UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

GOOD DECISION-MAKING IN DEFENCE: A GUIDE FOR

DECISION-MAKERS AND THOSE WHO BRIEF THEM
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
ii

© Commonwealth of Australia 2015

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968
(http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1968A00063), no part may be reproduced by
any process without prior written permission from the Australian Government
Department of Defence.
Announcement statement—may be announced to the public.
Secondary release—may be released to the public.
All Defence information, whether classified or not, is protected from unauthorised
disclosure under the Crimes Act 1914
(http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1914A00012). Defence information may only be
released in accordance with the Defence Security Manual (DSM) as appropriate.

Good Decision-Making in Defence: A guide for decision-makers and those who brief
them
First edition 2015

Sponsor
Head Defence Legal

Developer
Defence General Counsel

Publisher
Defence Publishing Service
Department of Defence
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Effective Date
01 July 2015

Review Date
01 July 2020
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
iii

FOREWORD
1. In March 2014, following a review of inquiry and investigation arrangements
in Defence, the Chiefs of Service Committee endorsed policy changes relating to
recording and reporting complaints and incidents, fact finding and decision-making,
and the ADF redress of grievance process. This Guide has been published as part of
that initiative.
2. Commanders and managers today manage significant overheads, which
have developed over time, regarding administrative and disciplinary matters.
Supporting policies have tended to be numerous, complex, voluminous and
sometimes contradictory. There is a consequent risk that commanders and managers
will struggle to understand their responsibilities, and that Defence will be distracted
from performing its core tasks effectively. Commanders and managers need to be
empowered to act decisively without the burden of complex, difficult and, in some
cases, unnecessary rules. They can then be held accountable for their decisions.
3. With that in mind, this Guide provides advice about important decision-
making concepts, such as the power to make decisions, procedural fairness, and
statements of reasons. The emphasis is on the considerable discretion available to
commanders and managers when making decisions. The approach is risk-based,
rather than rules-based. This is a significant shift from previous Defence policy about
decision-making, such as ADFP 06.1.3 Guide to Decision-Making in Defence, which
took a more prescriptive approach to decision-making processes.
4. An important development is to fill a gap in guidance on how decision-makers
can collect information quickly in order to inform their decisions. A chapter on fact
finding emphasises that fact finding is an incident of decision-making, rather than an
end in itself. Previous guidance on fact finding, such as the chapter on routine
inquiries in ADFP 06.1.4 Administrative Inquiries Manual, had developed into
extremely rigid and legalistic processes, which in many cases were completely
disproportionate to the needs of the decision-maker. The new guidance enables
commanders and managers to adopt a simpler, more flexible and proportionate
approach to fact finding. It can be adapted to any Defence environment, including
operational contexts or workplaces where ADF, APS and contractors are working
together.
5. I encourage decision-makers, and those who brief them, to consider the
material in this guide, and how it can be adapted to the decisions they typically make.

Mark Cunliffe, PSM

Head Defence Legal

10 May 2015
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
iv

AMENDMENT CERTIFICATE

Amendment Chapter(s) Amendment Effected date

number

Proposals for amendment of Good Decision-Making in Defence: A guide for

decision-makers and those who brief them are to be forwarded to:
Defence General Counsel
[email protected]
CP2-4
Department of Defence
CANBERRA ACT 2600
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
v

CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Amendment Certificate iv
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE I
© COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2015 II
SPONSOR II
HEAD DEFENCE LEGAL II
DEVELOPER II
DEFENCE GENERAL COUNSEL II
PUBLISHER II
DEFENCE PUBLISHING SERVICE II
EFFECTIVE DATE II
REVIEW DATE II
FOREWORD III
MARK CUNLIFFE, PSM III
AMENDMENT CERTIFICATE IV
DEFENCE GENERAL COUNSEL IV

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE I
© COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2015 II
SPONSOR II
HEAD DEFENCE LEGAL II
DEVELOPER II
DEFENCE GENERAL COUNSEL II
PUBLISHER II
DEFENCE PUBLISHING SERVICE II
EFFECTIVE DATE II
REVIEW DATE II
FOREWORD III
MARK CUNLIFFE, PSM III
AMENDMENT CERTIFICATE IV
DEFENCE GENERAL COUNSEL IV
CHAPTER 1 1–1
INTRODUCTION 1–1
Purpose and application of this guide 1–1
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
vi

Important decision-making principles 1–3

Decision-making requires flexibility and creativity 1–3
Decision-makers should manage risk, rather than simply avoid it 1–3
Decision-makers should apply time and resources proportionate to the
possible consequences of a decision 1–3
Decision-makers should balance certainty that a decision is correct
against the need to make a decision in a reasonable time frame 1–4
Decision-makers should balance individual and organisational
requirements 1–4
Decision-making and accountability 1–4
CHAPTER 2 2–1
ASSESSING REQUIREMENTS 2–1
Some useful questions 2–1
Common decision categories in Defence 2–2
Power to make decisions – legislation 2–2
Who has power to make legislative decisions? 2–3
Mandatory or discretionary? Must or may? 2–3
Making legislative decisions 2–4
Power to make decisions – other sources of power 2–5
Command power 2–5
Employment power 2–5
Command and employment based decision-making vs legislative
decision-making 2–6
Identifying the best decision-maker 2–6
Bias and conflict of interest 2–7
Integrated workplaces 2–9
CHAPTER 3 3–1
FACT FINDING TO SUPPORT DECISIONS 3–1
What is fact finding? 3–1
When is fact finding required? 3–1
Fact finding is an ongoing process 3–1
Uncertainty and fact finding 3–1
Considerations when deciding whether to undertake fact finding 3–1
Decision-makers are responsible for fact finding 3–2
Relationship with the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 3–3
Fact finding options 3–3
Who undertakes fact finding? 3–4
Decision-maker or fact finder? 3–4
Identifying an appropriate fact finder 3–5
Fact finding in complex situations 3–5
Power to obtain information 3–6
Legal protections for fact finders 3–7
Mechanics of fact finding 3–7
Scope and purpose 3–8
Scope and purpose 3–9
Planning fact finding tasks 3–9
Interviewing witnesses 3–10
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
vii

Preparing for the interview 3–11

Conducting the interview 3–11
Recording a witness’s evidence 3–12
Assessing witness’s evidence 3–13
Subject matter experts 3–13
Procedural fairness in fact finding 3–14
Reporting on fact finding outcomes 3–14
Fact finding and privacy 3–14
CHAPTER 4 4–1
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS 4–1
What is procedural fairness? 4–1
What is the purpose of procedural fairness? 4–1
When do you need to provide procedural fairness? 4–1
Legal requirements to provide procedural fairness 4–1
Policy requirements to provide procedural fairness 4–2
Procedural fairness as good management practice 4–2
How to provide procedural fairness 4–3
Specific process identified in legislation or policy 4–3
Where there is no specific process in legislation or policy, the process
should be adapted to the circumstances 4–4
What information should be provided to an individual? 4–5
Decisions in response to an application 4–5
Decisions initiated by Defence 4–5
Findings or statements adverse to credibility / reputation 4–5
Form of information provided to individual 4–6
Privacy/security/confidentiality considerations 4–6
Who should provide procedural fairness? 4–6
Considering the individual’s response 4–7
Fact finding and procedural fairness 4–7
Findings about conduct 4–7
Findings about credibility 4–8
Consequences of not providing procedural fairness 4–8
CHAPTER 5 5–1
ANALYSING INFORMATION 5–1
Standard of proof – how certain do I need to be? 5–1
Common types of information 5–1
Witness statements 5–1
Documentary evidence 5–1
Physical evidence 5–2
Expert evidence 5–2
Factors to consider when making a decision 5–3
Relevance 5–3
Best evidence 5–3
Hearsay 5–3
Corroboration 5–3
Inferential reasoning 5–3
Assessing credibility 5–3
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
viii

CHAPTER 6 6–1
BRIEFING DECISION-MAKERS 6–1
The importance of high quality decision briefs 6–1
Matters to consider when preparing a brief 6–1
Raise all relevant matters fairly 6–1
Procedural fairness 6–2
Accuracy 6–2
Advice on exercising discretion 6–2
Referring to evidence 6–2
Recommendations 6–3
Language used in brief 6–3
Use of templates 6–3
CHAPTER 7 7–1
STATEMENT OF REASONS 7–1
What is a statement of reasons? 7–1
Advantages of writing a statement of reasons 7–1
When is a statement of reasons required? 7–1
Length and format of a statement of reasons 7–2
What should be included in a statement of reasons? 7–2
An accurate description of the decision 7–2
The name and position of the decision-maker and the power under
which they made the decision 7–2
A summary of the decision-making process 7–3
Identify key facts 7–3
Key issues for decision 7–3
The facts and evidence considered when deciding the key issues 7–3
An explanation of why the decision was made 7–3
Details of any review rights and timeframes which may apply 7–4
The date of the decision 7–4
Dealing with claims and submissions by affected individuals 7–4
Confidential or sensitive information 7–4
CHAPTER 8 8–1
COMMUNICATING DECISIONS 8–1
Who should be informed of a decision? 8–1
What information should not be provided? 8–1
Informing superiors and chain of command 8–2
CHAPTER 9 9–1
DOCUMENTING DECISIONS 9–1
CHAPTER 10 10–1
REVIEWING DECISIONS 10–1
Internal review options established in legislation 10–1
ADF redress of grievance 10–1
APS review of actions (ROA) 10–1
External review options established in legislation 10–2
Judicial review 10–2
What does it mean if my decision is overturned? 10–2
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
ix

CHAPTER 11 11–1
REVOKING, RE-MAKING AND VARYING DECISIONS 11–1
What is meant by revoking, re-making and varying decisions? 11–1
Who should revoke, re-make or vary a decision? 11–1
Jurisdictional error 11–2
Decisions that cannot be changed 11–2
Retrospective decision-making 11–2
Changing decisions and procedural fairness 11–3
Practical reasons not to change a decision 11–3
CHAPTER 12 12–1
DIFFICULT SITUATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS 12–1
The effect of external pressure 12–1
Pressure from affected individuals 12–1
Requests for more time 12–2
Requests for more information 12–2
Non-attendance at interviews 12–3
Raising unrelated or irrelevant issues 12–3
Repeat requests and use of multiple complaint avenues 12–4
Allegations of bias or flawed process 12–4
Pressure from chain of command or managers 12–4
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION OF THIS GUIDE
1.1 This Guide provides guidance for those in Defence with decision-making
responsibilities, including commanders and their support staff. It outlines general
decision-making principles and provides practical information and tools to help with
decision-making in a wide variety of contexts. The principles outlined are not unique
to a particular environment or type of decision, and can be adapted for decision-
making from operational to office environments.

1.2 A decision is a choice between alternative options, and decision-making is

the process by which we consider the options and make a choice. Some decisions
will be between two opposite alternatives – take action X or don’t take action X. Other
decisions will involve many different options – take action X, take action Y or take
action Z. As Defence personnel, we make decisions at work every day – how to
assign work / tasks within a team, when to order new stationery, what action to take
in response to enemy action, how to structure a decision brief or advice. Much of our
day-to-day experience involves a largely intuitive approach to decision-making. We
make decisions quickly, and often automatically, based on our previous experience.
Other decisions are more analytical, consciously identifying options and considering
evidence in order to arrive at the decision.

1.3 This Guide contains guidance only. It is not binding on decision-makers and
does not replace the requirements of legislation, Defence Instructions,
determinations under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903, Defence policy or other
documents that address a particular type of decision. A decision would not be invalid
because procedures outlined in this Guide have not been followed, and a person
should not expect that a decision-maker will follow a particular process merely
because it is described in this Guide.

1.4 Decision-makers in Defence should exercise judgement in applying this

Guide, using those aspects that are appropriate to the particular decision they are
making. What is appropriate will depend on an assessment of the decision to be
made and its associated risks.

1.5 This guide covers a range of topics associated with decision-making. Figure
1.1 illustrates some of the key questions decision-makers may need to consider, and
where they are addressed in this Guide. Other topics covered in the Guide are
briefing decision-makers (Chapter 6), reviewing decisions (Chapter 10), re-making
decisions (Chapter 11) and dealing with difficult people (Chapter 12). When referring
to the topics relevant to any given decision, decision-makers should keep in mind the
general principles outlined in this chapter, and use their professional judgement when
applying them to a particular decision.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
1–2

Figure 1.1: Key questions for decision-makers

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
1–3

IMPORTANT DECISION-MAKING PRINCIPLES

Decision-making requires flexibility and creativity
1.6 There is no one size fits all approach to decision-making. A decision-maker
may follow very different processes to make different types of decisions. Even similar
decisions will sometimes require different processes, depending on the
circumstances. While some Defence policy about particular decisions has a quite
prescriptive approach, this is not always necessary or suitable for the many and
varied decisions Defence personnel make. This guide aims to give decision-makers
flexible guidance, which will allow them to adapt it to any circumstance. A good
decision-maker will have regard to relevant legislative and policy requirements for
any given decision, and to the particular environment and circumstances in which the
decision is being made. They will determine the most appropriate process to follow
when making the decision.

Decision-makers should manage risk, rather than simply avoid it

1.7 All decision-making involves risks. These will vary depending on the type of
decision. An obvious risk in this context is getting the decision wrong (or at least, with
the benefit of hindsight, discovering that a different decision would have been
preferable). Other risks can include legal, personnel, resources, or reputational risks
such as damage to the public perception of Defence.

1.8 There has been a growing trend within Defence for decision-makers to be
overly cautious in decision-making, applying formal processes that are
disproportionate to the associated risks of a decision.

1.9 It is impossible to avoid risk completely. This guide encourages decision-

makers to sensibly consider and manage risks by assessing the risks associated with
a particular decision, and considering how best to balance competing risks.

Decision-makers should apply time and resources proportionate to the

possible consequences of a decision
1.10 There are limits on the time and resources available to decision-makers. As a
general rule, the more serious the possible consequences of a decision, the more
time and resources should be invested in the decision-making process.

1.11 Decision-makers need to apply their judgement and commonsense when

determining this, which will include making an assessment of the level of risk
associated with a decision.

