Bills — Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee

Senate · 17 Sept 2026 · 13:10
Passed by a small majority
30
Yes (ayes)
24
No (noes)
The question is that item 65 of schedule 5 stand as printed.

What was debated in Parliament

Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill changes military discipline law to put in place several recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It lets Defence suspend members under civilian police investigation, puts serious service convictions on criminal records, requires reasons for court martial sentences, creates a Defence mental health tribunal, and lets people clear old convictions for consensual homosexual activity. All parties supported it, and the debate focused on protecting victims, mental health, and oversight of new ministerial powers.
Arguments made in support
Government members said victims of sexual misconduct should not have to keep working with the person being investigated, and the bill closes that gap.
Speakers from all sides said a slow or unfair justice system can harm mental health, and the bill makes processes faster and fairer.
Supporters said recording serious service convictions on civilian criminal records and requiring sentencing reasons will improve accountability.
Labor, the Greens and others welcomed removing the word 'malingering' and allowing old homosexual convictions to be cleared.
The Coalition, Greens, One Nation and independents said they supported the bill as a real step on the royal commission's recommendations.
Arguments made against, or for changes
The Coalition said the minister's new power to guide the Director of Military Prosecutions needed oversight, and the Senate made those guidelines open to parliamentary disallowance.
Coalition senators were concerned about letting civilians act as investigating officers beyond sexual offence cases. The government opposed limiting this.
Coalition member Phillip Thompson raised concerns that military police carrying tasers might mostly affect enlisted soldiers.
Coalition speakers said parts of the bill go beyond the royal commission's advice and leave matters such as medical records to regulations.
Senator Malcolm Roberts read a former member's letter saying military justice can be misused by senior officers, and the bill should only be a beginning.
30 speeches by 19 members in the House and Senate over 6 sitting days.
Hansard: House of Representatives, 1 Apr 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: House of Representatives, 13 May 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: House of Representatives, 14 May 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: Senate, 22 June 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: House of Representatives, 17 Sept 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: Senate, 17 Sept 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia

How each party voted

Labor
20 Yes
0 No
10–
Liberal
0 Yes
13 No
8–
Greens
10 Yes
0 No
One Nation
0 Yes
4 No
Nationals
0 Yes
2 No
1–
Independent
0 Yes
1 No
1–
CLP
0 Yes
1 No
Lambie
0 Yes
1 No
UAP
0 Yes
1 No
Australia's Voice
0 Yes
1 No
LNP
0 Yes
0 No
2–
The last column counts members who did not vote. Party counts are for current members.

No rebels

Every party member who voted went with the majority of their party.
Source: Hansard, Senate, 17 Sept 2026
Parliament of Australia, via OpenAustralia Foundation · checked 14 October 2026