The three primary centres where RAN officers and sailors are trained, ADFA, HMAS Creswell and HMAS Cerberus are now free of "bastardisation", the Burchett report announced last month.

However, "bastardisation is not a dead practice", Mr James Burchett, a retired Federal Court justice, warned in his 200 page report.

He also found there is not a culture in the ADF of widespread or systemic avoidance of due disciplinary processes, or the use of violence to maintain discipline.

The report is seen generally within the RAN as "good".

The wide-ranging and hard-hitting document was publicly released at Maritime Headquarters in Sydney last month.

It came from discussions with 2350 people and 480 submissions.

Among the investigating team were a number of senior RAN officers, who with their fellow investigators, were praised for not shying away from doing unpalatable inquiries.

The team visited many RAN ships and shore bases during the course of its tasking.

Although there were bouquets in the report such as Defence's elimination of bastardisation at various military establishments, RMC, ADFA, Kapooka and the Royal Australian Naval College, there were also brickbats.

"Bastardisation is not a dead practice. Also, it is quite certain that if bastardisation has been eliminated in training institutions, its influence, creating a tolerance and even a taste for unlawful violence in association with discipline, could not have been wholly eliminated at one stroke with it," Mr Burchett wrote.

He also had a strong warning for peacekeepers.

"Australia seems likely, in the modern world, to be involved in peacekeeping missions overseas such as Timor.

"Such missions are subject to international scrutiny.

"If Australian troops are allowed to treat each other with unlawful violence, they may be apt to treat foreigners in at least a similar fashion.

"That would injured Australia's good name, and could lead to international prosecution of Australian personnel." Mr Burchett pointed out.

He also warned about Defence units believing they were "elite" and in some way "above the ordinary law."

In other sections of his report Mr Burchett appealed for the "presumption of innocence"

"My inquiry found, through the discussion groups, that there was in a significant number of units, now more than five years after the introduction of the scheme (Discipline Officers Scheme), almost complete ignorance of it, particularly in the Airforce."

The report told of the need for prospective commanding officers to be given a course on discipline and the legal ramifications, not provide them with an "add on."

It told of how prospective Airforce COs get a five day course, while soldiers get none and Naval officers get an "in between" course.

Mr Burchett discussed the potential of conflict of interest when a base has just one legal officer and recommended a review of Defence lawyer numbers.

And he warned of personnel with no disciplinary skills metering punishment on subordinates such as one man who forced a prisoner to go running in a pair of boots without laces.

Mr Burchett recommended RAN punishment scales be brought into line with those of the other armed services particularly in light of the legal complexities of today when sailors, soldiers, airmen and women and civilians serve together, with uniformed personnel often commanding civilians and vice-versa.

He told of the perception from some lower ranks that officers were not disciplined as firmly, however the judge suggested that this was because the ranks were not aware of the facts of the higher level disciplinary action.

Mr Burchett called for greater transparency and even raised the spectre, as is the case in the US, where disciplinary cases be publicised.

He also discussed problems where there remained long standing complaints which had not been resolved.

He discussed the failure by some supervisors to recognise medical certificates and he devoted a section on "whistleblowers" ...more formally called "professional reporters" by the Australian Federal Police.

The retired judge also reported in full on the use of "extras" as a disciplinary measure.

He also discussed the introduction by Defence of a statute similar to that of 556a of the NSW Crimes Act which allows a magistrate to find an offence proven but not impose a conviction.

Special report by Graham Davis