Annual Report 2013-14

In 2013–14, Defence provided 10 written submissions to various Senate, House of Representatives and joint committee inquiries. Defence witnesses appeared at nine hearings providing evidence on a range of issues, took 35 questions on notice (16 had not yet been tabled at 30 June 2014) and either tabled or contributed to eight government responses to parliamentary committee reports throughout the year. These are available at aph.gov.au.

To assist parliamentary committee members to gain a better understanding of Defence issues, Defence also provided private briefings on a variety of subjects, including matters of regional security and capability.

Joint Committees

Senate Committees

Tables 10.2 to 10.4 provide information on Defence’s activities in relation to parliamentary committee inquiries.

In Danthanarayana and Another v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2014] FCA 552, the applicants sought damages for adverse consequences alleged to have been caused by the actions of the Commonwealth, six Defence employees and a contractor. On 28 May 2014, the Federal Court summarily dismissed the applicant’s Further Amended Statement of Claim as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for the tort of civil conspiracy, for misfeasance in public office or for damages under the Trade Practices Act against the respondents. The court found that the applicants had no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting any of those causes of action and that the first applicant’s pleaded allegations of negligence were deficient and should be struck out. The court allowed the first applicant one last opportunity to plead a claim in negligence as against the Commonwealth subject to the condition that any further pleadings be submitted both to the court and to the respondents for consideration prior to leave being granted to file a further amended application. The matter is continuing and is expected to resume before the Federal Court later in 2014.

An ADF member had been convicted of a service offence of creating a disturbance on service land following a court martial under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. The conviction was upheld, on subsequent appeals, by the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and the Full Court of the Federal Court. In Li v Chief of Army [2013] HCA 49, the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and quashed the conviction. The High Court held that ‘creating a disturbance’ involves the intentional doing of an act which results in a non-trivial interruption of order, the person charged being reckless as to the occurrence of that result. The High Court found that the court martial had been misdirected as to the proper law at first instance. The court remitted the matter to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal for further consideration.

On 2 June 2014, the ACT Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application, in Barry Thomas Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTSC 123, to reinstate proceedings under rule 76 of the ACT Court Procedures Rules 2006. The plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to commence proceedings seeking common law damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered as a consequence of the HMAS Voyager/HMAS Melbourne collision in 1964 had been previously dismissed by the ACT Supreme Court in 1999 and an appeal from that decision had not been successful. The court noted the prior applications and appeals between 2000 and 2007 and found that the plaintiff had taken no substantive steps in the proceedings since October 2007. The court found no justification in the interest of justice for the proceedings to be reinstated.

Auditor-General’s reports

In 2013–14, the Auditor-General tabled six performance audit reports relating directly to Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation. The reports are listed in Table 10.6. Table 10.7 lists cross-portfolio audits involving Defence that were tabled during the year. Table 10.8 gives details of an audit in which Defence participated as the largest holder of radiation sources monitored by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). The Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations can be found at www.anao.gov.au.

There were no formal reports to the Chief of the Defence Force pursuant to section 15 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 during 2013–14; nor were any reports raised under section 16, 17 or 19 of the Act relating to the operations of the ADF during the period.

Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme. Each agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the scheme’s requirements.

Further information is available on the Information Publication Scheme website.

Table 10.9 shows the number of freedom of information requests received and completed or otherwise dealt with in 2013–14. The figures refer to requests for access to documents under section 15 of the FOI Act. Defence was 100 per cent compliant in 2013–14.

Defence also handles requests under Part V of the FOI Act for amendment or annotation of records of personal information. In 2013–14, 10 applications for amendment were received and 10 were completed. Defence also received 32 applications for internal review and completed 34 (which includes applications carried over from 2012–13).

In addition to formal FOI requests, the FOI Directorate processed 538 requests for access to personnel records that were redirected for administration, in accordance with section 15A of the FOI Act. Section 15A provides for access to be given in such cases, outside the provisions of the FOI Act, through established administrative channels.

The Directorate also assisted with the resolution of 441 other inquiries that did not require consideration under the FOI Act, which were also addressed through established administrative channels.

Table 10.10 shows Defence’s performance in meeting the applicable statutory time limit for responding to requests for access to documents under section 15 of the FOI Act.