1.12 If, for example, a decision involves serious career or financial consequences,
the decision-maker might invest considerable time and resources in ensuring they
have all the relevant information, have considered the evidence, and have defensible
reasons for their decision.

1.13 If a decision does not involve serious consequences or involves

consequences that are easily remedied, the decision-maker may decide not to invest
the same amount of time and resources in the decision-making process.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
1–4

Decision-makers should balance certainty that a decision is correct against the

need to make a decision in a reasonable time frame
1.14 Decision-makers naturally want to get their decisions right. Notwithstanding
this ideal, decision-makers should not postpone making a decision just because
there are unknown facts or further possibilities that could be explored. Even in cases
where the circumstances do not require urgency, delays can be detrimental and
stressful to those waiting for a decision, and lengthy delays may cause a change in
circumstances which affects the matters under decision. Accuracy in decision-making
is important, but must always be balanced against the need to make decisions within
a reasonable time frame.

1.15 Decision-makers should exercise judgement in determining the balance

between delaying a decision to obtain further information and assessing that
sufficient relevant information is available to make and support the decision. It will
depend on the particular circumstances of the decision in question and relates to
assessment of risk addressed above. Decision-makers should remember the law of
diminishing returns – there is a point where additional information that may be
obtained will not warrant the delay that results from obtaining it. Perfection can be the
enemy of good decision-making.

Decision-makers should balance individual and organisational requirements

1.16 Because Defence is made up of individuals, decisions which affect
individuals also affect Defence as an organisation. In some cases, however, the
interests of an individual and the interests of Defence as an organisation will differ.
For example, an individual may wish to delay a decision in order to seek advice,
while Defence as an organisation wants to resolve the issue quickly to allow a unit to
function optimally.

1.17 In cases where Defence’s interests differ from an individual’s interests,

decision-makers should assess and balance the competing interests in their
decision-making process.

DECISION-MAKING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

1.18 Defence personnel have considerable training and experience relevant to the
decisions they need to make. Decision-makers should, therefore, be trusted to
exercise professional judgement and commonsense to make sound decisions.

1.19 Decision-makers want to make the right decision every time. Errors will
inevitably occur because not all decision-making takes place in ideal circumstances.
Sometimes, even when decision-makers do everything correctly, affected individuals
can dislike and challenge the decision. There is no way to prevent this and nor
should there be. In mitigating and balancing risks, risk is not excluded and decision-
makers should not attempt to exclude it completely. There are review processes in
place (as outlined in Chapter 10), which can be used to correct bad decisions.
However, review processes should not be used to unpick a decision with the benefit
of hindsight, or to criticise a decision-maker simply because the reviewer has a
different opinion of what the decision should be. Defence supports and trusts
decision-makers, allowing the review processes to either confirm decisions or act as
a safeguard against error, mitigating some of the risks associated with
decision-making. Audit and assurance processes also mitigate some of these risks.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
1–5

1.20 As a decision-maker, you have to be accountable for your decisions. We do

this by justifying decisions – and it helps if we retain records of the decision-making
process, information collected and considered, and reasons for a decision.

1.21 If you are able to provide all relevant documentation associated with making
your decision/s, demonstrate that your approach was reasonable in all the
circumstances, that the decision/s were reasonable and based on relevant evidence,
and that you balanced the various risks associated with the decision/s reasonably,
then you should not be criticised. This is true even if, in hindsight, it turns out that
another choice might have been preferable. This is why it is so important to ensure
documentation is retained.

1.22 Defence leadership, managers and the chain of command have an important
role to play in holding decision-makers accountable. Decision-makers who make
egregious errors or repeat the same mistakes again and again should be held to
account through administrative or disciplinary action. However, for most mistakes, the
appropriate response will be less severe – the purpose should be to help decision-
makers improve their decision-making.

1.23 It should also be remembered that in balancing risks, and taking risks,
sometimes the anticipated risks will eventuate. Decision-makers should be held to
account on the basis of what they knew or should have known at the time,
recognising that some risks cannot be completely excluded, rather than on the basis
of what ultimately occurred.

1.24 Defence decision-makers are trained and experienced, and exercise their
professional judgement on a daily basis. Bad decisions and decision-making should
not be accepted, but decision-makers need to be supported, including when a
decision is challenged.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 2

ASSESSING REQUIREMENTS
SOME USEFUL QUESTIONS
2.1 It is important to be clear about the decision/s that may be required, the
source of power to make each decision, and who is likely to make those decisions.

2.2 When an issue, incident, complaint or other event arises, assessing the
situation may include assessing what decisions are likely to be required in response,
and what steps should be taken so that those decisions can be made. It will not
always be possible to know this at the outset, and the assessment process will
usually be ongoing, with the situation being continually re-assessed as new
information becomes available.

2.3 The following questions may be useful in assessing decision-making

requirements in a variety of situations.

a. What outcomes are sought (including in relation to resolving a matter,

maintaining productivity, welfare of personnel, preventing recurrence,
reputation etc)?

b. What legislation, policy or other requirements are relevant in this situation?

c. Are there any mandatory responses to the situation (including mandatory

reporting requirements)?

d. What options are available?

e. What decisions are likely to be required?

f. Who has power to make these decisions?

g. Is there likely to be more than one decision-maker involved? How can these
decisions be coordinated (for example in terms of timing of decisions, sharing
information, sharing resources to collect information etc)?

h. Are there any limits on the decision-making power?

i. Who are the most appropriate decision-makers in the circumstances?

j. What information is required to make these decisions?

k. Is additional information required to make these decisions?

l. What actions are required before these decisions can be made?

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–2

COMMON DECISION CATEGORIES IN DEFENCE

2.4 It is impossible to compile a complete list of all the decisions Defence
personnel make. The following offers a range of some of the more common decision-
making categories that may apply in relation to an issue, incident, complaint or other
event. Most of these categories are the subject of specific legislation or policy:

a. personnel decisions (such as postings, promotions, leave);

b. workflow management;

c. allowances and benefits;

d. procurement decisions;

e. personnel disputes and conflict;

f. misconduct issues (including unacceptable behaviour, fraud, disciplinary or

criminal misconduct, sexual misconduct);

g. operational matters (including during or following combat);

h. welfare of personnel (including protection of personnel who have claimed

misconduct by others);

i. work performance;

j. safety matters (including aviation safety);

k. security matters;

l. equipment malfunction or failure; and

m. property damage.

2.5 It is important to remember that a single issue, incident, complaint or other

event may require multiple decisions to be made, in multiple categories, by multiple
decision-makers.

POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS – LEGISLATION

2.6 A common source of decision-making power is legislation – an Act of
Parliament or subordinate legislation such as regulations or determinations made
under legislation (including determinations under sections 58B and 58H of the
Defence Act 1903). The Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement (DECA) has the
effect of legislation with respect to APS employees.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–3

Who has power to make legislative decisions?

2.7 Legislation will typically state who has the authority to exercise the powers
conferred in the legislation. For example, the designated person may be the Minister,
the Secretary, CDF or Service Chief. The legislation may assign power to an
‘authorised officer’, usually a person appointed by a particular person such as the
Minister. Legislation may permit the designated person to delegate some or all of
their power to another person – a ‘delegate’ (see below at subparagraph 2.13.f. for a
summary on the effect of delegation).

Mandatory or discretionary? Must or may?

2.8 Legislation may mandate that a particular decision is required if certain facts
exist. This will be clear in the language used in the legislation, such as use of the
word ‘must’. In such a case, the decision-maker will need to exercise judgement in
determining whether the facts exist, but once satisfied that is the case, the decision-
maker has no further discretion as to the outcome. For example, section 100 of the
Defence Act 1903 states:

(1) If a prohibited substance test in respect of a person returns a

positive test result, the relevant authority in relation to the person
must:

(a) give the person written notice of the positive test result; and

(b) invite the person to give to the relevant authority a written

statement of reasons as to:

(i) if the person is an officer—why the officer’s

appointment should not be terminated; or

(ii) if the person is a defence member other than an

officer—why the defence member should not be discharged;
or

(iii) if the person is a defence civilian—why the

arrangement under which the person is a defence civilian
should not be terminated.

2.9 That is, once the decision-maker is satisfied that the person has returned a
positive test result, they have no discretion whether or not to issue a written notice –
it must be issued.

2.10 In some cases, the underlying facts will be more subjective. For example,
section 101 of the Defence Act 1903 states that a member’s service must be
terminated if the decision-maker is of the opinion that their service should be
terminated. This formulation gives the decision-maker significant discretion because
it relies on them forming an opinion, notwithstanding use of the word ‘must’.

2.11 Legislation may also give a decision-maker discretion about the outcome
directly, requiring the decision-maker to consider the circumstances and exercise
their judgement about what to do. This will often be indicated by use of the word
‘may’. For example, most of the decisions in the Defence (Personnel) Regulations
2002 are of this nature: the Governor-General may appoint a person as an officer
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–4

(regulation 15), a Chief may promote an enlisted member (regulation 38), a Chief
may post a member of the Chief’s service (regulation 42). Certain APS Code of
Conduct matters are also discretionary: An Agency Head may impose the following
sanctions (section 15 of the Public Service Act 1999).

2.12 Most legislative decision-making powers of this nature are limited. For
example, the legislation may specify that the discretion only arises if certain facts
exist, or if certain processes have been followed. There may also be implied
limitations, such as an implied obligation to provide procedural fairness, or to make
decisions consistent with the objects of the legislation.

Making legislative decisions

2.13 The following list outlines some general principles for making legislative
decisions.

a. Decisions must be made by the decision-maker. In exercising legislative

decision-making power, only the decision-maker identified in the legislation
(or their delegate) can make the decision. Advice and recommendations of
others can be considered but the decision-maker must exercise their own
discretion.

b. A superior officer cannot dictate the outcome. A legislative decision

should not be made simply to meet the wishes of the decision-maker’s
superior, chain of command or a Minister. The decision should be based on
the particular circumstances of the matter, including relevant facts, evidence,
legislative requirements and professional judgement of the decision-maker.

c. The role of policy. A decision-maker should have regard to any Defence or

government policy documents relating to the legislative decision. Policy might
contain guidelines about how a decision should be made, procedures that
should be followed or matters that should be taken into account when making
the decision. However, policy should not be applied inflexibly.
Decision-makers should have regard to the particular circumstances, and
consider whether there is any reason to depart from the policy.

d. Decisions to provide a benefit should be interpreted beneficially. As a

general principle, legislation that provides a benefit to an individual, such as a
Defence Determination, should be interpreted in a manner that is most
beneficial to that individual. This does not mean that a decision-maker should
ignore the wording of the Determination, but if there is some doubt, the
decision-maker should favour the interpretation that benefits the affected
person.

e. Procedural steps outlined in legislation must be followed. Some

legislation prescribes particular procedural steps to be taken before a
decision can be made (see, for example, regulation 87 of the Defence
(Personnel) Regulations 2002). A decision-maker should confirm that any
procedural requirements have been met before making their decision. Failure
to meet procedural steps may invalidate a decision.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–5

f. The effect of delegating a decision-making power to another person.

Legislative power is normally delegated in writing, in an ‘Instrument of
Delegation’ signed by the designated person. A delegation can be to a
specific individual, a person in a specified position, or a particular group of
people such as those with a particular security clearance or at a particular
rank or classification. It is good practice for a delegate to check whether there
is a current Instrument of Delegation before making a decision, as Defence
will not be able to rely on or enforce a decision if it made by someone without
power. A delegate exercises the power for themselves, meaning they must
make their own decisions and sign the decisions in their own name. They are
accountable for their decisions. A delegate cannot authorise someone else to
make decisions on their behalf. They can, however, be assisted by staff
members who provide decision briefs or undertake fact finding on their
behalf. As with all decision-makers, a delegate should personally evaluate
the facts and evidence relating to the decision.

POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS – OTHER SOURCES OF POWER

2.14 Many decisions in Defence are made without specific legislative authority.
Ordinary executive powers that allow a Department such as Defence to undertake its
normal administrative functions, for example, include the common legal powers of
ordinary people or organisations. Many of these ordinary powers are subject to
additional regulation when exercised in a Defence context, such as the provisions of
the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. In Defence,
decisions can also be made in exercise of command and employment powers.

Command power
2.15 The power of ADF members to command other ADF members is derived
from the authority to command given to the CDF and Service Chiefs in section 9 of
the Defence Act 1903, and is supported by the service offences of disobeying a
lawful command and failing to comply with a general order. The command power
provides significant authority in relation to directing the activities of subordinates. Its
content is informed by the common law and historical considerations, and is subject
to limits imposed in legislation. Directives issued by the CDF, Service Chiefs, or other
commanders in the ADF are an exercise of the command power. Performance
management of ADF members by ADF members is generally a command
responsibility.

Employment power
2.16 The power of APS supervisors (and ADF supervisors of APS employees) to
direct APS employees is derived from the Secretary’s employment powers in
section 20 of the Public Service Act 1999, and is supported by the APS Code of
Conduct requirement to comply with any lawful and reasonable direction.
Employment powers provide significant authority in relation to directing the activities
of APS employees. Their content is informed by common law and historical
considerations, as well as more recent legislative developments (such as the Fair
Work Act 2009 and the Public Service Act 1999). Directives issued by the Secretary
are an exercise of the Secretary’s power as an employer.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–6

Command and employment based decision-making vs legislative

decision-making
2.17 Command and employment based decision-making differs from legislative
decision-making in a number of important ways.

a. Command and employment powers give decision-makers a significant

amount of discretion. Legislative decision-making powers tend to be far more
limited.

b. More senior commanders or managers can direct subordinates in what

decisions they should make under the command and employment powers,
including through the use of directives or other policy documents. This is in
direct contrast to legislative decisions, which should not be subject to binding
direction.

c. Decisions made under command or employment powers are far more likely
than legislative decisions to be made intuitively, based on the
decision-maker’s experience, and often without even noticing that they are
making a decision. Legislative decisions are more likely to involve a more
formal analytic approach to decision-making.

2.18 Legal officers can provide advice to decision-makers who have questions
about the power to make particular decisions.

