Reporting of the non-consensual filming of consensual s-x between two cadets at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA), contrary to ADF discipline, has now evolved into incorrect assumptions and claims that affect informed public debate on defence force capability and operational matters.
The Australia Defence Association therefore enters the debate somewhat reluctantly. The ADA reminds those involved on all sides that civil control of the military by its ministers is a long-standing tradition in Australia. It is rightly entrenched in our constitutional system and the professional culture of the ADF.
There are, however, significant two-way responsibilities involved. Especially as our apolitical military are often legitimately prevented from defending themselves in public from uninformed, partisan or other biased criticism — and must rightly observe privacy restrictions and natural justice provisions when discussing individuals (and claims made by some individuals).
Moreover, the excessively rigid, non-responsive, over-centralisation of control over defence public affairs matters in the Department of Defence and the minister’s office over the past decade or so has added new problems that could be avoided by decentralising responsibility to ADF commanders at all levels again (as largely occurred until the late 1990s). Our defence force is now too often unable to defend its professional reputation collectively, and the reputation of its members individually, from ignorant, biased or sensationalist criticism. This is inequitable to say the least, but is also operationally and strategically stupid.
Just as the Attorney-General is expected to defend judges from unfair and incorrect criticism, and given the sensationalist and highly inaccurate manner in which the media has covered the recent incident at ADFA, comments today by the Minister for Defence correcting media misinformation, and incorrect assumptions by members of the public, are welcomed by the ADA.
As in all such cases, there are two sides to every story. As has occurred in many previous cases of real and supposed ADF scandals, the media has largely published and broadcast only one side. And again in this case with little or no understanding of precedents, context, nuance or the necessary professional and legal procedures of a modern defence force.
As the minister has now finally confirmed, several of the allegations broadcast as fact about this incident over the past two days are untrue. The female cadet involved did receive extensive counselling from the beginning. The ADF did investigate and handle her initial complaint professionally and appropriately. ADFA does have extensive and readily accessible means of lodging complaints about s-xual harassment and other matters, an extensive education program about them and a long record of effectively handling such issues. Contrary to her apparent claim (as broadcast), the cadet concerned was never asked to apologise to her classmates or the whole cadet body for going to the media (illegally). No one at ADFA or elsewhere in the defence force has downplayed or tried to cover up that her consensual s-xual intercourse should not have been filmed without her knowledge. From the beginning, the ADF has considered a serious disciplinary offence occurred even though the civil police were initially unsure as to whether a civil criminal offence had been committed. The Commandant of ADFA has rightly noted that such a serious abuse of professional standards and trust is likely to be a career-ending one for the perpetrators.
However, minister Smith’s implicit refusal at a media conference to support the difficult command decisions made by the Commandant of ADFA is unfair and quite disappointing. Surely he could have dismissed such factually ignorant questioning by noting that there was no evidence to suggest that anyone in the ADF chain of command had acted inappropriately.
The minister’s comments on the separate and summary disciplinary proceedings involving the female cadet are also highly unfortunate and perhaps inappropriate — just as they would be if a minister of the crown commented in such a way about similar matters before a civil court.
The cadet in question had pleaded guilty to these charges before the filming incident was known to her and publicly. She had legal advice and apparently chose not to request a delay in the proceedings. The charges were simple matters heard before a subordinate summary authority (presumably her squadron commander). It was not a “court case” or an overly formal proceeding as the minister’s comments might unfortunately lead those uninformed on defence force disciplinary law to believe.
It is surely constitutionally inappropriate (at least) for the Minister for Defence to be perceived as interfering in defence force disciplinary proceedings. Particularly when they were minor matters involving the lowest jurisdiction of such proceedings and when a minister could not possibly know, or be expected to know, all the circumstances, facts and ramifications involved. Or indeed all the leadership, associated welfare and development issues involving the person charged.
Finally, despite the current sensationalist and invalid media clamour, the filming without consent incident at ADFA (involving cadets who have only been there some 10 weeks) does not prove or even indicate a systemic cultural problem in the defence force about gender matters. Just as occasional similar incidents at other Australian tertiary institutions do not necessarily indicate systemic issues in such institutions either.
