The ADF's institutional and practical non-partisanship must never be compromised for party-political expediency. The fact and public perception of our defence force's political neutrality must be preserved, and preserved consistently, for the enduring benefit of the whole Australian community. And at all times, not just during election campaigns. In summary, to keep the "gun out of our politics" our constitutional system - and its supporting conventions and practices - has necessarily evolved over centuries to ensure that "politics is kept out of the gun".
Functioning liberal democracies require the resort to armed force to be permanently removed from their politics.
Free and peaceful elections alone must decide the formation of each Australian government.
In Westminster-system countries, nearly four centuries of constitutional evolution since the English Civil War has resulted in Australian democracy being strengthened by its effective institutional and cultural segregation of our defence force from party politics.
Just over a century ago, the March 1914 "Curragh Mutiny" in Ireland further stengthened the principles and practices involved for the modern era. The threatened (but not actioned) peaceable civil disobedience by some British Army officers during the incident emphasised the importance of removing even a perception that a democracy's military could legitimately seek to interfere domestic politics.
Some of this necessary segregation of the military from party politics is enshrined in statute. Other aspects depend on the relevant constitutional convention being respected on all sides of politics and across Australian society generally — not just by members of our defence force.
The first part of this constitutional convention is that, no matter what their personal political beliefs might be, members of our defence force are required to be professionally and institutionally non-partisan in the execution of their duties.
The reciprocal second part of the convention by civil society is that the ADF's party-political neutrality is preserved and respected consistently over the long term too. It must never be undermined, no matter what some partisans might desire as a politically expedient action at a particular time.
This reciprocal preservation of the non-partisanship convention applies on all sides of politics and across the spectrum of public opinion generally.
Unfortunately, the need to preserve and respect such longstanding conventions is not always as well understood or as appreciated across civil society as it used to be. Particulary as so few Australians now have much personal experience, and consequent understanding, of defence force service — even in their extended families.
This dearth of knowledge includes the now minimal defence force experience among most of our federal and state parliamentarians — and across our political parties generally.
The longstanding principle of civil-control-of-the-military — by ministers on behalf of parliament alone — is necessarily imbued deeply in the institutional culture and practices of the ADF and in national constitutional philosophy, structures and processes.
To assist in these regards, the ADF's necessary non-partisanship is reinforced by a time-tested range of complementary checks and balances:
National Symbolism. National protocols — such as our Army being the designated protector of the national flag, and the Army having no flag but the national one — signify that our Army and the rest of the Australian people are united, not separate, components of the Australian nation and our democratic system of government.
National Culture. Our defence force is necessarily focused operationally and culturally on protecting Australia's sovereign freedom of action from external strategic risks. The ADF is deliberately not a force focused on internal security, including civil law enforcement domestically. Nor does it consider it has such a role institutionally.
Constitutional Control. The command-in-chief of the ADF is held by the Crown as an above-politics titular appointment — and exercised by the Governor-General only on the advice of the elected government. Civil control of our defence force is exercised by the Minister for Defence, as per the Defence Act, itself based on specific constitutional heads of power.
Primacy of Civil Law. The principles of civil-control-of-the-military and civil primacy are always preserved. Martial law, for example, is not possible in Australia either constitutionally or by statute. Even on those very rare occasions where the ADF is directed by the Minister for Defence to support the civil police by the use of armed force in certain specific and serious situations, the civil police remain in overall charge and civil law continues to apply. Even during counter-terrorism actions requiring the application of supporting military force beyond police resources. Similarly, ADF support to civil agencies on border security matters does not generally involve the use of force, such civil agencies always remain in charge, and only civil law applies.
- Electoral Candidacy. ADF personnel are required by law (and regulations under the law) to resign from the full-time defence force, or suspend any existing reservist service, when nominating for election to, and serving in, any parliament.