IDENTIFYING THE BEST DECISION-MAKER

2.19 A decision-maker must have legal authority to make a decision. Defence
policy also requires that certain matters be referred to specialist agencies within
Defence for investigation and decision. There are a number of other factors which
may also affect who the appropriate decision-maker is, illustrated in Figure 2.1.
These include:

a. actual or potential bias or conflicts of interest;

b. administrative issues including whether people, things or issues involved are

within decision-maker’s control, whether the matter involves other
workplaces, and, for matters involving multiple decisions, greater efficiency in
identifying a single decision-maker; and/or

c. whether the risks or consequences of a decision warrant referring it to a

person with higher rank/classification.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–7

Figure 2.1: Choosing a decision-maker

BIAS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

2.20 A decision-maker should not be biased. Bias is a tendency or inclination in
relation to a person or subject matter that means the decision-maker does not bring
an open mind to the question involved. For example, if a decision-maker has a very
strong view about a particular person’s integrity, it may be difficult to have an open
mind in any decision involving assertions by that person. If a decision-maker could
receive a personal benefit from a decision, they may have a tendency to prefer the
outcome that benefits them personally. Prejudice against particular groups (for
example due to sex, race, sexual preference etc) can lead to bias. We all have
opinions about various subjects, and we all make assumptions about people. This
only amounts to bias if the opinion or assumption is so strong that we are not open to
evidence that suggests that the opinion or assumption is wrong.

2.21 It is usually very difficult to show that a decision-maker is actually biased.

However, there should also be no ‘apprehension of bias’. This is where a reasonable
person could, in all the circumstances, think that the decision-maker has not brought
an open mind to the decision. This might be because of the decision-maker’s
comments or actions before, during or after the decision-making process, or because
of the decision-maker’s personal interest in the decision outcome.

2.22 A person would not be considered biased in this sense simply because they
are in an affected person’s chain of command, or are responsible for supervising an
affected person. Prior knowledge of or involvement in managing a matter does not
indicate bias, unless the person has expressed a pre-conceived opinion about a
decision that suggests that they would not be able to bring an open mind to the
decision. Making a decision or taking a course of action that someone disagrees with
does not mean that a person is biased, and a decision-maker is not required to
withdraw from a decision-making process simply because someone has made an
allegation of bias against them. More is required.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–8

2.23 Scenarios that may give rise to concerns about bias include:

a. The decision-maker has, or will have, a personal interest in the decision (that
is, there is a conflict of interest). For example, if it is alleged that the decision-
maker was personally involved in inappropriate behaviour, they should not be
making decisions about whether the behaviour occurred and what should be
done about it. Another example is a person with a personal stake in a
company involved in a procurement tender process – that person should not
decide who should be awarded the contract.

b. The decision-maker is related to or has a close friendship with someone who

is strongly involved in the matter (as opposed to a command or professional
interest). Given the nature of Defence, decision-makers may have attended
social functions with the subject of a decision – it is only if the decision-maker
has an ongoing and close relationship that this would give cause for concern.

c. A person senior to the decision-maker has exercised undue influence over

the subordinate decision-maker with respect to a prospective decision. This
can also be referred to as the principle that decision-makers should exercise
their own discretion, and not be dictated to (see above at subparagraph
2.13.b.). Some care must be taken with this scenario. Decisions made as an
exercise of command or employment powers are always subject to the
directions of superior commanders or managers. Bias should not be
assumed in every case. If this issue is of concern in a matter, it is
recommended to consult a legal officer.

d. The decision-maker has expressed a pre-conceived opinion about the

decision. This does not mean that a person is precluded from making
decisions about subjects about which they have expressed opinions. For
example, a stated intention to ‘crack down’ on alcohol-related behaviour does
not mean that a commander or manager cannot make decisions about
alcohol-related incidents. It is only if the statement relates to the particular
matter in question, or individuals involved in the matter, that this would be a
cause for concern.

e. The decision-maker is swayed by their own personal beliefs. A decision-

maker’s personal views on particular religious, moral or similar
considerations should not be allowed to affect a professional decision.

2.24 It is not always obvious whether an interest or relationship will amount to a

conflict of interest. It is always best to be as transparent as possible. In cases where
it is ambiguous whether there is a conflict of interest or a relevant personal
relationship, declaring the possibility early in the decision-making process gives
anyone who is concerned an opportunity to object, allowing for an informed decision
on whether it is necessary to refer the matter to someone else.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
2–9

INTEGRATED WORKPLACES
2.25 Defence is an increasingly integrated environment, with ADF personnel
working with APS employees and contractors. The situation is even more difficult in
the ADF Cadet organisations. For managers and supervisors it can be difficult to be
certain of the decision-making powers they have in relation to different people. The
following may assist:

a. Defence (Force) Regulations 1952 (DFR), Part II addresses command of

forces acting together. Regulation 4 provides CDF the power to make orders
that members or parts of the Services are acting together (DFR4 Orders) and
are entitled to exercise command in accordance with Part II of the DFR.
Copies of DFR4 orders can be found at:
http://intranet.defence.gov.au/dsg/sites/LegalResources/comweb.asp?page=
9408&Title=DFR4%20Orders;

b. Defence Instruction (General) ADMIN 58–1 – Authority in an Integrated

Defence Organisation has been jointly issued by the Secretary and CDF. It
provides guidance on the obligations to follow directions and instructions that
apply to different groups within Defence;

c. Australian Fleet General Orders – Part 1, Command;

d. Defence Instruction (Army) ADMIN 3–2 – Command, leadership and

management of Army personnel within the non-Army Groups outlines the
command and management arrangements for Army personnel in non-Army
Groups, including the powers of Army Area Representatives and
Administrative Commanding Officers;

e. Australian Air Publication (AAP) 1001.1 – Command and Control in the Royal
Australian Air Force and AAP 1002.0.1 – Command and Control of Air
Operation;

f. For contractors, the powers available to a supervisor or manager will depend

upon the exact terms and nature of the contract.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 3

FACT FINDING TO SUPPORT DECISIONS

WHAT IS FACT FINDING?
3.1 Fact finding is the process of collecting information to support decision-
making. It is incidental to decision-making. This chapter provides guidance for
commanders and other decision-makers to help them meet their fact finding needs.
One of the key principles to keep in mind is that the resources expended in fact
finding should be proportionate to the seriousness and possible consequences of
anticipated decisions.

3.2 Subject to any legislative or policy direction to the contrary, the fact finding
principles in this chapter can be applied from unit-level issues through to serious or
complex matters involving multiple Groups and Services. However, this chapter is not
directed at fact finding undertaken by specialist areas in Defence, investigations
under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA) or inquiries under the Defence
(Inquiry) Regulations 1985.

WHEN IS FACT FINDING REQUIRED?

Fact finding is an ongoing process
3.3 Fact finding is ongoing throughout the whole decision-making process. Fact
finding does not simply happen once, and a decision-maker should not assume that
a single fact finding activity has provided enough information to make the decision.
Fact finding is often an iterative process, where information gathered raises new
questions, which are then answered through further fact finding.

Uncertainty and fact finding

3.4 Decisions must often be made with incomplete information. It will rarely be
possible to be certain at the time a decision is made that the decision is ‘right’, or the
best decision. Fact finding can reduce uncertainty in decision-making. However, fact
finding also takes time and resources. The question of whether to engage in fact
finding, and how much fact finding is enough, will always be about balancing the
advantage of certainty with the disadvantage of spending time and resources.

3.5 A decision-maker should not be concerned that they do not have all possible
information, but only that they have sufficient information to make a reasonable
decision. An important point to remember is that there will always come a point when
the value of additional information obtained through fact finding will not justify the
time and resources spent obtaining it.

Considerations when deciding whether to undertake fact finding

3.6 With this in mind, a decision to undertake fact finding may involve answering
any or all of the following questions:

a. What outcome am I pursuing?

b. Is there any specific law or policy that requires me to undertake fact finding?
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–2

c. What information do I already have?

d. What are the criteria for making this decision?

e. What additional information do I want in order to assess these criteria?

f. How long will it take to get the information? How difficult will it be to obtain?

g. How much time do I have?

h. What resources do I have?

i. How important is the information likely to be to the decision?

j. What are the possible and likely consequences if I get this decision wrong?

3.7 If these questions are considered in a reasonable fashion, and records made
to justify why fact finding is or is not undertaken, then there will be a sound basis to
argue that the decision-maker has fulfilled any legal duty to inquire, and has made a
reasonable decision. Figure 3.1 illustrates the competing considerations when
deciding whether to undertake more fact finding.

Figure 3.1: Whether to do more fact finding – a balancing act

Decision-makers are responsible for fact finding

3.8 While fact finding is not always undertaken by a decision-maker personally,
fact finding is the responsibility of the decision-maker. Decision-makers should drive
the fact finding process by determining whether they have sufficient information or
require more information before making a decision, determine who will collect any
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–3

additional information, and should decide when fact finding stops. Directing another
person to undertake fact finding does not absolve a decision-maker of responsibility
for the decision, and decision-makers should actively consider whether there is
sufficient information to make a decision.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE ACT 1982

3.9 Matters that involve misconduct by ADF members may be dealt with as
service offences under the DFDA. Decision-makers should be aware that there are
particular legal requirements for investigating service offences, including providing
cautions and giving witnesses a right to silence. Information gathered outside the
DFDA investigation process will be of limited use when charging or trying a service
offence. Further, involvement by a commanding officer or other DFDA summary
authority in fact finding may have an effect on whether they are disqualified from
trying a service offence under section 108A of the DFDA or for reasons of bias.

3.10 Accordingly, if the intent is to treat ADF misconduct as a service offence,

care should be taken in fact finding outside of the DFDA investigation process.

3.11 Fact finding, as described in this chapter, may be useful when deciding
whether a matter should be reported or referred to the ADF Investigative Service or
Service Police (for example to meet the requirements of Defence Instruction
(General) ADMIN 45–2 – The reporting and management of notifiable incidents. It
may also be useful if dealing with a matter that involves both ADF and non-ADF
personnel, or where there are issues to be addressed beyond an individual’s
misconduct.

3.12 Legal officers can provide advice to decision-makers who have questions
about the relationship with the DFDA.

FACT FINDING OPTIONS

3.13 Fact finding activities can vary enormously, from simply asking a question or
looking something up, through to more formal inquiry processes. Fact finding
activities might include:

a. interviewing a witness;

b. requesting documents from a witness;

c. obtaining various Defence records, including PMKeyS records, corporate

files, security gate records, internet usage records;

d. considering Defence policy, legislative requirements, and other widely

available documents;

e. obtaining expert opinions;

f. site visits; and/or

g. examination of physical evidence.

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–4

3.14 Fact finding can be conducted with a great degree of flexibility, adapting the
process to the particular circumstances, and the various risks that might be
associated with the decisions in question.

3.15 Some examples of fact finding include:

a. Following an incident, a commanding officer directs an officer in the unit to

find out as much as possible about the incident, and to summarise the
information in a brief of no more than two pages before the end of the day,
with recommendations for any further action (including any further fact
finding).

b. On receiving an application for an allowance or benefit, a decision-maker

checks the information provided in the application against information in the
applicant’s PMKeyS records.

c. On receiving a complaint from a member of the public about an ADF

member’s behaviour in a public setting, a Service Chief directs an officer to
find out the circumstances of the incident, identify if any action is warranted
against the member, and to draft a response to the member of the public.

d. After reporting a security incident, a security officer receives a request for

additional information from the Defence Security Authority. In order to meet
the request for information, the security officer interviews two people involved
in the incident.

e. An APS manager receives a complaint from a staff member, alleging that two
other staff members (an ADF member and an APS employee) have engaged
in unacceptable behaviour. The APS manager asks another APS employee
from outside the team to interview the complainant, respondents, and any
witnesses, and to make recommendations about whether the matter should
be referred for APS Code of Conduct and ADF disciplinary or administrative
action (as relevant), and about whether any other action should be taken
within the team to prevent recurrence.

WHO UNDERTAKES FACT FINDING?

Decision-maker or fact finder?
3.16 Fact finding can be undertaken by a decision-maker personally. Fact finding
may also be part of a person’s ordinary duties, for example to inform the content of
briefs or correspondence prepared for someone else’s decision.

3.17 A decision-maker may also direct another person (a fact finder) to conduct
fact finding for them. A decision-maker can give a fact finder considerable discretion
about how they undertake the fact finding, or be quite specific about what the fact
finder is to do, for example by directing them to ask a particular individual certain
questions. Usually, the decision-maker will take an approach that is somewhere
between these two extremes. The decision-maker can decide on both the
appropriate fact finder and method of fact finding based on their understanding of the
issues, their information requirements, their experience as a supervisor or
commander, and their professional experience. Taking close control over fact finding
does not mean that a decision-maker has already formed a view on what the
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–5

decision will be, or is not open to new information. Knowledge of a matter obtained
through fact finding activities does not mean that a decision-maker cannot bring an
open mind to subsequent decisions.

3.18 The role of the fact finder is to support decision-makers. This is true whether
or not the decision-maker has directed the fact finding, or it is conducted in the
ordinary course of duties. A fact finder is responsible to the decision-maker, and
should follow directions given by the decision-maker. The material provided to the
decision-maker should be relevant, balanced, factual, and free of personal bias or
unsupported observations. A fact finder should also take care to refer to all
information related to a recommendation, including information that might contradict
the recommendation.

3.19 The decision-maker should decide what they want the fact finder to produce
and in what time frame. Directing someone to undertake fact finding activities is
similar to directing any staff member to undertake staff work. Responsibility for
decisions made on the basis of information collected during fact finding remains with
the decision-maker, not the fact finder. Accountability for decision-making does not
shift to the fact finder.

3.20 A decision-maker can decide to cease fact finding at any time, for example
because they consider they have sufficient information to make the decision.

Identifying an appropriate fact finder

3.21 A number of considerations may be relevant in identifying an appropriate fact
finder, including the nature of the matter, the experience or knowledge of the fact
finder, the fact finder’s availability, and the resources available.

