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?

Defence members under civilian or overseas investigation can be suspended before charges are laid.

Why was it introduced?

The government said the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, an inquiry into suicide among serving members and veterans, found military justice could increase suicide risk. Its final report made 122 recommendations. The government agreed or agreed in principle to 104 and noted 17 for further work. This bill responds to recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 by seeking safer workplaces, fairer proceedings and better mental-health responses.

Broader context

Australia’s military discipline system has operated under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, but concerns about fairness in the internal legal system and the treatment of mental health exposed gaps that could increase harm for serving members. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, established in 2021 and reporting 122 recommendations in 2024, drove this government bill, introduced by Hon Matt Keogh MP in 2026, to modernise investigations, tribunals, sentencing, mental-health proceedings and minor discipline.

Key criticism

Phillip Thompson (Liberal National Party) supported the bill but questioned allowing military police to carry tasers. He feared they would be used more often against enlisted soldiers than officers. He also warned that matching military and civilian court practices could be difficult because court martials have no direct civilian equivalent.

Who supported it?

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

Introduced in House 01 Apr 2026
Passed House 14 May 2026
At second reading in Senate 22 June 2026
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

128 days

Updated 07 Aug 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

What does this bill do?

  1. Defence members under civilian or overseas investigation can be suspended before charges are laid. The suspension ends if the investigation closes without charges.

  2. Defence members convicted of service offences can have conviction details sent to the national police-records system. A military court can prevent disclosure.

  3. Defence members sentenced by a court martialA military court for serious service offences. will be sentenced by its legally trained judge. The judge must explain each punishment or order.

  4. Accused Defence members with serious mental-health conditions can receive treatment, care or detention orders. These orders must be reviewed every six months.

  5. Defence members facing lower-level misconduct will enter a faster administrative process, not a criminal case. Guilt is decided on what is more likely than not.

  6. Defence members sentenced by a restricted court martialA military court for serious service offences. can receive up to two years in prison, up from six months.

  7. Veterans convicted solely for consensual same-sex activity can apply to erase the conviction. Someone with a special interest can also apply.

Show source excerpts
  1. 1 After subsection 98(2) (2A) 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: (a) under investigation by an authority of the Commonwealth, State or Territory because the member may have committed a civil court offence; or (b) 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. 2 Subsection 98(4) Omit “in that paragraph”, substitute “in that subsection”. 3 After subsection 98(5) (5A) Where a member of t
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  2. If a service tribunal (other than a summary authority) has convicted a person of a service offence but considers that it is not appropriate that the conviction be disclosed under subsection 190A(1A), the service tribunal may order (a non‑disclosure order) that the conviction must not be disclosed under that subsection. 20 After section 162 162A Review of action under Part IV—non‑disclosure order (1) Despite subsection 162(1), a reviewing authority may not revoke a non‑disclosure order in relation to a conviction. (2) If in a review it appears to the reviewing authority that a service tribu
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  3. 135 Determination of action under Part IV by judge advocate (1) If, under this Subdivision, an accused person is convicted of a service offence by a court martial: (a) the judge advocate of the court martial, or of a court martial convened under subsection 125A(4) or 129A(4) in relation to the conviction, must take action under Part IV in relation to the convicted person; and (b) the judge advocate who takes action must give reasons for each punishment imposed and each order made under Part IV in relation to the convicted person. (2) Before a judge advocate takes action under Part IV, the
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  4. 178G Defence Mental Health Tribunal to make orders relating to detention, care or treatment (1) A Defence Mental Health Tribunal convened in relation to a mental health referral order for a person must, in accordance with this Part, decide whether any orders under subsection (2) should be made in relation to the person: (a) on referral of the person to the Tribunal; and (b) from time to time in accordance with this Part. Orders that may be made (2) The Defence Mental Health Tribunal may make orders relating to the following: (a) the person’s detention in a mental health facility, a deten
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  5. Note: For the punishments that may be imposed on a person for a summary contravention, see Subdivision C of Division 7. (3) To avoid doubt, a summary contravention provision is not a service offence and Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code does not apply in relation to the contravention of a summary contravention provision. Note: For the meaning of service offence, see subsection 3(1). 9MA Civil standard of proof for summary contravention (1) A summary authority must find a person guilty of a summary contravention if the summary authority is satisfied that the contravention has been proved on th
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  6. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 13 Paragraph 69A(3)(b) Omit “6 months”, substitute “2 years”. 14 Application of this Part The amendment of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 made by this Part applies in relation to conduct engaged in at or after the commencement of this Part.
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text
  7. 190C Extinguishing convictions for historical homosexual service offences (1) If a person has been convicted of an historical homosexual service offence, the person or a person with a special interest in the conviction, may apply to the Chief of the Defence Force for the conviction to be extinguished. (2) An offence is a historical homosexual service offence if: (a) the offence is an offence under: (i) this Act (including under any instrument made under this Act) as in force at any time before 1995; or (ii) the Defence Act 1903 (including under any instrument made under that Act or laws o
    Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) introduced text

