Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:40): I support the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. In doing so, though, I want to place on the record the words of someone who served this country admirably until he was subject to the abuse of discipline from the supposed leaders who are meant to protect our personnel.

Daniel Dare served in the Royal Australian Air Force, and his words are so very meaningful. He's written a letter to me about Australian Defence Force discipline. It reads as follows.

Dear Senator Roberts, I support reform of the Defence Force Discipline Act, but this bill must be treated as a beginning, not an end. My experience shows how readily military justice can be weaponised by senior officers, how fiercely the system resists scrutiny and how dangerous it becomes when a member is unwell or inconvenient. I joined the ADF at 17 under a 14-and-a-half year Initial Minimum Period of Service.

I spent more than 11 years trying to become the officer the service said it wanted. I hoped for a lifelong career. Eventually that hope became: "I just need to survive to the end." Service should not feel like a prison sentence administered by officers who hide poor judgement behind process.

In March 2023, my Commanding Officer attempted to punish me over a message I did not write, send or know even existed. A defective fact-finding process proceeded without interviewing me. He sought to impose a 12-month formal warning and cancel my approved flying-instructor posting.

It stopped only after I retained Cameron Niven of Soldier's legal Counsel. An ADF member should not need a civilian lawyer to stop a senior officer misusing command and exercising powers he did not properly have. Yet Mr Niven is inundated by soldiers, sailors and airmen who say the system has been weaponised against them.

In one incident reported to him, a RAAF commanding officer initiated a termination process against an airman who parked in the Commanding officer's space. That is petty authority armed with life-changing power. Defence's own May 2026 Inspector General inquiry received 362 submissions.

It found that weaponisation, while not widespread, "can and does occur at multiple" ADF levels; that rigid, inept or blind use of military justice can itself amount to weaponization; and that current fact finding is no longer fit for purpose. It recommended stronger sanctions for deliberate abuse, including increasing the maximum penalty for prejudicing ADF discipline from three months to 12 months.

Defence has now admitted the disease exists. Parliament must ensure it is treated. The episode with my CO broke my trust and pushed me beyond the point where I could safely continue serving.

I sought an orderly solution: transfer to the reserves, repayment of any service debt and use of proper channels. Instead, I met delay stonewalling, opacity and escalation. Although entitled to seek medical discharge, I tried to remain available through the reserves should Australia face war or national emergency.

I failed to present for duty on second April 2024 amid a documented medical concerns and prior maladministration. My crime was taking unapproved sick leave. My request for sick leave for that day was approved by the medical branch just days later, something I only found out through freedom of information.

Defence responded with that proportion, judgement or care. Military and civilian police were sent to my home. A five-year arrest warrant was issued.

An international pursuit used the ADF, AFP, DFAT, foreign agencies including the FBI and US Marshals. Air Marshal Robert Chipman, now Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, oversaw and directed this persecution, assisted by Air Commodore Maria Brick. Air Marshal Stephen Chappell continued it after becoming Chief of Air Force.

The pursuit failed, yet taxpayers continued funding a ten-day prosecution brought by Director of Military Prosecutions Air Commodore Ian Henderson. In my case, an officer presented as independent has behaved like another marionette of the hierarchy. This is irrational, emotional and incompetent—a pathetic display of institutional weakness, with senior officers saying yes to one another while taxpayers fund the consequences.

Yes-men do not win wars. They lose them. Air Marshal Chipman withheld critical information that medical staff had extended my sick leave, albeit late, and prevented a request for my input into a medical classification review from reaching me.

He sought to have my sick leave removed and denied me access to medical resources. I was an ADF member stranded overseas with serious mental-health concerns and no access to Defence care. More recently, I spent six weeks in hospital with acute mental-health issues.

Defence accused me of faking illness and sought an arrest warrant. Will the senior officers responsible be reviewed? Almost certainly not.

In the ADF's most senior officers cannot get the basics right in peacetime, why should Australians trust them in war? I am increasingly less concerned about an enemy overseas than the enemy within: senior officers eroding the ADF from inside while protecting, rewarding and promoting their own. Discipline is essential, but it must serve capability, fairness and good order.