3.22 As with the decision-maker, a fact finder should not have been personally
involved in the matter being looked into. There should be no potential for allegations
of actual or perceived bias against the fact finder, as this may affect the validity of
any subsequent decisions that rely on the information collected. Prior knowledge of
the issue or personnel involved does not disqualify someone from being a fact finder.
The threshold for actual or apprehended bias is high and must have some rational
basis. See above at paragraphs 2.20 to 2.24 for more information about bias.

FACT FINDING IN COMPLEX SITUATIONS

3.23 Fact finding can be very complicated when there are multiple decisions to be
made by a range of decision-makers, especially when the decision-makers are in
different Groups and Services. It may be necessary to meet the information
requirements of multiple decision-makers, but it may be possible to achieve this in an
efficient and coordinated manner by assessing the issues strategically and planning
for the needs of different decision-makers.

3.24 Some common examples of this type of scenario include:

a. where an incident occurs in an integrated work environment, involving APS,

ADF (often from more than one Service), and contractors;

b. where affected ADF members have posted out of the unit where an incident
occurred; and/or
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–6

c. where the response to an incident could involve policy responses from

multiple stakeholders, such as a safety incident that involves maintenance
practices, contract management, procurement issues, local safety
procedures, and the effect of a high operational tempo.

3.25 As far as possible, the various decision-makers and fact finders should
coordinate their decision-making and fact finding processes, and share information.
Different decision-makers will have different responsibilities, policy priorities, and
information requirements. However, there are several very good reasons for
decision-makers to share information and coordinate fact finding activities. For
example, this type of coordination can reduce duplication of effort. As well as saving
time and resources, another benefit is to reduce the emotional burden on witnesses
(who might otherwise have been interviewed several times).

3.26 Privacy and security considerations may limit the extent to which information
can be shared. In some cases, different time imperatives or different decision-making
criteria will make coordination of fact finding impractical. However, where possible,
the needs of other decision-makers should be considered and catered for when
planning fact finding. Possible solutions are for someone senior to all (or most) of the
relevant decision-makers to direct the fact finding, or for fact finding to be phased so
that immediate information requirements are satisfied before systemic or deeper
structural issues are considered.

3.27 Another issue that may increase the complexity of a situation, and the need
to take a coordinated approach to fact finding, is where one or more person involved
in the matter requires some form of specialist support. For example, where a witness
has been the victim of sexual misconduct, it may be desirable to coordinate with the
Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response Office (SeMPRO) to arrange support
for the witness in the course of the fact finding.

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

3.28 Defence personnel engaged in fact finding are able to request any person to
attend an interview, to ask any person any question, or to request any person to
supply documents or other evidence, provided the question or evidence relates to or
involves the work of Defence.

3.29 If the questions relate to a person’s ordinary work for Defence, it would be
expected that most people will be cooperative and help to resolve issues. In most
cases, people will cooperate with fact finders even when there is no legal obligation
to do so. People are far more likely to provide information to a fact finder if the fact
finder:

a. informs them of the importance of the request;

b. explains the purpose of the fact finding for the unit or workplace;

c. advises them of the support of the supervisor, manager or commander; and

d. does not threaten or demand.

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–7

3.30 If a fact finder requires some way to compel people to cooperate with fact
finding activities, the following may assist:

a. An ADF member can be ordered by a superior officer (who may or may not
be the relevant decision-maker or fact finder) to attend an interview, to
answer questions, or to produce documents or other evidence (this might be
phrased in terms of cooperating with a fact finder). ADF members who are
supervised by an APS employee are also required to follow their reasonable
directions. Discipline and/or administrative action may be taken against an
ADF member who disobeys an order or direction of this nature. As a matter
of policy, ADF members should not be ordered to answer a question if this
could lead to the member being charged with an offence under civilian
criminal law or the DFDA (the rule against self incrimination), or to answer a
question where there is some other reasonable excuse for not doing so.

b. An APS employee may be directed by someone who has authority to direct

the employee (who may or may not be the relevant decision-maker or fact
finder) to attend an interview, to answer questions or to produce documents
or other evidence (this might be phrased in terms of cooperating with a fact
finder). APS supervisors and line management, ADF supervisors of APS
employees, and other people given authority by the Secretary have authority
to direct APS employees. APS Code of Conduct action may be taken against
an APS employee who does not comply. A direction to an APS employee
must be lawful and reasonable, and does not include the power to direct an
APS employee to answer a question that could lead to them being charged
with an offence (the rule against self-incrimination), or where there is some
other reasonable excuse for them not to do so.

c. The terms of a contract with a contractor may require them to cooperate

with fact finders, including attending interviews, answering questions or
producing documents. The relevant contract manager will be able to advise
on the terms of a particular contract.

d. There is no general legal authority to compel other people to cooperate,

including members of the public, family of ADF members, and ADF Cadets.

LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FACT FINDERS

3.31 There is no general legislative protection for the activities of decision-makers
and fact finders (although protection is available in some specific situations, such as
when conducting an inquiry under the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985). However,
provided a decision-maker or fact finder acts reasonably and responsibly in all the
circumstances, they are unlikely to incur civil or criminal liability. As a general rule, it
will be sufficient if the fact finder’s actions did not involve serious or wilful misconduct
or culpable negligence. If a fact finder or decision-maker is undertaking work
responsibilities and acting professionally, there is no need for legislated protections.

MECHANICS OF FACT FINDING

3.32 This section provides guidance on how to conduct fact finding. While much of
it is directed at the ‘fact finder’, it is equally applicable to fact finding conducted
personally by a decision-maker. Figure 3.2 illustrates a process for fact finding that
involves a separate decision-maker and fact finder.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–8

Figure 3.2: A process for fact finding

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–9

Scope and purpose

3.33 When tasking a fact finder, or when undertaking fact finding personally, it is
important to be clear about the scope and purpose of the fact finding. This can done
through a brief written statement (sometimes called Terms of Reference), which sets
out the purpose of the fact finding and the bounds of the process. This degree of
formality is not required, although it is good practice to record something of this
nature in writing (such as in an email).

3.34 When tasking a fact finder, a decision-maker should be clear about:

a. the reason for the fact finding;

b. the scope of the fact finder’s role;

c. length of time available for fact finding;

d. the end-product required (including the level of detail required);

e. the decision-maker’s tolerance for risk versus the need for certainty;

f. whether findings and/or recommendations are to be made by the fact finder;

and

g. what to do if the unexpected occurs (such as witnesses refusing to cooperate

or criminal or disciplinary offences coming to light).

3.35 If a fact finder is unclear about the scope and purpose of their task, they
should seek guidance from the decision-maker (whether or not they were directly
tasked or are undertaking fact finding as part of their ordinary duties).

Planning fact finding tasks

3.36 The more complex a fact finding exercise becomes, the more important it is
to develop a plan. The following matters should be considered when planning fact
finding:

a. Identifying the issues. Fact finders need to understand what they are
required to look into. This allows the fact finder to obtain evidence relevant to
the decision-maker. It also allows the fact finder and decision-maker to
understand when to stop the fact finding process.

b. Identifying witnesses. The fact finder should think about the witnesses they
want to interview in relation to this matter. This will initially be through the
information the fact finder has available to them. More witnesses may be
identified during the process. Consideration should be given to the number,
location and availability of witnesses as well as the manner in which any
interviews will be conducted and recorded. Interviews may be face to face,
over the phone, or by email. If the matter involves vulnerable witnesses, such
as minors or victims of sexual misconduct, fact finders should consider
whether any additional steps should be taken to support them throughout the
fact finding process.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–10

c. Identifying relevant documents and evidence. The fact finder should

consider the documents or things they need to obtain in relation to the matter
and how this will be done. This will initially be through the information the fact
finder has available to them as well as the general Service or Defence
knowledge of the fact finder. Fact finders should consider where the
documentation or evidence is kept, who can provide copies or access, and
how long this will take. More documentation or evidence may be identified
during the process. Any documentation or evidence collected should be
retained.

d. Time. Fact finders should also be aware of the time and resources available
to them and plan their fact finding to meet these constraints. Matters which
have serious consequences may need more time invested than matters with
less serious consequences. The fact finder should exercise their judgement
to decide priorities and resources, and assess the risks and returns. Fact
finders should also factor in time for any procedural requirements if they are
likely to make adverse findings against individuals (see chapter 4 below on
procedural fairness). Time estimates should be reasonable and should
anticipate delays. Most people would agree that fact finding often takes
longer than we expect.

e. Assessing risks to complainants. In rare cases, fact finding will be into a

complaint where the complainant is at risk of reprisals against them because
they have complained. In this situation, a fact finder will need to take care
that they do not exacerbate this risk. One option would be to avoid identifying
the complainant to the subject of the complaint, although this approach may
limit the extent to which the complaint can be addressed, as it may make it
difficult to obtain both sides of the story. Other options include ordering or
directing the subject of the complaint not to approach or attempt to influence
the complainant, or to remove one person from the immediate work
environment while the matter is dealt with. This issue may also apply to other
witnesses throughout the fact finding process.

f. Considering legal requirements. The planning phase is a good opportunity

to consider whether there are any legal requirements that may have an effect
on how the fact finding progresses. These might include, for example,
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988, or obligations to provide procedural
fairness. These are ongoing issues throughout the whole decision-making
process, including fact finding. It is good practice to identify these issues at
an early stage so that they can be dealt with effectively as the matter
progresses.

INTERVIEWING WITNESSES
3.37 A primary source of information and evidence relevant to fact finding is the
recollection of people who have seen, heard or otherwise perceived events relevant
to the incident (witnesses). As well as being able to provide information, they may
have relevant expertise or may be able to authenticate a relevant document or thing.
It is not necessary to conduct a formal interview for all witnesses. Depending on the
nature of the fact finding task, simply holding informal conversations or sending out
some email queries might be appropriate. For serious matters, especially where
evidence is likely to be controversial, a more formal approach may be preferable.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–11

3.38 A formal interview will typically involve: preparing for the interview,
conducting the interview, recording the evidence, and assessing the witness’s
statement.

Preparing for the interview

3.39 Preparing for an interview is essential to ensure that the interview is
comprehensive, that all matters that should be commented on by this witness are
addressed, and that the interview is as focused and concise as it can be. It may be
useful to prepare a list of issues that need to be addressed with the witness,
including reviewing the existing evidence and anticipating all issues that the witness
can relevantly comment on. This list can be reviewed before, during, and at the end
of the interview to ensure that relevant matters are appropriately dealt with. Pay
attention to the witness’s answers and be prepared to address new areas which
come up during interview. In some cases, it may be necessary to interview a single
witness more than once, although good preparation will reduce this possibility.

Conducting the interview

3.40 At the outset of a formal interview, a witness should be advised of the
purpose of the interview, and provided information about their obligations in terms of
when they must answer questions, the consequences of not answering questions,
and how the information collected in the interview might be used. Witnesses should
not be ambushed – if the intent is to conduct a formal interview about a witness’ own
conduct, the witness should be advised beforehand, unless this could lead to
tampering with evidence or other witnesses.

3.41 In some cases, a witness will request that a support person attend with them.
This should usually be permitted, provided the support person is not a key witness in
the matter, is not responsible for any part of the fact finding process, and provided
the witness answers the questions themselves. The role of the support person is to
provide a physical presence in support of the witness, and to observe the interview
on behalf of the witness. Occasionally, the fact finder should proactively arrange a
support person for the witness, especially where the interview or fact finding process
more generally could traumatise or ‘re-victimise’ a witness. In particular:

a. If the witness is a minor and the interview will be about the minor’s conduct,
an incident where the minor might have been a victim, or any other incident
that could cause emotional trauma to the minor, a parent or other adult who
is acceptable to the minor should attend as a support person.

b. If the witness is a possible victim of sexual misconduct, the fact finder should
consider contacting the SeMPRO for advice on interacting with the witness,
and to arrange appropriate support for the witness. This is especially
important if the subject of the interview is related to the sexual misconduct. A
witness’s details should only be provided to SeMPRO if the witness
consents.

3.42 The fact finder’s aim is to obtain the witness’s own account of relevant
events, unaffected by other issues and influences (including from the fact finder or
support person). For this reason, it is good to ask non-leading questions (eg What
happened? Who was it?). Leading questions can inappropriately influence the
witness’s response (eg Was it CPL X?). Leading questions may, however, be useful
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–12

for efficiently recording information on matters that are not in issue or for clarifying
points raised by the witness (eg Do you agree the time is now eleven am? Are you
saying that this happened in the morning?). Evidence may be less reliable if it is
given in response to leading questions only, rather than allowing the witness to give
their own account.

3.43 Regardless of the questions asked, a fact finder should always be courteous
and respectful, and not harass the witness.

3.44 At the end of the interview, ask the witness the following questions to ensure
they have provided all the information they are aware of and that they accept the way
in which the interview was conducted:

a. Is there anything further you wish to say about the matter?

b. Do you have any complaints about the way the interview has been
conducted?

Recording a witness’s evidence

3.45 When recording a witness’s statement, fact finders should capture as closely
as possible that person’s own account.

3.46 The nature of the record will depend on the circumstances of the person, the
interview, and the evidence the witness provides. In many situations, simply taking
notes throughout the interview will provide a sufficient record. However, the more
controversial a witness’s evidence is likely to be, the more important it is to have a
more reliable record that records a witness’s evidence in their own words rather than
summarising or paraphrasing it.

3.47 Taped interviews provide the greatest accuracy and allow the fact finder to
concentrate on the interview rather than trying to write down pertinent points. The
taped record also provides protection for both the fact finder and witness after the
interview, for example if there are allegations that that fact finder’s conduct in the
interview amounted to bullying, or if the witness disputes the fact finder’s account of
what was said. If an interview is to be taped, the fact finder should inform the witness
and explain why at the outset of the interview. If the witness objects, the fact finder
can obtain legal advice about whether they can tape the interview without consent
(the rules on this differ between States and Territories). In most cases, if a witness
objects to taping an interview, it would be simpler to use an alternative method to
record the interview.

3.48 In situations where it is not possible or practical to tape an interview (for

example because of the costs and delays associated with transcribing the tape),
another option is to prepare a written statement or record of interview. A witness
should review the written record after the interview and confirm that it reflects their
statement by signing the document.