Broader context for this bill

Australia’s military discipline system has operated under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, but concerns about fairness in the internal legal system and the treatment of mental health exposed gaps that could increase harm for serving members. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, established in 2021 and reporting 122 recommendations in 2024, drove this government bill, introduced by Hon Matt Keogh MP in 2026, to modernise investigations, tribunals, sentencing, mental-health proceedings and minor discipline.

  1. 1982

    Defence Force Discipline Act created the military discipline framework

    The Act provided the existing legal basis for maintaining and enforcing discipline within the Australian Defence Force.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  2. 01 Oct 2019

    Lawyers called for reform of the ADF’s internal legal system

    A veteran-turned-lawyer described the system as unfair and argued that Defence should overhaul how members faced military charges.

    ABC News ↗
  3. 19 Apr 2021

    Government announced the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide

    The announcement began the formal process that would examine the systems affecting serving and former Defence members and their families.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  4. 08 July 2021

    Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was formally established

    Letters Patent gave the commission its formal authority to investigate the causes and effects of Defence and veteran suicide.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  5. 09 Sept 2024

    Royal commission delivered 122 recommendations

    The final report identified reforms needed to reduce harm and improve fairness and transparency in military justice and related Defence systems.

    Explanatory memorandum ↗
  6. 01 Apr 2026

    Hon Matt Keogh MP introduced the bill

    The bill began implementing key royal commission recommendations by updating military investigations, tribunals, sentencing, mental-health proceedings and minor discipline.

    Hansard ↗
  7. 14 May 2026

    House passed the bill

    Passage through the House completed the bill’s consideration in its originating chamber and allowed it to continue through Parliament.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

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
Human Rights review 03 June 2026

Considered by scrutiny committee (03/06/2026): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 6 of 2026

Report 6 of 2026

APH bill page notes
Introduced 22 June 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 22 June 2026

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

Second reading moved

Scrutiny of Bills review 25 June 2026

Considered by scrutiny committee (25/06/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026

Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2026

APH bill page notes

The main case against this bill

Phillip Thompson (Liberal National Party) supported the bill but questioned allowing military police to carry tasers. He feared they would be used more often against enlisted soldiers than officers. He also warned that matching military and civilian court practices could be difficult because court martials have no direct civilian equivalent.

Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh (Labor) said the bill would not broaden when tasers may lawfully be used. He said use would remain limited to self-defence when other reasonable responses were unavailable.

Taser use and monitoring

New powers for military police to carry tasers could disproportionately affect enlisted personnel, so their use should be monitored closely.

Raised by Phillip Thompson Source ↗

Recorded votes

No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Matt Keogh

Australian Labor Party • MP 01 Apr 2026

Keogh urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that it delivers essential royal commission reforms to make military discipline fairer, more transparent and less harmful while modernising responses to sexual misconduct and mental impairmentA mental condition affecting a person's legal capacity..