Operations. While our defence force always remains under the control of its Minister constitutionally, separation of party-politics from the ADF chain-of-command and the force's day-to-day operations is maximised by a range of legal measures and time-tested conventions concerning the difference between military command and ministerial control. While rightly controlling the activities of the ADF, as per the Constitution and the Defence Act, the Minister for Defence cannot lawfully issue orders directly to any defence force member except the Chief of Defence Force (CDF). The Minister's directions (assuming they are lawful) are then passed on as orders by the CDF down through the force's chain-of-command.
Educating and training defence force personnel in all the above measures.
Forbidding, by regulations under the Defence Act, party-political activities (including electioneering and fundraising) being conducted on ADF bases;
Enforcing the ministerial direction, under governments of both political persuasions, that parliamentarians cannot visit ADF bases without prior permission of the Minister for Defence, and cannot do so at all during election campaigns.
Forbidding defence force personnel, by regulations under the Defence Act, from involving themselves in party-politics or other politically controversial issues — on or off an ADF base — where the institutional non-partisanship of the force collectively, or of a member individually, might be compromised in fact or public perception. Examples include wearing ADF uniform or otherwise representing or publicising membership of the ADF during party-political or other politically controversial activities.
Abuses of the non-partisanship convention
Through calculation, ignorance or lack of thought, the ADF's institutional non-partisanship is sometimes compromised in fact or public perception.
Every Australian loses when the relevant and long-established constitutional conventions are ignored, improperly exploited or otherwise not respected.
As part of its independent, non-partisan, public-interest oversight role the Australia Defence Association has long protested deliberate or accidental abuses of the defence force's non-partisan status and ethos.
Examples of improper politicisation or related misrepresentation of the ADF and its actual national role include:
Political criticism of the ADF, or partisan misrepresentation of its role and activities, for carrying out the lawful orders of the elected government. Examples include:
the ADF's purely logistic support (unarmed, no use of force, no involvement in law enforcement, etc) to the whole-of-government intervention in NT indigenous communities being portrayed by some political partisans in factually incorrect and emotively expressed terms such as "an invasion" or "the Army coming to take your kids away"; and
domestic opponents of a particular war or other overseas operation denigrating the ADF and its personnel in a partisan manner, rather than criticise the government actually responsible for the decision to commit them there (and which our defence force must necessarily obey).
- Politicians, rather than a neutral public figure (such as the Governor-General, state Governor or local independent civic dignitary) presiding over farewell and welcome home ceremonies for ADF contingents being deployed, or returning from, overseas.
- Parliamentarians attending such farewell and welcome home ceremonies, or visiting overseas deployments, for perceived electoral gain (such as photo opportunities), rather than on legitimate electorate, or ministerial or parliamentary committee business, respectively.
- Parliamentarians visiting ADF bases to obtain photographs or TV footage of themselves with ADF personnel for use in subsequent election material. This is a particular problem when visits to bases are misused by a member of federal or state parliament for the electorate in which the base is located.
- Parliamentarians presiding over wartime and other commemoration ceremonies involving ADF participation, or attending such ceremonies to obtain photographs or TV footage of themselves with ADF personnel for use in election material.
- Ministers insisting their photograph be included, often repetitively, in explanatory pamplets or other advertising about administrative or policy matters internal to the operation of the ADF, where this is the type of internal administrative matter or change of policy that would occur no matter what political party formed the government.
- All public information matters concerning the defence force — even the most mundane or routine ones — being centrally announced by Ministerial media statements rather than, as used to occur, the public being informed as a matter of course by an ADF spokesperson at the most relevant local level.
- ADF personnel being used improperly as background props during party-political announcements and events (including Defence White Paper "launches" — and especially when such papers have not been first tabled in Parliament).
- Electioneering or other partisan material stating or implying that the ADF supports a particular candidate, party or policy.
- Candidates for election to a parliament using their ADF rank as a title, or publishing material that includes photographs of them wearing an ADF uniform unless:
- they have actually served in the full-time or part-time defence force;
- the photograph is for informative purposes about the candidate's life experience across a range of occupations and situations, and is only in a leaflet, or on a card, website or in social media where such a photo is just one of a montage showing such a range; and
- all photos in this wider montage are of the same size, quality and prominence — and the ones with the candidate in uniform are not on the covers of the leaflet or on a homepage, etc., where they risk being seen in isolation from a wider context.
