← Back to home Browse all bills

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

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Defence & foreign affairs

What does this bill do?

The bill would amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982The main Commonwealth law governing military discipline. This bill would make extensive amendments to that Act. as part of the government response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..

Why was it introduced?

The bill was introduced as one part of the government response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.. The explanatory memorandum says involvement in military justice can itself increase suicide risk, and that the Defence discipline system needed safer workplace protections, clearer accountability, modern mental-health procedures, faster and fairer processes, and closer alignment with civilian justice standards.

Broader context

The bill sits inside a wider reform program following the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.. The commission was announced in 2021, reported in 2024, and made 122 recommendations after examining suicide, military culture, sexual violence, veteran services and the military justice system. This bill focuses on the discipline-system part of that response, especially recommendations about workplace separation during investigations, victim impact, serious service conviction records, court-martial reasons and stigma in legislation.

Key criticism

The collected debate does not show broad opposition to the bill: Coalition speakers said they would not oppose it and several speakers supported the royal-commission response. The main reservations were narrower: concern about military police carrying and using equipment such as tasers, the practical difficulty of aligning court martialA higher military discipline tribunal, such as a court martial or Defence Force magistrate proceeding, used for more serious matters. procedures with civilian court practice, the delayed commencement of the Defence Mental Health TribunalA proposed tribunal for cases where an accused person is unfit to plead or not responsible because of mental impairment, with powers to make treatment, care or detention orders. while state and territory arrangements are negotiated, and the fact that this bill implements only part of the royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.’s wider reform agenda.

Who supported it?

Hon Matt Keogh MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Nationals.

Introduced in House 01 Apr 2026
Passed House 14 May 2026
Not yet reached Senate —
Not yet law —

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

No final vote yet

The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.

Days since introduction

70 days

Updated 10 June 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. The bill would amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982The main Commonwealth law governing military discipline. This bill would make extensive amendments to that Act. as part of the government response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..

  2. It would let Defence suspend a member from duty while the member is under civilian or overseas criminal investigation, rather than waiting until a charge is laid.

  3. It would change military sentencing and records rules, including victim impact, rank disparity, service impact statements, reasons for punishment, and disclosure of some service convictions to the Australian Criminal Intelligence CommissionThe national criminal intelligence body that would receive disclosure of certain superior tribunal service convictions for national policing information functions..

  4. It would modernise how the discipline system handles mental impairment, including adjournment and dismissal powers and a new Defence Mental Health TribunalA proposed tribunal for cases where an accused person is unfit to plead or not responsible because of mental impairment, with powers to make treatment, care or detention orders. for treatment, care or detention orders.

  5. It would replace the current mid-tier discipline pathway with administrative summary contraventions for misconduct that is too serious for an infringement notice but does not warrant prosecution as a service offenceAn offence dealt with under the military discipline system. The bill changes rules for some service offences, sentencing and disclosure of convictions..

  6. Other changes would cover military police equipment, sensitive investigative material, harassment, video evidence, intimate-image removal orders, and applications to extinguish historical convictions for consensual homosexual service offences.

Show source excerpts
  1. The Bill gives effect to these reforms by amending the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA) to implement relevant RCDVS recommendations, modernise the management of personnel with mental impairment within the military justice system, and introduce fairness and streamlining measures across the military discipline framework.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) explanatory memorandum
  2. An authorised officer may, by notice in writing served on a member of the Defence Force, suspend the member from duty if the member is ... under investigation by an authority of the Commonwealth, State or Territory because the member may have committed a civil court offence; or ... under investigation by an authority of a place outside Australia because the member may have committed an overseas offence against a law of that place.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced bill text
  3. Recommendation 20 called for service tribunals to consider victim impact in sexual offence cases and to treat an offender’s higher rank as an aggravating factor ... This Part also gives effect to aspects of recommendation 34 in relation to the requirement to review reasons given by courts martial in sentencing.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) explanatory memorandum
  4. Schedule 3 contains two Parts concerning service tribunal procedures relating to mental health. Part 1 sets out powers in proceedings against persons suffering a mental impairment, and Part 2 establishes the Defence Mental Health Tribunal.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) explanatory memorandum
  5. Summary contraventions are not service offences. However, if a person has been dealt with by a summary authority for a summary contravention, the person is not liable to be tried by a service tribunal for an offence arising out of the contravention and cannot be dealt with under the infringement scheme for a disciplinary infringement arising out of the contravention.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced bill text
  6. Schedule 5 contains sixteen Parts, each implementing a distinct measure designed to enhance fairness, streamline processes, and improve the overall efficiency of the military discipline system.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