3.49 An interview record should include:

a. time, date and location of the interview;

b. brief details of the matter being looked into;

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–13

c. details of everyone present (including the fact finder and any support
person);

d. details of the witness’s name, PMKeys or employee number, other relevant

identifying information; and

e. the witness’s consent to taping of the interview (if it is being taped).

3.50 Witness statements or other interview records should be handled with

sensitivity, awareness of privacy concerns, and appropriately classified.

Assessing witness’s evidence

3.51 Most witnesses will tell the truth as they see it. However, fact finders should
take into account the fallibility of human observation and memory. Even a truthful
witness can provide an inaccurate statement in some matters. Matters which affect
the reliability of the account include:

a. how far away the witness was from the relevant incidents;

b. physical conditions such as whether it was night time, what was the lighting
like;

c. the period of time over which the observation was made;

d. how long ago the incidents occurred; and

e. observation skills of the witness – different people will notice different things.

3.52 Occasionally, a witness will give an intentionally false account. Some

witnesses will give accurate evidence about some things and false evidence about
others. Even if the fact finder feels the witness is not being accurate or truthful the
statement should be recorded for a comprehensive report, evidence of inconsistency,
and to allow the decision-maker to assess the evidence themselves.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS

3.53 Subject matter experts can provide essential information, especially in
matters that involve a technical issue or area. In some cases, a subject matter expert
may be directed to undertake fact finding themselves, or to assist a fact finder. In
other cases, they may be a witness in the fact finding.

3.54 Any subject matter expert should be selected after consideration of the
person’s standing, qualifications, capabilities and relevant experience. Information
relating to these should be retained. If you ask a subject matter expert to provide an
opinion, a copy of the information supplied to the subject matter expert should be
retained. You will also need to consider if there is any possibility of an allegation of
bias because of the use of that particular subject matter expert.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
3–14

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN FACT FINDING

3.55 In most cases, it will not be necessary to provide procedural fairness during
fact finding. However, if a fact finder intends to make adverse findings against an
individual (including that a witness was not credible), procedural fairness may be
required.

3.56 Chapter 4 below addresses procedural fairness requirements in decision-

making (including during fact finding).

REPORTING ON FACT FINDING OUTCOMES

3.57 Reporting fact finding outcomes to a decision-maker is no different from any
other situation when briefing a decision-maker.

3.58 Chapter 6 below provides information about briefing decision-makers.

FACT FINDING AND PRIVACY

3.59 Fact finding will often involve the collection, storage, use and disclosure of
personal information about individuals. These matters are governed by the Privacy
Act 1988, and in particular the Australian Privacy Principles in Schedule 1 of that
legislation. Decision-makers and fact finders should take particular care when dealing
with sensitive personal information, such as health information.

3.60 Information about Defence’s privacy obligations is available at the Defence

Privacy Knowledge site, and through the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner.

3.61 An obligation that will arise frequently in the fact finding context is to notify
individuals of certain matters when Defence collects their personal information
(Australian Privacy Principle 5). One option is to provide witnesses with a privacy
notice during interviews.

3.62 Decision-makers and fact finders who would like advice about their privacy
obligations should contact Complaint Resolution or a legal officer.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 4

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
WHAT IS PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?
4.1 Procedural fairness is a legal principle that applies to some types of
decision-making. It is frequently described in terms of two requirements:

a. The bias rule, which is discussed above at paragraphs 2.20 to 2.24.

b. The hearing rule, which is the subject of this chapter.

4.2 In essence, the hearing rule is that a person who is adversely affected by a
decision is not surprised by the decision, or by the information that the decision-
maker has relied on, and that they have an opportunity to be heard in relation to the
matter before the decision is made.

4.3 While we talk about a hearing ‘rule’, as with most other aspects of decision-
making, the application of this principle is extremely flexible. For most decisions, a
decision-maker has considerable leeway in how they meet any procedural fairness
obligation.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

4.4 Procedural fairness exists to ensure a fair decision-making process, giving
individuals an opportunity to know the case against them and answer it. It also serves
an important purpose for decision-makers. Giving an individual an opportunity to
present their case can be seen as a type of fact finding – ensuring that competing
versions of events can be considered by the decision-maker. Decision-makers
should look at procedural fairness as an opportunity to improve the reliability of their
decisions, rather than as an onerous obligation.

WHEN DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

Legal requirements to provide procedural fairness
4.5 Procedural fairness is not legally required for all decisions. Unfortunately,
there are no hard and fast rules for when it is legally required. The following may
assist:

a. Procedural fairness requirements only apply to decisions that could adversely

affect an individual, as opposed to decisions that apply to a general class of
people or decisions about policy content. Decisions about individuals that do
not have an adverse effect do not require procedural fairness as a matter of
law.

b. Most legislative decisions that could adversely affect an individual are subject
to procedural fairness requirements. This category includes, for example,
ADF termination decisions under the Defence Act 1903 and Defence
(Personnel) Regulations 2002, decisions on whether a member should
receive a particular benefit under a section 58B determination, a decision to
suspend an ADF member from duty under the Defence Force Discipline Act
1982 (DFDA), and APS Code of Conduct decisions. However, some
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–2

legislative decisions do not require procedural fairness in order to be lawful,

for example enlistment/appointment decisions, posting decisions and
promotion decisions under the Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002.

c. Many other decisions, including decisions made under command or

employment powers, are unlikely to require procedural fairness as a matter of
law. In particular, this includes urgent decisions with a genuine operational
imperative, where a decision needs to be made quickly to ensure security,
safety, efficiency or welfare of personnel. Decisions to remove an ADF
member from an area of operations, for example, do not require procedural
fairness in order to be lawful.

d. It may be necessary to provide procedural fairness before making a

statement or finding about an individual that reflects poorly on their reputation
or credibility. This is most likely to occur in the context of fact finding, when a
fact finder presents adverse findings to a decision-maker (see below at
paragraphs 4.31 to 4.38 for more details about procedural fairness in fact
finding).

Policy requirements to provide procedural fairness

4.6 Many Defence documents include procedural fairness processes in relation
to particular types of decision. Defence decision-makers should comply with these
requirements.

Procedural fairness as good management practice

4.7 Even if there is no legal or policy requirement to provide procedural fairness,
decision-makers may choose to do so as a matter of good management practice. For
example, a decision-maker may want to ensure that they have heard more than one
side of a story before making decisions, or because the procedural fairness process
can be a good way to manage expectations. Decision-makers may also want to
ensure that they treat affected individuals fairly, which may be particularly relevant in
the context of some command decisions that have a significantly adverse effect on
an individual. The following are some questions that may be relevant when deciding
whether to provide procedural fairness, even though there may be no legal or policy
requirement to do so:

a. Will this decision adversely affect an individual?

b. How serious are any adverse consequences likely to be, for both the
individual and the organisation?

c. How urgent is the decision?

d. How surprised is the individual likely to be by the decision?

e. What process is reasonable for me to follow in the circumstances?

f. Will there be a record of any adverse finding, including on a personnel record

or similar?
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–3

g. How long will any adverse effect last?

h. Can the decision be easily reversed if I make a mistake?

HOW TO PROVIDE PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

4.8 Procedural fairness involves providing an individual with information, giving
them an opportunity to comment on it, and considering any response before making
a decision. Figure 4.1 illustrates a process that can be followed to provide procedural
fairness.

Figure 4.1: A process for providing procedural fairness

Specific process identified in legislation or policy

4.9 Some legislation or policy dealing with a decision will outline a specific
procedural fairness process that must be followed before making that decision. In
these cases, the decision-maker should ensure that the process has been followed.
Examples include the termination processes in regulations 85 and 87 of the Defence
(Personnel) Regulations 2002. Typically, a legislative or policy process will require
that the individual be provided with a written notice outlining the proposed decision
and any adverse information, and be given a specified period in which to comment.

4.10 In most cases, following the prescribed process will be sufficient to meet
procedural obligations. Occasionally, however, additional information will become
available after a person has responded to the written notice, or a decision-maker may
want to take a different approach to what was outlined in the written notice (or even
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–4

make a different decision). If this occurs, it may be necessary to provide a further

opportunity to comment before making a decision.

Where there is no specific process in legislation or policy, the process should

be adapted to the circumstances
4.11 If there is no specific process outlined in legislation or policy,
decision-makers may design a process adapted to the circumstance. The process
followed should be reasonable in all the circumstances. Relevant factors may include
how much information is being provided to the individual, how serious any possible
adverse consequences are, whether the decision is urgent, and how much time it is
reasonable to spend on the decision.

4.12 Procedural fairness can be provided orally, in the course of a conversation or

interview. This approach can be much quicker than providing a written notice and
waiting for a written response. Some situations where it might be preferable are:

a. When engaging in performance management involving minor misconduct,

procedural fairness for findings of misconduct can be provided in a
counselling discussion;

b. When considering adverse findings against an individual during fact finding,

procedural fairness for those findings can be provided during an interview; or

c. When making command decisions that need to be made quickly.

4.13 If providing procedural fairness in the course of a conversation or interview, it

is important to ensure that an accurate record is kept of the information that was
provided to the individual, and their response. A significant rank differential between
the people involved in the interview may affect an individual’s ability to reasonably
respond to the information provided.

4.14 Alternatively, procedural fairness can be provided in writing. This approach

may be preferable when dealing with a significant amount of information that may
take the individual some time to consider and respond to. Sometimes, a written
notice is simply more convenient to administer.

4.15 A written notice should identify a reasonable timeframe for the individual to
respond. Factors to consider include: the complexity and seriousness of the matter
and its consequences, the amount of material the member will need to consider and
respond to, the demands of the work environment, the urgency of the proposed
decision, and the time since any incident occurred. A request for additional time
should be considered on its merits, balancing the various considerations.

4.16 The process followed may involve some combination of oral and written
methods. For example, the issues may be raised orally during an interview, but an
opportunity provided to make a written response within a specified period. Another
example is to provide written notice ahead of an interview, foreshadowing the matters
that will be raised during the interview for the individual to respond to.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–5

WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO AN INDIVIDUAL?

4.17 The information that should be provided to an individual will vary significantly,
but the underlying principle is that the individual should not be surprised when the
decision is made.

Decisions in response to an application

4.18 If a decision is to be made in response to an application, such as when a
person applies for a benefit, the applicant is usually responsible for providing all
relevant information as part of the application. It can be assumed that the individual is
familiar with the criteria for the decision, and with the information they have provided,
so it will rarely be necessary to provide any information to the individual before
making a decision, even if it is adverse. However, if the decision-maker considers
any information that was not provided as part of the application, and which is adverse
to the application, that information should be provided to the individual before making
a decision and comment sought.

Decisions initiated by Defence

4.19 Most adverse decisions are likely to be initiated by Defence, rather than by a
person submitting an application. A common example is administrative sanctions
against ADF members. In this situation, it should be assumed that the individual is
not familiar with anything to do with the decision. The information that should be
provided is:

a. that a particular decision is, or decisions are, being considered;

b. possible effects of the decision(s) under consideration;

c. the identity of the proposed decision-maker;

d. the authority to make the decision and any relevant Defence policy
documents that are available on the DRN or otherwise (it will usually be
sufficient to provided a reference to policy documents, unless the person
does not have access to the DRN or other relevant service);

e. the reason the decision/s are being considered; and

f. any information that has been or will be considered when making the
decision/s, and how that information is relevant to the decision under
consideration.

Findings or statements adverse to credibility / reputation

4.20 If a fact finder is considering making a finding or statement about an
individual that is adverse to their reputation or credibility, it should be assumed that
the individual is not familiar with anything to do with the proposed finding or
statement. The information that should be provided to the individual is:

a. that a particular finding is being considered;

b. the context in which a finding will be made, including who is likely to have
access to the finding;
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–6

c. the reason the finding is being considered; and

d. any information that has been or will be considered when making the finding,
and how that information is relevant to the finding under consideration.

Form of information provided to individual

4.21 The level of detail provided to an individual will vary. Individuals should have
a genuine opportunity to engage with the issues and information, and provide a
response.

4.22 One option is to provide copies of specific information under consideration,

such as a copy of the member’s conduct record or an extract of an interview
transcript. If there is a significant volume of information, the individual should also be
provided with a summary of the information and its relevance to the decision, in order
to have a fair opportunity to respond.

4.23 It may not always be reasonable to provide copies directly (for example, if the
materials contain a considerable amount of national security information). The
information should be summarised to provide the individual with a fair opportunity to
understand and respond to it, regardless of whether copies are provided directly.

Privacy/security/confidentiality considerations
4.24 While individuals need to have a fair opportunity to comment on adverse
information, this requirement should be balanced against the need to protect the
privacy of other individuals, the confidentiality of some information, and the security
of some information. If adverse information relevant to a decision is confidential for
any reason, the individual should be provided with as much information as
reasonably possible. Decision-makers should also be aware that they should
generally not give as much weight to adverse information if the affected individual
has not been given an opportunity to comment on it for this reason.

4.25 In general, the identity of a complainant or witness who has made an

allegation against an individual or has provided evidence against an individual should
be made known to that individual. However, if there is a risk that the individual might
take reprisals against the complainant or witness, or otherwise take action to
discourage the complainant or witness to provide evidence, then it may at times be
appropriate to protect their identity.

WHO SHOULD PROVIDE PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

4.26 Procedural fairness does not need to be provided personally by a decision-
maker. A very common approach in legislation and policy is to outline a process
where an ‘initiating authority’ provides a written notice, while a separate ‘imposing
authority’ makes the decision. If there is no specific requirement in legislation or
policy to separate these two roles, then the process can be adapted to the
circumstances. The roles can be separated, or not, based on what is administratively
convenient.

4.27 Even if the decision-maker does not provide procedural fairness personally,
they should satisfy themselves that it has been provided before making the decision.
A failure to provide procedural fairness will affect the validity of the final decision, so it
is the decision-maker’s responsibility to ensure that it has occurred if necessary.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–7

CONSIDERING THE INDIVIDUAL’S RESPONSE

4.28 Any response by the individual must be considered, whether provided in
writing or in the course of a conversation or interview. The decision-maker should
engage with the individual’s response in a meaningful way – if any submission or
information provided by the individual is to be rejected, there should be reasons. If a
statement of reasons is prepared, it should include the reasons why any submission
or information provided by the individual was rejected.

