to perform a duty or carry out an activity, cyber-bullying and failure to notify change in circumstances particularly with regard to receipt of benefits and allowances.*"
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2021-12-01#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-05-13 11:46:06
|
Title
Bills — Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021; in Committee- Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Keep bill as is
Description
<p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>The 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use and that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve. What were the typical summary discipline matters that were taking too long to resolve?</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-12-01.206.3) that the bill remain as it is. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that the bill "*stand as printed*". Because this vote was successful, the Senate can now decide whether they want to pass the bill.
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2122a/22bd033), the purpose of the bill is "*to improve and simplify the operation of the military discipline system by:*
- * *removing the subordinate summary authority and restructuring the summary authorities to simplify the process for dealing with minor disciplinary issues*
- * *expanding the disciplinary infringement scheme to deal more effectively with minor breaches of discipline*
- * *introducing new service offences in relation to the failure to perform a duty or carry out an activity, cyber-bullying and failure to notify change in circumstances particularly with regard to receipt of benefits and allowances.*"
<p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I can advise that the average time taken for such an investigation was 86 days. That, I'm advised, has been reduced to 56 days. In contrast, the time for a discipline officer inquiry is two to three days.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>Do you have a list of what the typical summary discipline matters were?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I don't have that at the chair with me, but I will see if I can obtain some information for you.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>On the amendment, why was the interpretive guidance that was provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this offence not sufficient?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>As I understand it, both of the committees responded and said that it was not sufficient—both the scrutiny of bills committee and the human rights committee report.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>The minister's initial response to the human rights committee was found to be not sufficient?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>Yes, that's correct, as I understand it.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>Didn't this support the original form of the offence that was effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Perhaps I should explain that better. The support of the original form of the offence—was that effectively refuting any subsequent amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I'll seek some advice from officials as to whether they have anything for me in relation to that.</p><p>Can I say in relation to the offence categories—your previous question—the ones that I have been advised are relevant are: absent from duty without leave, insubordinate conduct, disobeying a lawful command, failing to comply with a general order, assaults, weapons discharge and prejudicial conduct.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>In the minister's initial response to the human rights committee, did he not support the original form of the offence, effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Did he not assert that the original provision was suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I'm not aware of the details of the minister's original response but I think what came back to the chamber today, based on the advice of both the scrutiny of bills committee and the human rights committee, was in accordance with the positions that both those committees took.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>In terms of ADF members who are subject to defence discipline and the amendment, is training given to members of the ADF? What kind of training is given? Do most ADF personnel find it to be adequate?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I understand that the training is part of initial recruit training. There is also the establishment, in more recent times, of a new-joiners guide and there is a requirement that it must be completed by all members.</p> <p class="speaker">Kimberley Kitching</p><p>In terms of ADF personnel and the strengthening of the cyberbullying offence, is that consistent with the new legislation that has been announced by the Prime Minister in relation to online trolling?</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>Senator, I think the points I enunciated in my earlier comments on the amendment itself reflect a consistency between the initiative announced by the Prime Minister and colleagues on these matters. Certainly if there were more work to be done, I'm sure the minister would look at that with keen interest.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>It being 6.20 pm, the time allotted for the debate on the bills has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question before the chair and then put questions on the remaining stages of this bill and then the electoral bill. The question now is that the bill stand as printed.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|