The Federal Court held that the administrative power to terminate a Defence Force member's service under s 24(1)(c) of the Defence Regulation 2016 on the basis that retention is 'not in the interests of the Defence Force' is a broad evaluative discretion, and the specific content and timing of a member's training is not a mandatory relevant consideration that the decision-maker must address absent the member raising it in their response to the termination notice. The Court confirmed, applying Palmer, Wotton and YBZF, that any constitutional challenge based on Ch III's reservation of punitive power to the judiciary must be directed at the character of the legislative power itself, not at the particular exercise of that power against an individual; the applicant's attempt to recast a facial invalidity challenge as an improper purpose argument at the exercise level was rejected. The Court also held that the existence of less severe administrative sanctions under the CARM framework does not render a termination decision legally unreasonable, as the CARM does not establish any escalating hierarchy of sanctions or require that lesser options be expressly considered before termination.
The full text is available to signed-in members.