4.29 In some cases, an individual’s response will raise further issues, which may
warrant additional fact finding before making a decision.

4.30 If new facts or information come to light after an individual has provided a
response, or if the decision-maker decides to take a different approach to the
decision (or even make a completely different decision), it may be necessary to
provide additional procedural fairness before making the decision. The key question
is whether the individual will be surprised by the new information or approach taken
in the decision.

FACT FINDING AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

4.31 As outlined above, an adverse finding against an individual’s credibility or
reputation may attract procedural fairness obligations, including in a fact finding
process. However, if a fact finder does not make any adverse findings then there is
no requirement to provide procedural fairness.

4.32 At the outset of any fact finding activity, the fact finder should consider
whether they will be providing advice of findings, or simply providing advice as to
options.

Findings about conduct

4.33 Findings that an individual has engaged in particular conduct may affect their
reputation. This type of finding is usually directly relevant to the matter under
consideration. Examples include finding that an individual has engaged in
unacceptable behaviour, or finding that an individual was responsible for causing an
accident. A finding of this nature may attract procedural fairness obligations.

4.34 However, if the fact finder is simply providing advice as to options, rather
than making firm findings that an individual has engaged in particular conduct, then it
may not be necessary to provide procedural fairness in the course of the fact finding.

4.35 For example, advice that ‘there is evidence that the individual engaged in
particular conduct, and I recommend that you consider imposing a sanction against
the individual’ is not a finding, and does not attract procedural fairness obligations. Of
course, if the decision-maker wishes to rely on the evidence obtained by the fact
finder to make a decision adverse to the individual, they would have to provide
procedural fairness in relation to that decision.

4.36 In this type of scenario, it is a matter for the decision-maker and fact finder
whether the fact finder should make findings, and whether the fact finder should
provide procedural fairness as part of the fact finding activity. If procedural fairness is
provided during a fact finding activity, it does not mean that procedural fairness does
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
4–8

not need to be provided in relation to any subsequent decision. However, despite the
possibility of duplication, providing procedural fairness during fact finding can result in
more reliable fact finding outcomes.

Findings about credibility

4.37 In some cases, a fact finder may consider that a witness has lied during the
course of fact finding, and make a finding to that effect. A finding of adverse
credibility of this nature relates to the individual’s conduct during the fact finding. This
type of finding is almost certain to attract procedural fairness obligations.

4.38 Fact finders should consider other reasons why a witness’s evidence may be
inconsistent with other evidence. In general, a finding that a person is mistaken does
not require procedural fairness.

CONSEQUENCES OF NOT PROVIDING PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

4.39 Where there is a legal or policy obligation to provide procedural fairness, a
failure to do so may mean that the decision is invalid.

4.40 If procedural fairness is only considered necessary as good management

practice, a decision is unlikely to be invalid. However, the decision may be subject to
criticism on review.

4.41 A failure to provide procedural fairness when making a decision can usually
be corrected by revoking the decision, providing procedural fairness, and re-making
the decision. If an individual seeks review of the decision, for example through the
ADF redress of grievance process, procedural fairness can sometimes be provided
through the review process, and the decision re-made in that context. We suggest
consulting a legal officer if a decision appears to have been made without meeting
any procedural fairness requirements.

4.42 A failure to provide procedural fairness during fact finding means that the
affected finding should not be directly relied upon by a decision-maker. However, the
decision-maker can rely on any information collected by a fact finder to make their
own finding based on the evidence.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSING INFORMATION
5.1 When making a decision, decision-makers analyse relevant information and
material, deciding how much weight to give it, what information is most reliable, and
whether there is any information that should not be relied on.

5.2 We do this quite intuitively all the time, but a more analytic approach is often
required. This chapter provides some tools to assist in analysing information in this
way. It is neither prescriptive nor comprehensive – personnel with specialist skills or
training should feel free to use analytic tools from their own field of expertise.

STANDARD OF PROOF – HOW CERTAIN DO I NEED TO BE?

5.3 Decision-makers are rarely completely certain of all the facts before they
make a decision. This is normal. When we analyse information relevant to a decision,
we will rarely be certain of what information is reliable. A standard of proof is a legal
concept that describes how certain a decision-maker needs to be.

5.4 In the context of decision-making in Defence, lawyers will often talk about the
standard of proof being the ‘balance of probabilities’. This legal test essentially asks
decision-makers to determine what probably happened, or what is probably true (as
opposed to being certain of what happened). Lawyers will also talk about the
‘Briginshaw test’. This is essentially the principle that the more serious the
consequences, the more certain of the facts the decision-maker should be.

5.5 The key question when applying these principles is whether, in all the
circumstances, it would be reasonable to make the decision on the basis of the
information available. Factors that may be relevant to this question include the
possible consequences of the decision, the possible consequences of not making the
decision, and how urgent the decision is.

COMMON TYPES OF INFORMATION

Witness statements
5.6 Witness statements from people who have witnessed an event, or are
otherwise involved, can be persuasive, particularly if taken reasonably soon after any
relevant events to be considered by the decision-maker. However, individuals giving
statements may not be aware of all of the facts or may not have been asked all
relevant questions.

Documentary evidence
5.7 Documentary evidence may include:

a. written documents;

b. data stored on computers;

c. email and other electronic communications;

d. recordings (audio & video);

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
5–2

e. photographs; and/or

f. text messages.

5.8 While documentary evidence can appear more reliable than witness
statements, a decision-maker should be aware that documents are prepared by
individuals and subject to human error. The reliability of documentary evidence can
be affected by a number of factors including:

a. the date of composition;

b. the purpose or context of the document;

c. the author of the document;

d. the contents of the document;

e. how the document was obtained;

f. whether, when, and by whom the document has been amended or edited;
and

g. whether the author or any people referred to in a document are available to

clarify the purpose or circumstances of the documentary evidence.

Physical evidence
5.9 Objects or things that exist in the world (as opposed to being written down or
in someone’s memory) are physical evidence. Tyre tracks and a spent cartridge are
examples of physical evidence. Physical evidence can be a very reliable source of
information, although some care should be taken in drawing inferences from it. It is
also important that an item of physical evidence can be reliably tracked to its source
– for example, that a blown tyre is able to be reliably tracked to the vehicle involved
in an accident.

Expert evidence
5.10 Expert evidence is an opinion provided by a person who is an expert in a
particular subject matter, usually due to particular qualifications or experience. Expert
evidence is generally provided to assist in determining a particular issue. Typically,
an expert would consider documents, physical evidence and other information
provided to them, and provide an opinion about a particular issue on the basis of that
information. Factors that may affect the reliability of expert evidence include the
nature of an expert’s specialist knowledge and whether the opinion goes beyond that
area of expertise, and whether the expert has received all relevant information about
a matter before providing their opinion. Weighing competing expert opinions against
each other can be challenging. Expert evidence is simply one person’s opinion, albeit
from a position of particular expertise, so expert evidence can be accepted or not
accepted, either in whole or in part.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
5–3

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN MAKING A DECISION

Relevance
5.11 If a particular fact or piece of information is relevant, then it should be
considered. A decision-maker should always seek to obtain evidence that is relevant
to the facts in issue and disregard information that is irrelevant. The first task in
analysing the evidence will often be to determine whether evidence is relevant or
irrelevant to the decision.

Best evidence
5.12 The best evidence of any particular fact is an original source – that is, an eye
witness rather than hearsay evidence, or an original document rather than a copy.
Decision-makers need not wait until the best evidence is available, as it may never
be, but should be aware of whether their decision is being made on the best
evidence or not and, if not, whether this affects the reliability of the information.

Hearsay
5.13 Hearsay evidence is a report by one person of what another person has said
about the facts alleged. Hearsay evidence is generally regarded as less reliable than
evidence given by someone who has first-hand knowledge of the facts alleged.

Corroboration
5.14 Information is more able to be treated as reliable if it is corroborated by other
evidence. So, if other evidence demonstrates substantial agreement among people
or otherwise supports certain facts and circumstances, the decision-maker is likely to
be justified in giving greater weight to those facts in making a decision.

INFERENTIAL REASONING
5.15 Some facts can be logically inferred or deduced from other facts. In some
cases, an inference will be fairly indisputable. For example, if a person was working
overseas in 2011 and was working in Canberra in 2013, it could be inferred that they
had travelled back to Australia some time between those dates. Other inferences are
rebuttable. For example, racist material on an ADF member’s Facebook page could
lead to an inference that the ADF member has racist views. However, information
about the author of the information and how much control the ADF member has over
what goes on the Facebook page could be used to rebut this inference. If inferring
facts in this way, decision-makers should be clear about what facts they have
inferred from what information, and should be aware of how strong the inference is.

ASSESSING CREDIBILITY
5.16 Decision-makers should use commonsense and experience to determine the
credibility and reliability of witness statements and other evidence. When there are
conflicting versions of a factual matter it does not necessarily follow that someone is
lying: it is possible for people to perceive and remember events differently. The
evidence may be unreliable for a number of reasons, including that the events might
have occurred quickly, the person may have been unable to see clearly, or a long
time may have passed since the incident.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
5–4

5.17 Factors that may be relevant in determining whether a person’s account is

credible include:

a. the person’s opportunity for observation;

b. supporting evidence such as statements of other individuals;

c. any personal interest, involvement or motives;

d. prior consistent or inconsistent statements;

e. internal inconsistencies and ambiguities in their statements;

f. circumstances affecting competency, such as illness or poor eyesight;

g. the person’s memory of the matter;

h. the time since the event occurred; and

i. the person’s possible exposure to later discussion, information, or collusion.

5.18 A finding that a person is untruthful or not credible is potentially damaging to

them and must be justified on the facts. This type of finding is also likely to attract
procedural fairness obligations even in the absence of any decision to sanction the
person (see above at paragraphs 4.37 to 4.38).

5.19 If a person has lied or been mistaken about one thing it does not necessarily
follow that everything they say should be disbelieved. A decision-maker should
consider why the person lied or was mistaken and whether the same reason might
cause them to lie or be mistaken about something else. For example, a person might
lie about certain things in order to avoid a loss of face but be truthful about other
things that do not arouse the same motivations.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 6

BRIEFING DECISION-MAKERS
THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH QUALITY DECISION BRIEFS
6.1 When making a decision, it is common for decision-makers to rely on briefs
prepared by their staff. Typically, a decision brief would contain a summary of the
relevant facts, evidence, options, recommendations, and reasons for recommending
a particular decision. We commonly think of written briefs to decision-makers, but
briefs can also be given orally.

6.2 The purpose of a decision brief is to allow another person to make a

decision. A person may prepare a brief at the direction of the decision-maker, or on
their own initiative.

6.3 Decision-makers are likely to prefer different formats (including in some

cases an oral brief). People preparing decision briefs should take guidance from the
relevant decision-maker about the format they prefer. For example, a decision-maker
may prefer a brief outlining the information collected during fact finding only, without
recommendations.

6.4 As discussed at paragraphs 1.10–1.13, the amount of time spent on

preparing a brief, which often relates to how much detail is in the brief, should be
proportionate to the risks associated with the matter.

6.5 The contents of a decision brief are important for a number of reasons. Most
importantly, a decision-maker will often rely solely on the information contained in a
decision brief. Decision-makers need to be confident that the brief contains sufficient
information for them to genuinely consider all the options and choose one. In
addition, if a decision is challenged, the associated decision brief will typically be
considered to help establish what the decision-maker considered when making the
decision.

6.6 Decision-makers may adopt, without qualification, a recommendation in a

decision brief. This means that any errors in the brief will potentially affect the final
decision.

MATTERS TO CONSIDER WHEN PREPARING A BRIEF

Raise all relevant matters fairly
6.7 Ensure that all relevant matters are raised and addressed in the decision
brief, so that the decision-maker has a genuine opportunity to understand the various
options available, and choose one. The decision-maker may not agree with the
recommendation in the brief, but it is your job to provide an accurate and honest brief
to the decision-maker, including information that may go against a recommendation.
A comprehensive decision brief:

a. outlines the nature of the decision to be made;

b. references the source of power to make the decision;

 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
6–2

c. summarises the process followed to date, including any procedural fairness

provided to individuals;

d. summarises all relevant facts and evidence, including facts and evidence that
go against a recommendation;

e. highlights any significant gaps in evidence;

f. summarises any policy or legislation which must be considered;

g. makes recommendations as to what the decision/s should be; and

h. gives reasons for the recommendations.

Procedural fairness
6.8 While the decision-maker is responsible for ensuring that any procedural
fairness obligations have been met (see above Chapter 4), procedural fairness will, in
practice, often be provided before a brief is finalised. If the intent is that the decision-
maker will not need to take any further steps to provide procedural fairness, then the
brief should not include any new allegations or adverse information that the affected
person has not had a chance to comment on. Be careful not to phrase something in a
way which makes it appear to be a new allegation. If there is new information
available, this should be brought to the decision-maker’s attention, highlighting that
the decision-maker may need to provide procedural fairness in relation to this prior to
making a decision.

Accuracy
6.9 The information given to a decision-maker should be accurate. This includes
names, dates, details of the power the decision-maker is exercising, the issues
raised, and the relevant evidence. Ensure references to policy are to the policy which
is or was relevant to the decision and if relevant, whether it is the version of the policy
that was in existence at the time of the matter. Many policies are updated regularly
so ensure you check you have the right version. Inaccurate advice may result in a
decision which is overturned and/or remade.

Advice on exercising discretion

6.10 If the decision-maker is to exercise discretion, it is common for the brief to
contain a recommendation on what the decision-maker should do, based on all the
available information. A brief should also be clear that the decision-maker is required
to exercise their own discretion in considering relevant matters, assessing evidence
and making a decision – there should be no suggestion that the decision-maker does
not have a choice.

Referring to evidence
6.11 When referring to evidence ensure it is clearly and accurately identified. It
must be clear exactly what the decision-maker is considering. The relevance of the
evidence should be discussed in relation to the decision to be made. If it appears that
there is not sufficient evidence to justify a decision, the brief should say this.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
6–3

Recommendations
6.12 A briefing paper should analyse the facts and evidence available. Any
recommendations should flow logically from this analysis and the decision-maker
should be able to understand why the recommendations were made.

