Defence force chief Angus Houston has staunchly defended the way his organisation handled the prosecution of three former commandos over a fatal raid in Afghanistan in 2009.
The decision to charge the soldiers, taken by the Director of Military Prosecutions, has provoked an outcry inside and outside the defence force.
The charges stem from a firefight in February 2009 that left six people dead, including five children.
One soldier has been charged with manslaughter and the other two face lesser charges, including a failure to follow orders and dangerous conduct.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said the case was unprecedented for many reasons and raised difficult and complex issues.
"I am acutely aware that this case highlights the tension between the clear and accepted obligation of the ADF, as a highly-disciplined force, and its duties under the rule of law and the realities of the operational environment in Afghanistan," he told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.
That reality included an enemy that did not adhere to the laws of armed conflict nor were they discriminating in their choice of targets, he said.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said he was determined to ensure the three soldiers were given a fair trial and to look after their welfare.
But he also was determined that proper legal process was preserved and that ADF personnel understood what was occurring and the basis for it.
Air Chief Marshal Houston acknowledged the prosecutions had prompted intense interest and, in some cases, emotive responses.
"I want to make it very clear that we have dealt with the matter transparently and completely in line with the established military justice processes."
Air Chief Marshal Houston revealed that only two of the three soldiers had been served with charges.
The third was overseas and could not be charged until he returns to Australia.
"I assure you that the members charged have the full support of the Australian Defence Force," Air Chief Marshal Houston told senators.
The Chief of the Army had gone to "unprecedented lengths" to ensure that the soldiers and their families were receiving legal, administrative, medical, psychological, chaplaincy and welfare assistance.
The soldiers had been provided with legal support from the time it was established in May 2009 that charges were being considered against them.
Senior and junior counsel were provided when charges were laid in September 2010.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said no expense would be spared to provide the soldiers with legal assistance.
The defence force chief outlined how his organisation responded to the DMP (Brigadier Lyn McDade) before it was decided to charge the soldiers.
The DMP sought a representation from the vice-chief of the defence force on July 19, 2010 but the written request did not refer to the brief of evidence that supported possible charges.
"That brief of evidence has not being provided to defence even at this stage," Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
Brigadier McDade told defence force officials the response should remain confidential in the event it had to be disclosed to an accused member.
She also said the public release of the response had the "very real potential" to adversely affect the integrity of the legal process and prejudice the fair trial of the accused soldiers.
Defence also sought advice from the commonwealth solicitor-general.
Air Chief Marshal Houston confirmed his vice-chief's representation to the DMP related to command issues and did not question the merits of possible action to prosecute members or the validity of any case that may be prepared against them.
The defence force chief said Brigadier McDade had been unfairly targeted in fulfilling the requirements of her position.
"Since her appointment, Brigadier McDade has taken very seriously her need to be independent from the chain of command."
The case against the three soldiers will not be heard until charges are served on the third soldier in late November.
The prosecution, by a form of military court-martial, will be held in 2011 at a location to be decided.
Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston quizzed Air Chief Marshal Houston about whether grace payments had been made to the victims' families in the wake of the incident.
"Exactly how much was paid," he asked.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said he would take the question on notice.
The defence force chief stressed how important defending the three soldiers was to him, saying "all the legal defence that can be mustered" had been provided to the three men.
"The chief of army has bent over backwards," he said.
Air Chief Marshal Houston also was keen to ensure the court martial process was not only seen to be independent but was independent.
Senator Johnston did not get an answer when he demanded to know what it cost the defence force to prepare its representation to the DMP.
Liberal senator Russell Trood briefly quizzed the defence force chief about the soldier yet to be charged.
"The individual is actually travelling overseas, not on duty," Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
"We have been in contact with the individual."
In answer to a question from Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam, Air Chief Marshal Houston defended the length of time it had taken to lay charges.
"The process actually, given the complexity of the case ... it was a reasonable time given the circumstances," he said.
Air Chief Marshal Houston said he did not believe there was any veracity to reports the International Criminal Court would involve itself in the case.
"There is no suggestion from anything I've seen that the International Criminal Court has been involved," he said.