Photographs in election material of candidates wearing their military service medals when dressed in civilian attire is generally considered, rightly, as not a breach of the non-partisanship convention.
First, because this is the right of any medal recipient. Second, because the award of medals shows non-partisan public recognition for ADF or other service and, finally, because it could not reasonably be viewed as somehow representing or implying defence force support for that candidate.
However excessive emphasis on the wearing of medals, such as when campaigning in public or featuring such photos in electoral material disproportionally, is generally regarded as being in poor taste. As is the wearing of medals not awarded to the person wearing them.
Abuses of the non-partisanship convention in the 2016 election
In the 2016 federal election some candidates, on both sides of politics, unfortunately chose to use election billboards, posters and corflutes that only, or prominently, featured them wearing an ADF uniform.
Examples included the Labor candidate in the Queensland electorate of Brisbane and the Liberal candidate for the Western Australian electorate of Canning. Given the military setting, in one case the accompanying electoral slogan could also have misled some viewers by an ambiguous reference to "service".
It is the prominence — without context — of billboards, posters and corflutes that makes this form of electoral advertising such a serious and unequivocal breach of the non-partisanship convention by the parties and candidates concerned.
Billboards, posters and corflutes are highly visible, designed to sell their message both consciously and subliminally but invariably seen without providing the observer with any wider context — such as broader knowledge of the candidate.
Such forms of electoral advertising constitute a particularly high risk of being misconstrued as the ADF somehow endorsing that candidate or their political stance.
If the non-partisanship convention continues to be abused in this manner, the wearing of a defence force uniform in any form of election material will need to be regulated (to varying degrees) by the Electoral Act — as occurs with other aspects of potentially misleading electoral advertising.
If political parties can no longer be trusted to preserve the need for ADF political neutrality by reciprocating the non-partisanship convention, statutory prohibition becomes the only solution.
Preserving this important Westminster-system convention
Australia having an institutionally non-partisan defence force remains a major strength of our system of democratic government and its supporting national culture.
But the success of this non-partisanship convention is dependent on it being truly reciprocal.
Nationally beneficial conventions in particular, and each political party's integrity in general, are strengthened by bipartisan ethical behaviour concerning key national interest issues — even where this may seem at first to be electorally disadvantageous in the short term.
A common but invalid excuse for misuse of the defence force's non-partisan status is that someone from the opposite side of politics has done it too.
But two wrongs never make a right. Or indeed make it right.
Particularly where our defence force points out an abuse of its necessary non-partisan status, but partisans turn logic on its head by reflexively accusing the ADF (or other objective observer) of somehow being "against them" in a partisan fashion by drawing attention to the abuse.
Another excuse from some is that the candidate is no longer a member of the ADF and "cannot be ordered to do anything". But this fundamentally misses the point. All candidates are still citizens and the convention's reciprocity by the civil community still applies.
The extension of electoral advertising into social media does not change the principles involved. Nor does it somehow invalidate the longstanding and well-proven non-partisanship convention. All it does is extend how the convention needs to be consistently respected and, if necessary, enforced.
Finally, former members of the ADF, when pressured by their party machines to exploit their prior defence force service improperly, need to remind the parties concerned of four points.
The non-partisanship convention has an enduring national purpose well beyond the winning of any particular election.
Even minor breaches of the convention risk weakening our democratic system of government by reinforcing the thin edge of an ultimately quite dangerous wedge.
Every Australian loses if our defence force is seen to be or becomes politicised.
- As with other constitutional conventions, every Australian — whether in the ADF or not — is bound by the non-partsanship convention concerning our defence force.
Due to the extent the non-partisanship convention has not been observed in the 2016 federal election, and the extent that some tried to excuse such breaches, the wearing of ADF uniform in any electoral advertising will now have to be regulated by the Electoral Act.
Back to 2016-17