Language used in brief

6.13 Be objective in the language you use. Simply state the facts, evidence and
other relevant matters. A brief should always refer to people in a respectful way, even
if recommending that the decision-maker find that a person has lied. This includes
statements such as “X’s statement is unbelievable and his actions show him to be
untrustworthy” – this is overstated. Instead, a statement such as “there is evidence
that X has not told the truth about …”. Don’t try to be funny. Decisions affect people
and they want a decision to be taken seriously. If a brief contains remarks or
comments which are prejudicial to an individual, they will have a right to respond to
these and they may be able to argue that the decision-maker is biased if a decision is
made on material containing prejudicial comments.

Use of templates
6.14 There is no issue with using templates for briefs, including standardised
paragraphs associated with particular types of decision. However, there is always a
danger that information in the template is inaccurate, or that you forget to change
relevant details. Always check the accuracy and appropriateness of a template. Read
through a completed brief and double check that the information accurately reflects
the decision you are briefing about. Courts have found that if the decision-maker is
given incorrect information because a template is used, this may invalidate their
decision.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 7

STATEMENT OF REASONS
WHAT IS A STATEMENT OF REASONS?
7.1 A decision is a choice between two or more alternative options. A statement
of reasons is a written document informing people of the reasons why a particular
option was chosen. A statement of reasons would typically explain what the decision
is, provide information about the facts and evidence the decision-maker took into
account, and explain why the particular decision was reached.

ADVANTAGES OF WRITING A STATEMENT OF REASONS

7.2 A well written statement of reasons fulfils a number of functions, including:

a. It can give an adversely affected person an opportunity to come to terms with

a decision. If they are given a clear explanation of why the decision was
reached, they can then decide if they are satisfied with it or if they want to
seek review of the decision.

b. It can give other individuals involved in the matter an understanding of how it

has been resolved.

c. It can help the decision-maker to think about the evidence and how they are
justifying their decision. If there is no logical or rational reason for the
decision, little or no evidence to support the decision, or policy and legal
requirements have not been complied with, this will often become clear when
writing a statement of reasons.

d. It can help the decision-maker justify their actions to their chain of command
or manager, or to a person reviewing the decision.

e. It can improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making.

f. It can provide background and context to people implementing decisions,

which makes it more likely that the actions taken accurately reflect the
decision-maker’s intent.

WHEN IS A STATEMENT OF REASONS REQUIRED?

7.3 There is no general legal requirement to provide a statement of reasons for
most Defence decisions. However, legislation or policy about a particular type of
decision may require that a statement of reasons be provided.

7.4 It is good practice to provide reasons for a decision, if practicable, even when
not strictly required. Written reasons would typically be provided to affected
individuals at the time of decision for most administrative sanctions against both ADF
members and APS employees.

7.5 If an individual affected by a decision (whether adverse or not) requests

reasons, they should usually be provided.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
7–2

7.6 As a general rule, a statement of reasons prepared at the time of the decision
is a more reliable record of the reasons than a statement of reasons prepared after
the fact. However, it is simply not practical to spend the time required to prepare
written reasons for all decisions made in Defence. For example, there is no general
requirement to provide written reasons for every posting decision made in Defence.
However, if a person is unhappy with a posting decision they may request reasons,
and reasons should usually be drafted and provided to the person if that occurs.

7.7 Occasionally, a person will ask for additional reasons for a decision, because
they do not think that the statement of reasons provided adequately explains it. A
decision-maker may provide additional detail about their reasons. However, in many
cases, a person’s dissatisfaction with reasons is actually because they disagree with
them, rather than that they need more information to understand them. In this sort of
situation, it is reasonable to indicate that no additional reasons will be provided.

LENGTH AND FORMAT OF A STATEMENT OF REASONS

7.8 The length and format of a written statement of reasons will depend on the
importance and complexity of the decision. As always, the time spent on drafting a
statement of reasons should be proportionate to the significance of the decision.
Generally speaking, the more serious the impact or the more complex the
circumstances of the decision, the more detailed the statement of reasons will need
to be to adequately explain it.

7.9 A statement of reasons should not be so long that it becomes impossible for
a member to understand what has been decided and why. The language should be
clear, unambiguous, and easily understood.

7.10 There is no set format for a statement of reasons. Often a Minute format will
be appropriate, although email communication will be sufficient in many cases.

WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A STATEMENT OF REASONS?

7.11 A statement of reasons should deal with the key issues, facts, evidence, and
reason for the decision. The language used should be simple and clear. A
comprehensive statement of reasons could include:

An accurate description of the decision

7.12 State what the decision actually is. The individual should understand exactly
what has been decided.

The name and position of the decision-maker and the power under which they
made the decision
7.13 State the power used to make the decision. For example, a legislative
decision should refer to the relevant legislation and pinpoint the relevant part of the
legislation (for example a section number). Details of the various powers which
support decision-making in Defence are addressed above in chapter 2.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
7–3

A summary of the decision-making process

7.14 This should give a summary of the relevant history of the matter. The
summary should refer to any procedural fairness provided to an affected individual.
Any fact finding should also be referred to. For example, a decision-maker might
include details about who was consulted, and the purpose of doing so.

Identify key facts

7.15 The key facts are the facts relevant to the decision. They are facts which are
fundamental to why a decision was made a certain way. This is different from the
evidence, which is the material which justifies the decision. The key facts will come
from the evidence.

7.16 The key facts will depend on the type of decision. If it is a decision on the
termination of an ADF member, the decision-maker may have to decide the suitability
of the member to continue to serve. If the decision relates to an application for a
benefit, the decision-maker may have to consider whether the member meets the
criteria for that benefit.

Key issues for decision

7.17 The key issues are the matters which are in dispute or need to be decided.
These issues are the core of the statement of reasons, and it is in deciding these
issues that a decision-maker will need to provide the most justification.

7.18 The decision-maker should clearly and accurately set out the issues raised.

The facts and evidence considered when deciding the key issues
7.19 The evidence is the material on which the decision is based and can be
justified.

7.20 Explain the evidence, the logical conclusions drawn from it, and whether the
evidence was accepted or rejected and why. If one piece of evidence or one option
was preferred over another conflicting item of evidence or option, explain why. The
evidence does not have to be quoted at length but enough detail must be provided to
allow the individual to identify what is referred to by the decision-maker.

7.21 Any policy or legislation considered should also be referred to.

An explanation of why the decision was made

7.22 This explanation should flow logically from the facts and evidence, and
explain why the decision-maker came to a particular conclusion. The reasons should
show that the decision-maker has considered the key facts, the evidence provided,
and the arguments raised.

7.23 If there are multiple options (as opposed to a yes or no decision), explain why
the decision was to choose this option, rather than the others. For example, if a
decision-maker has the option to terminate an ADF member or to reprimand them
and the decision-maker chose to terminate, explain why (for example, due to the
severity of the member’s misconduct, repeated behaviour, etc).
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
7–4

Details of any review rights and timeframes which may apply

7.24 Providing details of review rights, where relevant, is good practice, although it
is not appropriate to refer to an individual’s right to seek judicial review of a decision.
In most cases, it is sufficient to refer to the relevant legislation or policy that explains
the review right. For example:

“If you have a complaint about the imposition of this censure, you
have the right to seek review of my decision as a redress of
grievance under Part 15 of the Defence Force Regulations 1952. The
Complaints and Alternative Dispute Resolution Manual, chapter 6 –
Redress of Grievance, outlines the process for applying for review,
including timeframes.”

The date of the decision

7.25 A decision should always be dated, and reflect when the decision is made.
This is particularly important if there are time limits for appealing a decision, such as
with Redress of Grievances.

DEALING WITH CLAIMS AND SUBMISSIONS BY AFFECTED

INDIVIDUALS
7.26 If a decision is about an individual, a statement of reasons should clearly and
accurately set out any claims made by the individual, the relevant evidence, and the
findings or reasons for accepting or rejecting those claims.

7.27 The claims do not need to be quoted at length but enough detail should be
provided to demonstrate that the decision-maker has engaged with the claims, rather
than simply dismissing them without giving them genuine consideration.

CONFIDENTIAL OR SENSITIVE INFORMATION

7.28 If the decision-maker has considered confidential or sensitive information
they should consider whether and how this should be referred to in a statement of
reasons. In some cases, it will not be possible to provide complete reasons, as this
would reveal confidential or sensitive information. Instead, as much information as
possible should be provided, for example by way of summary or redacted
documents. A common example of this type of situation is when providing reasons
for a posting decision. A person may not have been given a desirable posting
because someone else is better qualified. It would be inappropriate to provide
information about the other person’s qualifications, as this is personal information.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 8

COMMUNICATING DECISIONS
8.1 The decision-making process does not end with the decision. The decision
has to be communicated to the relevant individuals or areas within Defence. For
example, a decision to refuse an application for leave needs to be communicated to
the person who applied for leave.

8.2 Communicating decisions to an individual, or debriefing, may involve a formal

written notice, a personal interview, counselling or take some other form. The
communication, whatever its form, should usually state clearly the decision made, the
reasons for the decision, and provide advice about any avenues of review. One
method of communicating a decision is to provide a copy of a statement of reasons.

8.3 Communicating decisions is particularly important if a decision has serious

consequences for individuals. If a decision-maker fails to inform a person of their
decision, that person may become aggrieved by the way in which the decision-
making process has been handled rather than the actual decision. Waiting for
decisions can be stressful and uncertain for people. Outcomes should be
communicated to affected people quickly.

WHO SHOULD BE INFORMED OF A DECISION?

8.4 In some cases, it will be clear who should be debriefed about the outcome. If
a decision relates to a complaint about a person’s conduct, both the complainant and
the respondent should be briefed.

8.5 Other individuals may also have an interest. For example, an incident and its
aftermath, including any fact finding associated with it, may have had a significant
emotional impact on a unit or team – in this sort of situation, it would be appropriate
to debrief the unit or team as a whole about the outcome. If the matter relates to
misconduct, this might take place as part of a broader discussion around expected
behaviours or complaint avenues.

8.6 Occasionally, a matter will have generated considerable public interest. In

this situation, a public communication of decision outcomes may be appropriate.

8.7 Decision outcomes should also be briefed to people who will be responsible
for implementing them.

WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED?

8.8 Decisions often involve sensitive and personal information of individuals.
Some decisions also involve national security information, or other information that is
confidential. Decision-makers will sometimes be legally constrained in what they can
say by legislation, including the Privacy Act 1988, or constrained through policy, such
as the Defence Security Manual (DSM). For this reason, it may be appropriate to
provide different people with different information, having regard to the purpose of a
particular communication and legislative and policy restrictions. Decision-makers
should exercise professional judgement in assessing what is appropriate to include in
a debriefing. It can be helpful to think about how they would want their own personal
information handled in that situation. Legal advice can also be sought.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
8–2

8.9 A common question is how much information can be provided to a

complainant, noting that any action taken against the respondent to the complaint
could be considered ‘personal information’ under the Privacy Act 1988 and that a
decision will often involve consideration of the respondent’s personal circumstances.
Restricting the information provided to a complainant may sometimes be the reason
they think that they have been treated unfairly, or that their complaint has not been
taken seriously. For this reason, as a matter of policy, complainants should be
provided with as much information as possible about the outcome. This will usually
include providing information about any action taken against the respondent, and the
reasons why action was or was not taken. However, any sensitive information about
the respondent, such as health information or information about their family life,
should not be provided to a complainant unless the respondent has consented.

8.10 Decision-makers should plan what they will include in any debriefing and
keep notes of what information was provided.

INFORMING SUPERIORS AND CHAIN OF COMMAND

8.11 In many cases, a decision-maker will need to inform their superiors or chain
of command about a decision, the reasons for the decision, and any other related
information. Sensitive and personal information should be handled appropriately,
including through the use of appropriate security classifications and dissemination
markings. Providing this information to a superior or the chain of command for
legitimate personnel, security or other reasons is appropriate and provided for in
Defence’s privacy policy:
http://www.defence.gov.au/DPG/ComplaintResolution/privacy.asp
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 9

DOCUMENTING DECISIONS
9.1 It is important to make complete and accurate records of a decision-making
process. This includes making records of any fact finding, and all information
collected during fact finding. It also includes any notes by the decision-maker,
relating to, for example, the reasons why a particular process was followed.
Comprehensive records assist if a decision is challenged, and they also improve the
transparency and accountability of decision-making generally.

9.2 All documentation associated with decision-making should be classified,

stored and handled in accordance with the Defence Security Manual (DSM) and the
Records Management Policy Manual (RECMAN).
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 10

REVIEWING DECISIONS
10.1 Most decisions in Defence can be reviewed. Reviewing a decision may occur
because an individual has sought review, either informally or through a legislative
review / complaint scheme. Decisions may also be reviewed on the reviewer’s own
motion.

10.2 Review may occur internally to Defence, or externally – where agencies or

courts outside of Defence review Defence decisions.

10.3 There are multiple review options for people dissatisfied with a decision. The
options outlined below are some of the most common.

INTERNAL REVIEW OPTIONS ESTABLISHED IN LEGISLATION

ADF redress of grievance
10.4 Adverse decisions affecting individual ADF members are subject to review
under the ADF redress of grievance (ROG) system, established under Part 15 of the
Defence Force Regulations 1952.

10.5 The ROG process is the formal process through which Defence members
can raise grievances that relate to their service, such as career related decisions
(including termination of service), and entitlements decisions. Generally, the ROG
system is a system of last resort – we would ordinarily expect members to raise
issues informally through their chain of command, and seek informal review, before
submitting an application for a ROG.

10.6 Decisions are frequently re-made, revoked or varied in the ROG process.

10.7 Chapter 6 of the Complaints and Alternative Resolution Manual provides

policy details on the ROG process.

APS review of actions (ROA)

10.8 Adverse decisions affecting APS employees are subject to review under the
APS review of actions (ROA) system, established under section 33 of the Public
Service Act 1999 and Part 5 of the Public Service Regulations 1999.