The bill sits inside a wider reform program following the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.. The commission was announced in 2021, reported in 2024, and made 122 recommendations after examining suicide, military culture, sexual violence, veteran services and the military justice system. This bill focuses on the discipline-system part of that response, especially recommendations about workplace separation during investigations, victim impact, serious service conviction records, court-martial reasons and stigma in legislation.

  1. 19 Apr 2021

    Royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS. announced

    The explanatory memorandum says the Australian Government announced the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS. on 19 April 2021.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  2. 08 July 2021

    Royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS. formally established

    Letters Patent formally established the inquiry, setting up the process that later examined Defence and veteran suicide, culture and systems.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  3. 11 Aug 2022

    Interim report delivered

    The royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS. delivered an interim report before its final recommendations, keeping attention on early reform needs.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  4. 09 Sept 2024

    Final report made 122 recommendations

    The final report included recommendations on sexual violence, unacceptable behaviour, military justice and suicide risk for people involved in the discipline system.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  5. 02 Dec 2024

    Government responded to the final report

    The government agreed or agreed in principle to 104 recommendations and noted 17 for further work, with this bill later presented as one reform package in that program.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  6. 01 Apr 2026

    Discipline reform bill introduced

    Matt Keogh introduced the bill in the House and described it as a major reform to the military discipline framework.

    Minister’s second reading speech ↗
  7. 14 May 2026

    Senate committee scrutiny began

    The bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, with its report due on 31 July 2026.

    APH bill page notes ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 01 Apr 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 01 Apr 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Second reading debate 13 May 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 13 May 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Referred to Federation Chamber

Federation Chamber debate 13 May 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate

House second reading agreed 13 May 2026

The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.

Second reading agreed to

Returned from Federation Chamber 14 May 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Reported from Federation Chamber

House third reading agreed 14 May 2026

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade review 14 May 2026

Referred to Committee (14/05/2026): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Report due 31/07/2026

Report due 31 Jul 2026

APH bill page notes

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

The collected debate does not show broad opposition to the bill: Coalition speakers said they would not oppose it and several speakers supported the royal-commission response. The main reservations were narrower: concern about military police carrying and using equipment such as tasers, the practical difficulty of aligning court martialA higher military discipline tribunal, such as a court martial or Defence Force magistrate proceeding, used for more serious matters. procedures with civilian court practice, the delayed commencement of the Defence Mental Health TribunalA proposed tribunal for cases where an accused person is unfit to plead or not responsible because of mental impairment, with powers to make treatment, care or detention orders. while state and territory arrangements are negotiated, and the fact that this bill implements only part of the royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.’s wider reform agenda.

This account is limited to the local source bundle: introduced materials, House speeches, APH notes and the Senate committee referral. The Senate committee had not reported and no Senate debate or amendment outcomes were collected.

Military police equipment needs watching

Phillip Thompson said he was concerned that the military police equipment measure, especially tasers, could be used disproportionately on enlisted soldiers and should be monitored closely.

Raised by Phillip Thompson MP, Liberal National Party Source ↗

Court martial reforms may be hard in practice

Thompson also said aligning court martialA higher military discipline tribunal, such as a court martial or Defence Force magistrate proceeding, used for more serious matters. proceedings with civilian practice may prove difficult because a court martialA higher military discipline tribunal, such as a court martial or Defence Force magistrate proceeding, used for more serious matters. is not directly equivalent to a civilian jury.

