Page:R v McBride (No 4).pdf/18

 The challenge for the ADF is to maintain a sense of balance and proportion. Appearance is important, but it is not the only thing. If one reads 'Pathways to Change' (I wonder how many have), it's [sic] seems to focus on two things, only: our appearance to government and our appearance to the public. I wonder if they have missed anything.

I believe the over-zealous investigations of the Special Forces in 2013 were driven by appearances rather than suspicion of a crime. However, as I stated in the covering minute, they come at a cost. It is acceptable for the ADF to be uncompromising on [breaches] of policy and the law. But it works both ways.

The consideration of the IGADF Submission

73․ The officer responsible for investigations at the IGADF undertook a preliminary assessment of the IGADF Submission and distilled 65 concerns from it.

74․ On 25 August 2014, Mr McBride attended a meeting with the IGADF himself. He then had a meeting with the investigating officer and the Deputy IGADF. While the IGADF does not remember whether he briefed the Chief of the Defence Force with an outline of Mr McBride's complaint, it would have been usual practice to have done so.

75․ In the meeting with the investigating officer and the Deputy IGADF, Mr McBride confirmed that the investigating officer had accurately identified the concerns raised in the IGADF Submission. The investigating officer discussed the operation of the PID Act. At that time, disclosures about alleged ADF misconduct could not be made under the PID Act to the IGADF. The investigating officer explained to Mr McBride the process that could be followed to allow the IGADF Submission to be treated as a disclosure under the PID Act, but Mr McBride declined that opportunity, saying that he preferred the IGADF to investigate his disclosure.

76․ The IGADF determined to hold an inquiry into the matters identified in the IGADF Submission. Two assistant IGADFs were appointed for that task. One was a former judge of the County Court of Victoria and one was a captain in the Royal Australian Navy. Mr McBride was interviewed by them on 2 December 2014.

77․ On 21 August 2015, Mr McBride was advised of the outcome of the inquiry. In summary, the assistant IGADFs found that:


 * (a) many of the complaints made by Mr McBride could not be substantiated; and


 * (b) some warrants issued by ADFIS were invalid because they identified the wrong service offence, and they made adverse findings in relation to the issuing of those warrants.

78․ Nothing in the Agreed Statement of Facts indicates that the conclusions reached by the inquiry were incorrect.