Section 1
Inspector General ADF

1.4 Advisory function

Key military justice issues to which IGADF has contributed or taken the lead have included revision or amendment of the following policy documents or legislation:

1.5 Developmental function

IGADF has continued to provide military justice awareness briefings to newly appointed commanding officers and other senior ADF members such as Warrant Officers Disciplinary in Air Force and Regimental Sergeants Major in Army. The program is not designed to usurp single Service training responsibilities in this most critical area, but rather to amplify formal training and to share with course attendees experience and knowledge gained through the unit military justice audit process. Additionally, a military justice awareness training package intended for annual delivery at unit level has been developed by IGADF for use as required by the Services.

A recent useful Air Force initiative is the creation of Executive Warrant Officers. These Warrant Officers within their respective command, Force Element Group or Wing have responsibilities which include monitoring military justice effectiveness and providing mentoring to subordinate Command Warrant Officers.

Inquiry officer training remains a high priority for the IGADF. As at 30 June 2008, 16 IGADF Inquiry Officer training courses have been conducted, qualifying 393 inquiry officers. Four courses were conducted during the reporting period, adding 104 newly qualified inquiry officers to the pool. The Office of the IGADF continues to maintain a register of course graduates, available to assist Appointing Officers and Appointing Authorities.

A specified function of the IGADF is to ’consult with overseas agencies and authorities having similar or related functions.’ During the reporting period, IGADF conducted a benchmarking visit to the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Canada and the USA. IGADF held liaison discussions with equivalent organisations and personnel in those countries regarding the oversight of military justice in their respective armed forces and to ascertain what arrangements exist, both internally and externally to those defence forces, to achieve this function.

The Defence Forces of all countries visited face similar issues to the ADF in military justice terms although the legal regimes under which they operate, the scale of their forces and resources, and the military justice arrangements they employ may differ markedly between them and in comparison with the ADF. The overall impression gained was that the approach to military justice issues that is being taken in Australia leaves little to be desired in comparison. Much interest was expressed in what the ADF is doing, JADHE being but one example.

During the reporting period, IGADF was invited by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to participate in an Ombudsman’s Workshop in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to discuss the ADF’s approach to complaint handling both internally and externally as it interlinks with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office which also has a specific role as the Defence Force Ombudsman. Following the success of the inaugural workshop, a return visit by a PNG delegation from the PNG’s Ombudsman’s Office was hosted by the Office of IGADF in conjunction with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Future arrangements are in hand for a member of the PNG Ombudsman’s Office to accompany IGADF staff when conducting an IGADF ADF unit military justice audit of some ADF units so that first hand experience may be gained.