Raised by Phillip Thompson MP, Liberal National Party Source ↗

Mental health tribunal starts later

The bill delays the Defence Mental Health TribunalA proposed tribunal for cases where an accused person is unfit to plead or not responsible because of mental impairment, with powers to make treatment, care or detention orders. until proclamation or 1 January 2028. Thompson urged the government to expedite state and territory funding and access discussions for treatment facilities.

Raised by Phillip Thompson MP, Liberal National Party Source ↗

Only part of the royal commission response

Nicolette Boele supported the bill but said it responds to only five royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS. recommendations and that many more reforms, including deeper cultural change and accountability, remain to be implemented.

Raised by Nicolette Boele MP, Independent Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Matt Keogh

Australian Labor Party • MP 01 Apr 2026

Matt Keogh says the bill is a major military discipline reform responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Michael McCormack

National Party • MP 13 May 2026

Michael McCormack supports the bill’s royal-commission response and says a fair, timely military justice system is essential for personnel, discipline and operational effectiveness.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Mixed

Nicolette Boele

Independent • MP 13 May 2026

Nicolette Boele supports the bill as a meaningful step that implements several royal-commission recommendations.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead voice Mixed

Phillip Thompson

Liberal National Party • MP 13 May 2026

Phillip Thompson says the Coalition will not oppose the bill and backs the royal-commission reforms, especially the new suspension power for serious civilian investigations.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

4 speakers · 5 contributions · 4 support

  1. Matt Burnell Matt Burnell supports the bill as part of the government’s duty to act on the royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..
    “The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 speaks to national responsibility in the lived reality of those who serve”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Renee Coffey Renee Coffey supports the bill as concrete action after the royal commissionThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..
    “This bill, the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, is part of how we show courage with concrete action.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Shayne Neumann Shayne Neumann supports the bill and frames it as part of the government’s wider response to defence and veteran suicide.
    “We've accepted, overwhelmingly, the majority of those recommendations. We've agreed or agreed in principle to 104 recommendations.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Matt Keogh ★ 2 contributions Matt Keogh says the bill is a major military discipline reform responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS..

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Matt Keogh on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Minister's second reading speech Australian Labor Party • MP • 01 Apr 2026

    Matt Keogh says the bill is a major military discipline reform responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry whose final report prompted this reform package. The bill and speeches often refer to it as the RCDVS.. He argues it will strengthen workplace protections, modernise sentencing and mental-health processes, improve transparency and bring the DFDAThe main Commonwealth law governing military discipline. This bill would make extensive amendments to that Act. closer to contemporary civilian justice standards.

    “This bill represents one of the most significant reforms to Australia's military discipline framework in decades, delivering on key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Matt Keogh closes the debate by defending the bill’s reforms and responding to concern about military police equipment. He says the equipment measure is about efficiency and transparency, including body-worn cameras, and does not change the legal basis for using weapons such as tasers.

    “The basis for use of such weapons will not be changed by this measure.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

Coalition

2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed

  1. Phillip Thompson ★ Phillip Thompson says the Coalition will not oppose the bill and backs the royal-commission reforms, especially the new suspension power for serious civilian investigations.
    “The coalition will not oppose this bill. This legislation implements key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide”

    Liberal National Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Michael McCormack ★ Michael McCormack supports the bill’s royal-commission response and says a fair, timely military justice system is essential for personnel, discipline and operational effectiveness.
    “The coalition acknowledges that this bill provides the necessary framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 of the royal commission.”

    National Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 mixed

  1. Nicolette Boele ★ Nicolette Boele supports the bill as a meaningful step that implements several royal-commission recommendations.
    “This bill responds to just five recommendations of the royal commission. There remain many more yet to be implemented.”

    Independent • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat