Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

Administered by Department of Defence

Legislation au F2020L01315 Regulations Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

Issued by authority of the Minister for Defence Personnel

 

Subject – Defence Act 1903

 

Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

 

 

  1. The Defence Act 1903 (the Act) prescribed the control, administration, constitution and service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

 

2.      The Defence Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) is made under the Act. The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 (the Amending Regulations) amend the Regulation.

 

Purpose of the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

 

3.      The Amending Regulations make a further amendment consequential to recent amendments made to the Regulation under the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No.1) Regulations 2020 (the Initial Amending Regulations).

 

4.      Recently, the Initial Amending Regulations modified Section 24 of the Regulation which provides for early termination of service of ADF members on several grounds. In the vast majority of circumstances, subsection 24(4) requires that an ADF member must be provided with at least 14 days written notice, and an opportunity to respond, before a decision is made to terminate the member’s service. This is a statutory mechanism to provide ADF members with procedural fairness in relation to termination decisions. However, written notice is not required if the ADF member has failed to meet a condition of their appointment or enlistment, or if the ADF member has been absent without leave for a continuous period of three months or more, or if the ADF member has not completed a period of probation in relation to their appointment or enlistment.

 

5.      The Initial Amending Regulations addressed concerns that in some circumstances, the 14 day delay before a decision can be made to terminate an ADF member’s service is detrimental to the ADF’s reputation and to the morale of ADF members. These concerns particularly derived from instances where a delay in taking action following a criminal conviction can lead to a perception that the ADF is not serious about addressing misconduct of ADF members. In seeking to alleviate these concerns, the Initial Amending Regulations provided for two additional circumstances when written notice is not required before a decision is made to terminate an ADF member’s service. This included where the ADF member has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence and where the ADF member has plead guilty to, or been convicted of an offence, and the Chief of the Defence Force is satisfied that it is not in the best interest of the Defence Force for notice to be given to a member.

 

6.      In making these changes, the Initial Amending Regulations likewise re-structured section 24 and the grounds for termination, to ensure that the Regulation was completely clear as to when written notice is and is not required before making a decision to terminate a member’s service. Notably however, no substantive change was made to the available grounds for termination, nor did the re-structure limit or exclude the operation of the common law relating to procedural fairness.

 

7.      In response to the Initial Amending Regulations, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation (the Committee) raised a question as to whether the re-structuring of section 24 meant that the Initial Amending Regulations had the effect of excluding common law procedural fairness requirements in relation to decision-making in these instances. The Department of Defence provided advice that while the requirement for 14 days written notice does not apply in these circumstances, the general requirements of common law procedural fairness were not excluded or limited in any way. This was identical to the situation before the Initial Amending Regulations were made. The obligation to afford procedural fairness is a flexible obligation to adopt fair procedures which are appropriate and adapted to the circumstances of a particular case. Decision makers would still be required to adopt processes that were fair and reasonable in all circumstances.

 

8.      Although accepting Defence’s response, the Committee requested that Defence, in an effort to provide maximum clarity, amend the Regulation to explicitly state that the requirements of common law procedural fairness continue to apply termination decisions made under section 24.

 

9.      Accordingly, the purpose of the Amending Regulations is make it absolutely clear that the common law requirements of procedural fairness continue to apply to decisions made under subsection 24(2) of the Regulation.

 

 

Authority for the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

 

10.  Paragraph 124(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with the Act, prescribing all matters which are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary and convenient to be prescribed, for securing the good government of the ADF, or for carrying out or giving effect to the Act, and in particular prescribing matters providing for and in relation to the enlistment, appointment, promotion, reduction in rank, retirement and discharge of members of the ADF.

 

11.  Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that where an Act confers power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character (including rules, regulations or by-laws) the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.

 

Operation of the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

 

12.  Details of the Amending Regulation are set out in Attachment A.

 

Regulatory Impact Statement

 

13.  The Office of Best Practice Regulation advised that no regulatory impact statement was required (OBPR ID 42707).

 

Legislative Instrument

 

14.  The Regulations would be a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003.

 

Commencement

 

15.  The Amending Regulations commence on the day after the instrument is registered.

 

Consultation

 

16.  The Amending Regulations were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

 

Attachment

 

A: Provisions in the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020.

 

         

  

 

     


ATTACHMENT A – PROVISIONS IN DEFENCE AMENDMENT (2020 MEASURES NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020

 

Section 1 - Name of Regulation

This section provides that the title of the instrument is the Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020.

Section 2 – Commencement

This section provides for the whole of the instrutment to commence the day after it is registered.

 

Section 3 – Authority

 

This section provides that the instrument is made under the Defence Act 1903.

 

Section 4 – Schedules

 

This section provides that each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in this Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect accordingly to its terms.

 

SCHEDULE 1 – AMENDMENTS
 

Item 1

This item adds a note at the end of subsection 24(3) to explicitly confirm that the subsection does not exclude or limit the operation of the common law relating to procedural fairness. 


STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

 

Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020

  1. The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 (the Amending Regulations) are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Regulation

2.      The Regulations make an amendment consequential to amendments recently made to the Defence Regulation 2016 (the Regulation), by making it absolutely clear that the common law requirements of procedural fairness are not limited nor excluded by subsection 24(2) of the Regulation regarding grounds for termination of ADF members in specified circumstances.

Human Rights Implications

3.      The Amending Regulations do not have any human rights implications.  

 

Conclusion

 

4.      The Amending Regulations are compatible with human rights.

 

 

Darren Chester

Minister for Defence Personnel

 

Overview

The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 are subsidiary legislation under the Defence Act 1903, designed to address specific concerns raised by the Defence Regulation 2016. These regulations were introduced to clarify the application of common law procedural fairness in the context of decisions to terminate the service of members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) under specified circumstances. The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 were enacted to ensure that the common law requirements of procedural fairness continue to apply to termination decisions made under subsection 24(2) of the Defence Regulation 2016. This legislative action follows the restructuring of section 24 in the Initial Amending Regulations, which prompted a query from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation regarding the exclusion of common law procedural fairness. The Amending Regulations explicitly state that the common law requirements of procedural fairness continue to apply, providing clarity and reinforcing the ADF's commitment to procedural fairness in termination decisions. The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 were made under the authority granted by the Defence Act 1903, specifically paragraph 124(1)(a) and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. These regulations aim to secure the good governance of the ADF and to carry out or give effect to the Act, particularly in relation to the enlistment, appointment, promotion, reduction in rank, retirement, and discharge of ADF members. The Regulations were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and were registered on the day after they were made. The Office of Best Practice Regulation advised that no regulatory impact statement was required, and the Regulations are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Scope and Application

The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 applies to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and its members, modifying the Defence Regulation 2016. These Regulations are an amendment to the initial Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020, which had already altered the grounds for early termination of service of ADF members. The Amending Regulations seek to clarify that the common law requirements of procedural fairness continue to apply to termination decisions under subsection 24(2) of the Defence Regulation 2016, ensuring no exclusion or limitation of these common law requirements. The scope of the Amending Regulations is limited to the administrative and procedural aspects of the ADF, focusing on the legal and procedural frameworks governing the termination of ADF members' service. There are no stated exclusions or exemptions in the Amending Regulations, which maintain the integrity of the common law procedural fairness requirements. The Regulations commence on the day after they are registered, and they are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised in international instruments as stipulated by the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Key Provisions

The Defence Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2020 primarily serve to amend the Defence Regulation 2016 in relation to the termination of Australian Defence Force (ADF) members’ service. Specifically, they aim to clarify that the common law requirements of procedural fairness continue to apply to decisions made under subsection 24(2) of the Regulation, ensuring ADF members receive fair procedures in termination decisions. This amendment is a response to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, which sought clarity on whether the previous restructuring of section 24 excluded common law procedural fairness requirements. Under the Amending Regulations, the common law requirements of procedural fairness are explicitly confirmed to apply to decisions made under subsection 24(2) of the Regulation. This means that decision-makers must still adopt processes that are fair and reasonable in all circumstances, regardless of the specific grounds for termination. This obligation is flexible, allowing for fair procedures appropriate to the circumstances of each case. The Regulations also include provisions for their commencement, authority, and the amendment or repeal of specified instruments, as outlined in the Schedule. The Regulations impose obligations on the Defence Force to ensure that procedural fairness is maintained in the termination of ADF members' service. This includes providing written notice and an opportunity to respond to the member unless specific exceptions apply, such as criminal convictions or extended absences without leave. The Department of Defence must ensure that these obligations are met and that all decisions adhere to the common law requirements of procedural fairness. Failure to comply with the Regulations and the Defence Regulation 2016 can result in legal consequences. While the Regulations themselves do not specify penalties, breaches of the Defence Act 1903 or the Defence Regulation 2016 may lead to disciplinary action, administrative penalties, or legal proceedings. The specific penalties depend on the nature and severity of the breach, and may be subject to the Defence Force Discipline Rules or other relevant laws. The Regulations are compatible with human rights, as they do not impose any human rights implications and ensure that ADF members' procedural fairness rights are upheld.

Legal classification tags

Area of Law
Administrative Law
Defence Law
Instrument
Regulation
Concepts
Definitions & Interpretation
Regulatory Standards
Procedural Fairness
Enforcement Powers

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at 26 August 2026. For the latest information on Australian Government law please go to https://www.legislation.gov.au.