Skip to main content

Examining Efficacy of Administrative Sanctions in Army

Journal Edition
DOI
10.61451/1235806
Introduction

Introduction

Systems of people management are one mechanism of retaining and developing an effective workforce. The administrative sanctions system of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) plays an important role in the career management of military personnel. While primarily intended to protect the ‘efficiency, reputation or operational effectiveness of the ADF’,[1] it also provides an opportunity for individual behaviour change. The effectiveness of this rehabilitation and its real-world impact on an individual’s career is debated.

With many negative personal anecdotes about the system, it is crucial to understand the effects of the administrative sanctions system on individuals’ behaviour and attitudes. Further, as outlined in the Defence Strategic Review,[2] the ADF is striving to increase retention to meet the government’s mandated increase in personnel levels. To accomplish these objectives, Defence must ensure that individuals who are rehabilitated through sanctions opt to remain in the ADF, while effectively separating those who are no longer fit for service.

What Is the Sanctions System?

The administrative sanctions system is designed to balance service interests (those of the organisation) and the interests of the individual when misconduct occurs,[3] with a particular focus on upholding the ‘interests of the Defence Force’.[4] This includes retaining members who have exhibited behaviour contrary to Defence values but demonstrate the capacity for improvement. To function optimally in conjunction with career management, sanctions should actively encourage and promote such behavioural change.

The use of sanctions can encourage service members to modify their behaviour, with the goal of retaining them within the organisation, or terminating their service if they cannot. However, in cases where misconduct is particularly egregious, even if there is potential for rehabilitation, continued service may not align with the interests of Defence. The system comprises various measures that may be imposed when a member’s conduct or performance falls below the expected standard for their designated role, including when their continued retention is deemed to be not in the best interests of the ADF.[5]

The administrative sanctions system complements the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) (DFDA). The DFDA addresses violations of military rules and regulations and provides for the imposition of penalties through a process of charge, trial and conviction. The primary aim of the military discipline system is to punish and deter future misconduct. The administrative sanctions system can sometimes be used for misconduct that may also be dealt with by the DFDA. Rather than a strict disciplinary measure that deters, the administrative sanctions system focuses on organisational risk management. It is a key component of the overall personnel management system and can be a means of motivating and supporting personnel to achieve optimal performance. Specifically for sanctions that are outlined in the Defence Regulation 2016 (Cth), Part 1, regulation 3 describes its purpose as to ‘provide personnel management that supports the appointment, enlistment, promotion and retention of appropriate persons for service in the Defence Force’. Focusing on retention, most sanctions are intended to act as a powerful motivator to achieve compliance with desired standards, or alternatively serve as grounds for dismissal in the most severe cases.

Does this hold true? On paper, the intention of an administrative sanction is to encourage better performance by reducing the risk of adverse impact of the past misconduct and the risk of its recurrence. If the individual improves their conduct, they will not be at a disadvantage after the sanction period has expired. The temporary nature of time-based sanctions reflects an agreement that if a member recalibrates their behaviour, they will return to normal career management. However, while the system of administrative sanctions is intended to ‘reward’ behaviour changes by supporting the member’s continued service, it can still be perceived as having a lasting negative impact on an individual’s career. For instance, expired formal warnings can be taken into consideration when assessing a member’s suitability for promotion within a reporting period. Considering these aspects, although the administrative sanctions system is designed to promote fairness and encourage behavioural change where appropriate, the perception of its long-term impact on an individual’s career and the potential for variation in decision-making can raise questions about its overall effectiveness and fairness.

Endnotes

[1] Australian Defence Force, Military Personnel Policy Manual (MILPERSMAN) (Department of Defence, 2024), Part 9, Chapter 2, para. 2.2.

[2] Australian Government, National Defence: Defence Strategic Review (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2023), at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review.

[3] Department of Defence, ‘Military Justice Submission to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide’, 28 February 2024, Exhibit 86-03.051—DEF.0000.0001.0004, at: https://defenceveteransuicide.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/exhibit-86-03051-def000000010004-military-justice-submission-defence-royal-commission-defence-and-veteran-suicide.

[4] Regulations 14(1)(a), 16(1) and 24(1)(c) of the Defence Regulation 2016, respectively.

[5] Australian Defence Force, ADFP 06.1.3—Guide to Administrative Decision-Making.