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Phillip Thompson

Liberal National Party • MP 13 May 2026

Phillip Thompson says the coalition will support the bill because it implements key royal commission recommendations and makes the military justice system fairer, more timely and more protective of victims.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Supports

Nicolette Boele

Independent • MP 13 May 2026

Boele supports the bill as a necessary and meaningful step toward reforming military justice and protecting veterans, but urges the government to implement the royal commission's remaining recommendations and deliver deeper cultural change and accountability.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead voice Supports

Tim Ayres

Australian Labor Party • Senator 22 June 2026

Ayres supports the bill as an essential modernisation of military discipline that implements royal commission recommendations, improves fairness and transparency, strengthens protections against sexual misconduct, and better addresses mental health.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 support

  1. Matt Burnell Burnell supports the bill as an important step in implementing the royal commission's recommendations, arguing that it will modernise military justice, strengthen workplace safety and accountability, better address mental health risks and remedy past convictions for consensual homosexual activity.
    “This debate ultimately comes back to some simple questions: Are we prepared to learn from what the royal commission has told us? Are we prepared to make the changes required? And are we prepared to ensure that the future generations of defence personnel are better protected than those who came before them? These amendments answer those questions with a resounding 'yes'. It does not claim to do everything, but it does take an important step forward. It reflects a commitment to fairness, a commitment to safety and a commitment to ensuring that those who serve are supported by systems that are worthy of their service.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Renee Coffey Coffey supports the bill because it implements royal commission recommendations to make military justice safer, fairer and faster, strengthen protections for victims, improve mental health responses and remove historic convictions for consensual same-sex relationships.
    “These reforms go to the real human consequences of a system that must be safer, fairer and more responsive. It gives victims stronger safety measures, makes it easier to get mental health help, speeds things up and simplifies them, encourages openness and responsibility and puts right something wrong from the past. It will help create a military justice system which is more in line with the principles we expect of our Defence Force personnel—dedication, consideration for others, bravery, honesty and looking out for one another. We need to continue this improvement for all who are serving, all those who have served and their families who share in the burdens of service. There is still so much more work for us to do in this space, but I am so proud of these changes and what they will address. I do absolutely acknowledge the hard work that is happening throughout Australia and, in particular, in my community. For all of those who have been advocating for these changes and changes beyond this—I absolutely acknowledge their passion, their persistence and their absolute, fierce advocacy on these matters. I thank them very sincerely.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Shayne Neumann Neumann supports the bill as an essential implementation of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission's recommendations, arguing that it will modernise military justice, strengthen protections and accountability, improve mental health responses, and reduce harm to Defence personnel.
    “In conclusion, the reforms in this bill strengthen trust in the military justice system. They reduce harm. They improve transparency. They modernise mental health responses. And they ensure the Defence Force Discipline Act reflects the standard expected in contemporary Australia. I thank the minister for bringing forward these critical reforms. I want to thank the many stakeholders, experts, ADF personnel and the veterans community for their input into these reforms—and the royal commissioner and, in many cases, the brave victims-survivors of abuse in the ADF for courageously sharing their lived experiences to inform these changes. This is a careful, comprehensive and essential response to the findings of the royal commission. It supports the wellbeing of our defence personnel. It strengthens the integrity of the military disciplinary framework and upholds our expectations of fairness and accountability. I commend the bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 13 May 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

2 speakers · 2 support

  1. Michael McCormack McCormack supports the bill as a necessary framework for implementing the royal commission's recommendations, particularly by strengthening safeguards for alleged victims and making military discipline fairer, faster and more effective.
    “The men and women of the Defence Force serve our nation with honour and bravery. They deserve the very best treatment, care and support. The royal commission engaged with key advocacy groups to understand the impacts of service, including the families of veterans killed, Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association and the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women. I know that there's a lot of incredible bipartisan support for anything to do with our veterans, and I acknowledge that. As the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I appreciate the work that the government is doing to help and support our veterans. 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 support

Full record

Full chat