10.9 The ROA process enables APS employees who are not members of the
Senior Executive Service, to seek redress when they believe that an action taken in
relation to their employment by the Agency Head of an APS Agency, another APS
employee or the Australian Public Service Commissioner under section 41B of the
Public Service Act 1999, was unfair or unreasonable. This includes pay and condition
decisions.

10.10 The ROA process applies to APS employees in all government agencies, not
just Defence. It also includes an external review option through the Merit Protection
Commissioner – some decisions, such as Code of Conduct decisions, are not subject
to internal review under this process.

10.11 Decisions are frequently re-made, revoked or varied in the ROA process.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
10–2

10.12 Chapter 5 of the Complaints and Alternative Resolution Manual provides

policy detail about the ROA process.

EXTERNAL REVIEW OPTIONS ESTABLISHED IN LEGISLATION

10.13 External review options include:

a. Defence Force Ombudsman (for ADF members);

b. Merit Protection Commissioner (for APS employees);

c. Inspector General ADF (for military justice matters);

d. Australian Human Rights Commission (for discrimination matters); and

e. Privacy Commissioner (for privacy matters).

10.14 In most cases, the external review does not change the decision. Instead, it
provides a recommendation to Defence. A recommendation might include remaking
the decision, changing a policy, paying compensation, or giving an apology.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
10.15 Many decisions are subject to judicial review for legal errors. Judicial review
of Defence decisions can be undertaken by the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal
Court, and the High Court.

10.16 Judicial review does not look at the merits of the decision but whether the
decision or decision-making process was affected by legal error.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF MY DECISION IS OVERTURNED?

10.17 If your decision was overturned it may be for a number of reasons, including:

a. new information has come to light which has resulted in a new decision;

b. the decision-making process you followed was incorrect in some way, such
as a failure to provide procedural fairness or taking into account an irrelevant
consideration; or

c. the reviewer simply disagrees with the decision you reached.

10.18 All decision-makers are likely, at some point, to have a decision overturned. If
this occurs it is important to find out the reason. If it was a fault in your
decision-making process, you should find out and fix the problem in future decisions.

10.19 If your decisions are regularly being overturned, you may need to seek
additional training.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 11

REVOKING, RE-MAKING AND VARYING DECISIONS

11.1 Occasionally, it may be necessary or desirable to revoke, re-make or vary a
decision. Examples where this might occur include:

a. the required process (including procedural fairness requirements) has not

been followed;

b. the decision-maker did not have the authority to make the decision;

c. a person reviewing the decision (whether on application or otherwise) thinks

that the decision should have a different outcome;

d. the decision-maker changes their mind;

e. additional information relevant to the decision becomes available; or

f. the effect of the decision needs to be suspended while it is reviewed.

WHAT IS MEANT BY REVOKING, RE-MAKING AND VARYING

DECISIONS?
11.2 Revoking a decision means that the decision has no effect – it is as if no
decision has been made. A decision can be revoked retrospectively, which means
that it is as if no decision had ever been made (see below at paragraphs 11.10 to
11.12). A decision can also be revoked prospectively only, which means that the
decision would have effect between the date of the original decision and the date it is
revoked.

11.3 Re-making a decision means looking at the options again and making a new
decision. The original decision is effectively revoked from the date of the new
decision. An example is where a person has been granted a benefit (the original
decision), but on the basis of new information, the decision is re-made so that they
stop receiving the benefit.

11.4 Varying a decision means changing some aspect of the original decision, but
otherwise leaving the decision to stand. A common example might be to vary the
date when the decision has effect.

11.5 While most decisions can be revoked, re-made or varied, there are limits on
doing this in relation to some legislative decisions. While this chapter provides some
guidance, if in doubt, consult a legal officer.

WHO SHOULD REVOKE, RE-MAKE OR VARY A DECISION?

11.6 Legislative decisions can only be changed by a person who has power under
the legislation to make the decision, as outlined above at 2.7. In many cases, this
means that a person reviewing a legislative decision can only change the decision if
they are also a delegate for that particular decision. As a matter of policy, decisions
should usually only be changed by the original decision-maker, a person who has
taken over the original decision-maker’s functions, or a person with a higher rank or
classification than the original decision-maker.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
11–2

11.7 For minor variations, such as changing the date a decision will take effect, it
may be appropriate for the person responsible for implementing the decision to make
the variation, for administrative convenience.

JURISDICTIONAL ERROR
11.8 A jurisdictional error is a particular type of legal error, which means that the
particular decision is ‘no decision at all’ as a matter of law. That is, the decision is
effectively revoked, with retrospective effect. The types of legal errors that might be a
jurisdictional error include failure to provide procedural fairness, the decision being
made by a person without power, and failure to apply legislative criteria correctly. A
decision should not be revoked or re-made on the basis of jurisdictional error unless
a legal officer has been consulted.

DECISIONS THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED

11.9 Some legislative decisions cannot be changed once they have been made.
This is because the power to make the decision only exists once – and once the
power has been exercised it no longer exists. This is most common for legislative
decisions made in response to an application, as the power only exists once the
application has been made. There are very few decisions in Defence that are limited
in this way. Most decisions can be made ‘from time to time’ (section 33 of the Acts
Interpretation Act 1901), which means that they can be revoked, re-made or varied
as necessary.

RETROSPECTIVE DECISION-MAKING
11.10 A retrospective decision is one that has effect before the decision is made,
for example by backdating the decision. A common example is to make a decision to
grant a benefit or allowance retrospective, so that the person is paid additional
money. As a general rule, decisions should not be made retrospectively. The
exception is if legislation or policy about the decision specifically allows it. For
example, some legislation about benefits and allowances allows for the decision to
have effect from the date the person applied for the benefit, rather than from the date
of decision. This type of scenario alleviates the disadvantage that can be suffered if
there is a delay in decision-making.

11.11 Similarly, when revoking, re-making or varying a decision, the change should
not be retrospective. This is particularly important if the change will adversely affect
an individual. The exceptions to this general principles are in cases of jurisdictional
error (see above at paragraph 11.8) or if the decision relates to a benefit and the
person who will be adversely affected either obtained the benefit through fraud or
similar, or failed to update Defence about a change in their personal circumstances
as required.

11.12 The rule against retrospectivity should not be applied too strictly if this would
create an unfair result for an individual.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
11–3

CHANGING DECISIONS AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

11.13 If the effect of revoking, re-making or varying a decision will be adverse to an
individual, they should be provided with procedural fairness. People should be
allowed to rely on decisions as they are made, and changing a decision in this way
can cause surprise. Accordingly, they should be able to comment on the proposed
change before it occurs.

PRACTICAL REASONS NOT TO CHANGE A DECISION

11.14 Even though it is usually permissible to change a decision, there are sound
policy reasons why decisions should not be changed too frequently, without good
reason. Affected individuals and others should be able to rely on a decision, rather
than be subject to the changing views of a decision-maker, or the changing
approaches of different decision-makers to the same question. For decisions relating
to individuals, re-making the decision over and over could, in some cases, be seen
as an abuse of power. If an individual has applied for review of a decision, the
purpose of the review is to decide whether the decision should be changed.

11.15 As well as creating certainty for individuals, a reluctance to change decisions

also improves stability for Defence as an organisation, as changing decisions can
undermine command authority. Changing decisions arbitrarily also reduces
transparency of decision-making, and could be harmful to Defence’s reputation.

11.16 When deciding whether a decision should be changed, it is important to

weigh up the competing advantages and disadvantages of changing the decision.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

CHAPTER 12

DIFFICULT SITUATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS

THE EFFECT OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE
12.1 A central theme of this guide has been for decision-makers to take control of
the decision-making process. Instead of following a prescriptive and legalistic
process, decision-makers can adapt processes to the circumstances, balancing the
various risks associated with the decision. However, in some cases, decision-makers
will be subject to pressure from other people. Decision-makers can feel like they are
obliged to follow a process dictated by someone else, and lose control of their own
decision. The goal of this chapter is to describe some of the more common examples
of this type of pressure, and how decision-makers might respond.

PRESSURE FROM AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS

12.2 People who may be affected by a decision (or their lawyer) are likely to be
concerned, and may put pressure on a decision-maker to follow a particular process
(or, indeed, to decide a particular way). Occasionally, there will be a deliberate
attempt to delay or otherwise de-rail a decision-making process. By and large,
however, this effect is inadvertent.

12.3 Decision-makers should respond reasonably to requests from affected

people, but they still control the decision-making process. Decision-makers can
refuse requests, and can proceed to make decisions even when an affected person
has objected to the process.

12.4 Some common examples of this type of pressure are:

a. Requests from an affected person for more time to respond to a procedural

fairness notice.

b. Requests for more information or detail before responding to a procedural

fairness notice.

c. Non-attendance at interviews for health reasons.

d. Refusal to attend an interview until their lawyer is available.

e. Responses to procedural fairness notices or in an interview entirely unrelated

to the issues, including making new complaints.

f. Repeating the same requests over and over.

g. Making the same requests through different complaint processes, which can
be seen as a type of ‘forum shopping’.

h. Alleging that the decision-maker is biased, or that some part of the process
followed to date is tainted.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
12–2

12.5 These may all be legitimate actions by an affected person. They may have
good reasons to require more time, or why they cannot attend an interview, or why
they have made the same complaint through several avenues. The way a decision-
maker addresses these types of matters is an example of balancing individual and
organisational requirements (see above at paragraphs 1.16–1.17).

Requests for more time

12.6 If a decision-maker receives a request for additional time to provide
information (including in response to a procedural fairness notice), they have two
options. They can either agree to the additional time requested (or some alternative
period) and delay making the decision, or refuse the additional time and risk that they
may need to make the decision without the relevant information. Relevant factors
when making this choice include:

a. Whether sufficient time was provided in the first place.

b. Whether the person has made reasonable attempts to meet the required time
frame.

c. Whether there are unusual circumstances that warrant additional time being
provided.

d. The effect that the decision might have on the person.

e. How much time has already been spent on the matter.

f. The urgency of the decision.

g. The importance of the requested information to the decision.

12.7 In a situation where an affected person requests additional time to provide

information, the test is one of reasonableness – in the all the circumstances, is it
reasonable to make a decision without giving the person more time?

Requests for more information

12.8 It is quite common for an affected person to say that they need more
information before they can reasonably respond to a procedural fairness notice.
Complying with this type of request will usually cause delays. In some cases, a
request for additional information will be because the person does not agree with
what has been given to them – not because they need more detail to understand it
(similar to requests for additional reasons for a decision, see above at
paragraph 7.7).

12.9 When faced with this type of request, a decision-maker should consider
whether the person has been provided with sufficient information to respond and, if
so, may refuse the request for additional information.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
12–3

Non-attendance at interviews
12.10 ADF members and APS employees can be ordered or directed to attend
interviews (see above at paragraph 3.26). This does not extend, however, to
situations where the person is incapable of attending, including due to health
reasons. A decision-maker has a number of options in this situation. They can
proceed to a decision without interviewing the person, they can wait until the person
becomes available for an interview, or they can take steps to conduct the interview
anyway. Relevant factors include:

a. How essential is the interview likely to be to the decision?

b. How long is the person likely to need to recover?

c. How urgent is the decision?

d. Is there any way to conduct the interview consistent with the person’s health
requirements, such as changing the location of the interview or conducting it
in a less adversarial style?

e. Can the person be ordered / directed to attend a medical appointment for

assessment?

12.11 Affected people may also be reluctant to attend interviews without a

particular support person, including sometimes a lawyer. This can also cause delays.
While reasonable attempts should be made to accommodate this sort of request, it is
not necessary to postpone an interview for weeks or months because a person’s
lawyer is unavailable.

Raising unrelated or irrelevant issues

12.12 A typical example of this is where an affected person is responding to an
allegation of misconduct against them, and they make a complaint against the person
who made the allegation (or against another person). Sometimes, this complaint will
be the entirety of their response to the allegation.

12.13 This type of situation can be extremely difficult for a decision-maker – the
new complaint is not necessarily relevant to the decision to be made about the
person’s misconduct but all complaints in Defence should be dealt with.

12.14 One option is to separate out the new complaint from the decision in question
– that is, proceed to make the decision on the person’s misconduct, dealing with the
new complaints separately. Alternatively, the decision-maker can delay the decision
until the new complaints are considered. This might be appropriate if the complaints
provide some explanation or mitigation for the misconduct.

12.15 Decision-makers should be careful with new complaints raised in this way,
because they will have often have been dealt with through other processes. People
may raise these issues because they are not satisfied with the outcome they
obtained through those processes.
 UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED
Good Decision-Making in Defence
12–4

Repeat requests and use of multiple complaint avenues

12.16 People who are unhappy with the way a request or a complaint has been
dealt with will often start making the same requests over and over again, including
through different complaint avenues. It is not necessary to keep responding to the
same requests.

12.17 People are entitled to raise matters through different complaint avenues.
Ideally, however, Defence will be providing them with a consistent response. To that
end, there needs to be a degree of coordination between different parts of the
organisation. There also needs to be clear records of what responses have been
provided in the past, so that there is consistency in the event of staff turnover.

Allegations of bias or flawed process

12.18 It is not necessary to withdraw from a decision-making process simply
because someone has claimed bias or a conflict of interest. Bias is discussed
extensively above at paragraphs 2.20–2.24.

12.19 Similarly, it is not necessary to change the decision-making process just

because someone has complained about it. As with all complaints or requests from
affected people, decision-makers should consider what is a reasonable response in
all the circumstances.

PRESSURE FROM CHAIN OF COMMAND OR MANAGERS

12.20 Another common form of pressure that can cause difficulties for decision-
makers is pressure from commanders or managers to make a particular decision, or
to follow a certain process. If a decision is a legislative decision, it is important that
the decision-maker is not subject to undue influence from command, and makes the
decision for themselves (see above at subparagraphs 2.13.b and 2.17.b).

12.21 It can be very difficult to deal with this type of pressure. Decision-makers
should provide their commanders or managers with frank advice about what might
happen. One option is to refer the decision upwards to be made by the relevant
commander or manager.