The real issues here about s-xual norms and social media are surely more general ones in the wider Australian society from which our defence force is necessarily recruited and that it generally reflects. Particularly among the younger age cohorts that the ADF employs disproportionately in comparison to most other professions and industries.
The biggest lesson in this case is that the whole matter could have been resolved in much more detail, much swifter and in a much more effective manner for everyone concerned if the Commandant of ADFA had been allowed to explain the facts from the beginning. Including when Channel Ten was first approached by the female cadet with claims about supposed ADF indifference to her situation that we now know were not correct.
Instead the commandant has been wrongly made a scape-goat by the media and some comments by minister Smith have unfortunately not helped correct such disgraceful scape-goating.
Another lesson worth pursuing legitimately by the media is the quality of advice on defence force professional matters the minister is receiving from his political staff.
oh, poor army boys and poor ADA and poor Neil. All those guns and you’re not allowed to fire them at criticism! “Just leave it up to us,” you say, “we’re responsible heroes. We stormed the beaches at Gallipoli, so we’d never have a generational problem with sexual equality.”
The problem with you, Neil, is that I already know the crap you’re gonna write before you’ve even written it.
Dear Mr James, you offend me with your inability to see why the Minister acted as he has done, you offend me with your failure to defend the young female cadet, you simply offend me. Your job is act like a Union organiser for members of the ADF not as an apologist for some crap command decisions. If ‘Katie” had felt supported (and obviously you are not the man to do this even though you should be) she would not have needed to harness the support of the media. Perhaps the Defence Force Association should hire some experienced female advocates? And if the Commandant is being ‘scapegoated’ perhaps you should be advocating for him/her instead of sooking on Crikey about how mean the Minister is?
Jesus, someone call the waaaambulance for Neil James and Defence top brass.
Neil. I know you are trying to support the ADF but the Minister is correct in saying these actions are inappropriate. Any morally correct person would state first and foremost that the situation is disgusting and should not have occurred and it shows the people who are meant to be in charge of these “kids” isn’t doing a very good job.
If ADFA is the same as other universities, then there is no need for ADFA, or for ADFA cadets. Problem solved.
IMHO, we need an ADFA, and ADFA needs to be different for good reasons. These reasons go to why expectations of ADFA cadets should be, and are, different. One is that they will be depending on their capacity to trust each other for victory, or for their lives, or for the lives of their soldiers. What seven of them have demonstrated already is that they cannot be trusted in a very fundamental way. The eighth has also demonstrated this, by going to Ch 10. There is therefore a fundamental problem with ADFA if it cannot instil mutual trust and respect between significant numbers of cadets. I wouldn’t be expressing any confidence in Mr Kafer until I had a very sound understanding of why ADFA is failing in one of its most important outputs – officers who can trust each other.
The explanations of the apologists such as Mr James do not hold water. We are expected to take comfort that what happens at ADFA merely mirrors the larger society and so this sort of behaviour is to be expected. The cadets are ‘young’, we keep being told. These sorts of things happen at all universities we are told. I was expecting to hear, ‘Boys will be boys.’ Gimme a break. There is no discipline without self-discipline.
But there are larger issues here that Mr James might consider.
The first is that, without a solid increase in the recruitment of women, the armed forces are not going to be able to recruit to establishment. This latter is already a serious problem.
The second is that the composition of the armed forces ought to reflect the broad composition of our society. That means, lots and lots of women. That is already a serious problem.
Mr James writes, ‘However, minister Smith’s implicit refusal at a media conference to support the difficult command decisions made by the Commandant of ADFA is unfair and quite disappointing. Surely he could have dismissed such factually ignorant questioning by noting that there was no evidence to suggest that anyone in the ADF chain of command had acted inappropriately.’
After various failures by Defence to brief the Minister appropriately, why would the Minister state that he had confidence in Mr Kafer?
After this incident, and various other gender-related incidents in the armed forces, which parent is going to encourage girls to consider the armed forces? At the least they would be thinking twice.
IMHO, Brand Defence is being trashed. Operation Skype Sex was, according to Mr James, a success; but the patient is dying.
Blaming the Minister and blaming the media as if that is the explanation for Brand Defence being trahsed is simply not good enough.
Mr James ought to take his blinkers off, stop his special pleading, and go to the core of the problem.