EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
STATUTORY RULES 1988 No. 344
ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE SCIENCE AND PERSONNEL
AIR FORCE REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT)
The Air Force Regulations (“the Regulations”), made under the Air Force Act 1923, prescribe various matters relating to the organisation and administration of the Air Force.
Regulation 73 of the Regulations empowered the Chief of the Air Staff to reject the resignation of an officer in certain circumstances, including where there is a return of service obligation that the officer is required to meet because he or she has undergone “a course of special training”. Regulation 111 empowered the Chief of the Air Staff to refuse to authorise the discharge of an airman for the same reason.
Similar provisions dealing with restrictions on the resignation or discharge of members of the Army and Navy who had undergone courses of special training were contained in the Defence Act 1903 and Naval Defence Act 1910. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1988 amended these provisions by omitting the requirement that the course concerned should be one of “special” training. These amendments were made because of uncertainty as to what courses could be characterised as “special”.
This Statutory Rule brings regulations 73 and 111 into line with the corresponding provisions, as amended, in the Defence Act and Naval Defence Act, by omitting the word “special” (first occurring) from subparagraphs 73(2)(c)(i) and 111(4)(c)(i) of the Regulations.
The Statutory Rule comes into operation on the date of gazettal.
Overview
The Air Force Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 were introduced to address the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "special" training in the context of rejecting resignations or refusing discharges of officers and airmen who had completed certain courses. The 1997 amendments were necessitated by the changes made to the Defence Act 1903 and Naval Defence Act 1910 by the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1988, which removed the requirement for a course to be specifically "special" in nature to invoke restrictions on resignations or discharges. These changes were enacted to bring the Air Force Regulations into alignment with the updated legislative framework, thereby eliminating the uncertainty regarding the applicability of these restrictions. The rules were issued under the authority of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, reflecting the policy objective to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of military service obligations across all branches of the Australian Defence Force.
Scope and Application
The Air Force Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rule 1988 No. 344 amends the Air Force Regulations made under the Air Force Act 1923, affecting the conditions under which the Chief of the Air Staff may reject an officer’s resignation or refuse to authorise an airman’s discharge. Specifically, it removes the requirement that any special training undergone by the officer or airman must be of a particular kind, aligning these provisions with similar amendments made to the Defence Act 1903 and Naval Defence Act 1910 by the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1988. This change addresses uncertainties about what constitutes "special" training by eliminating the term entirely, thereby simplifying the criteria for exercising powers under Regulations 73 and 111. The rule applies to officers and airmen within the Royal Australian Air Force and comes into effect on the date of its gazettal, ensuring immediate application without the need for further subordinate instruments.
Key Provisions
The Air Force Regulations, made under the Air Force Act 1923, contain several provisions governing the organisation and administration of the Air Force. Regulation 73 (paragraph 2(c)(i)) and Regulation 111 (paragraph 4(c)(i)) previously empowered the Chief of the Air Staff to reject the resignation of an officer or to refuse to authorise the discharge of an airman, respectively, if the person had undergone a course of special training and there was an outstanding return of service obligation. These regulations were in line with similar provisions in the Defence Act 1903 and Naval Defence Act 1910, which also imposed restrictions on the resignation or discharge of members of the Army and Navy who had undergone special training.
The Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1988 amended the Defence Act and Naval Defence Act by removing the requirement that the training must be of a "special" nature. This was done to address the uncertainty surrounding which courses could be classified as "special". The Statutory Rules 1988 No. 344, issued by the authority of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, brings the Air Force Regulations into alignment with these amendments by removing the word "special" from Regulations 73 and 111. This ensures that the conditions for rejecting an officer's resignation or refusing to authorise the discharge of an airman remain consistent across the defence forces.
Under these regulations, the Chief of the Air Staff now has the authority to reject an officer's resignation or refuse to authorise the discharge of an airman if the individual has undergone a course of training and there is an outstanding return of service obligation. This means that the nature of the training is no longer a determining factor, as long as there is an obligation to complete a specified period of service following the training. The regulations place the responsibility on the Chief of the Air Staff to make these decisions based on the return of service obligations.
Failure to comply with these regulations could lead to significant consequences for the Air Force. Officers who attempt to resign or airmen seeking discharge without meeting their service obligations may face legal repercussions. The regulations do not explicitly outline specific offences or penalties for breaches, but non-compliance could result in disciplinary action under the Air Force Act 1923 or other relevant legislation. The consequences could include administrative penalties, fines, or even further service obligations imposed upon the individual in question.