The present system lets the hierarchy that mishandles the problem define it, control the record, escalate the response and declare its own conduct lawful. This is rot from the top. Senior officers mistake command for entitlement, discipline for domination and institutional loyalty for loyalty to each other.

They preach values downward and protect breaches upward. This directly damages recruitment and retention. Experienced members leave after watching senior officers reward compliance theatre, careerism and polished briefings over courage, competence and moral judgement.

Young Australians see the same conduct and decide not to enlist. Australia needs a lethal, trusted and sustainable force, not one that treats injured or disillusioned members as administrative waste. Defence Force Discipline reform cannot be cosmetic.

It must limit command discretion where liberty, reputation, medical vulnerability and civilian livelihood are at stake. It must require independent scrutiny before serious escalation involving health concerns or maladministration; strict proportionality for warrants and external agency involvement; enforceable disclosure of exculpatory medical and administrative information; and consequences for senior officers who misuse the system.

Power without consequences becomes culture. As an aside, there are so many meaningful and powerful statements in this letter. I'll continue with Daniel's words: Culture without accountability becomes rot.

I wrote to Minister Matt Keogh and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles seeking reasonable intervention. Mr Keogh's reply did not engage with the substance. Mr Marles did not reply, and Freedom of Information material shows his office chose to ignore the matter.

When the hierarchy escalates and ministers look away, a member is left with lawyers, FOI requests, oversight complaints and public advocacy. This bill would empower the Defence Minister to issue directions and guidelines concerning the Director of Military Prosecutions. That power demands transparency, firm safeguards against political interference and scrutiny of any direction affecting prosecutorial independence.

Will ministers exercise moral courage or again protect the status quo? My experience gives little cause for optimism. The DFDA must not remain a managerial hammer that turns administrative failure into individual misconduct, allows senior officers to create harm and ignore warning signs, then punishes the member for breaking under pressure.

A Defence Force that does this is weak and morally corrupt. What message reaches young Australians considering service? "Join us.

We will hang you out to dry, protect our own and damage your civilian future if you become inconvenient." Senior officers who permit that message to stand are sabotaging recruitment, retention and public trust. A simple reform is 360-degree reporting: hold officers accountable to those they lead, not merely those whose approval advances their careers. And, as an aside, again, this improves discipline.

It doesn't take away authority from senior officers. Daniel continues: Give subordinates a protected voice. Promotion should require demonstrated competence and discipline, administration and complaint handling, as the IGADF itself recommends, and expose dysfunction concealed beneath polished reporting chains.

I also hold grave concerns for Australia's strategic sovereignty if Defence and government cannot acknowledge these failures in peacetime. Officers prioritise careers. The major parties look away.

I thank you, Senator Roberts, for listening not only to me but to others who have experienced institutional abuse, and for giving them a voice. One Nation was once dismissed as marginal; its importance is now clear. Labor and the Liberals have failed Australians for too long.

Another urgent issue is the IMPS and ROSO system. Members should not escape reasonable service obligations: training costs money. But outside war or national emergency, the Defence Regulation 2016 should prevent the ADF denying a transfer to the reserves where a member can repay the service debt.

Not every 17-year-old can safely complete an obligation lasting 14-and-a-half years. Treating volunteers as prisoners feeds abuse, increases harm and suicide risk, and drives away both serving members and potential recruits. Despite my medical discharge in August 2025, Air Commodore Henderson is pursuing a ten-day Defence Force Magistrate trial against me at taxpayer expense, commencing 26 October at HMAS Moreton in Brisbane.

The trial is public. I invite Australians to attend and decide whether they are witnessing proportionate discipline or a personal vendetta prosecuted with public money. I ask you to support reform, but also to expose where this bill falls short.

If it leaves the same incentives and unaccountable power intact, the same abuses will continue under cleaner language. Service members deserve a system worthy of their sacrifices. Taxpayers deserve a Defence Force that spends public money on capability, not vendettas, theatrics and institutional face-saving.

Yours sincerely, Daniel Dare I add: discipline, to be effective, must be based on truth, data and facts. It must be objective. It must be fair, proportionate and honest.

How can a once-young man have his career crippled by military justice? How? That's the question.

There's much more work that needs to be done with Defence, but we will be supporting this bill.