�����鱨վ

The Terms of Reference required the Review to make recommendations on initiatives to drive cultural change at ADFA regarding the treatment of women. To properly identify these initiatives, the Review needed to assess the culture as it currently exists. Part of this process involved examining the notion of military culture generally and, more specifically, the culture for women at ADFA.

The Review analysed the key drivers of the current cultural context, including diversity and inclusion, recruitment, induction and termination of staff, Academy Military Education and Training (AMET), Single Service Training (SST), accommodation supervision and support, leadership, formal and informal hierarchies and role modelling and mentoring.

The Review also examined the social context and interactions of cadets, their alcohol use and the notion of individual reputation management. All of these issues are discussed in this Chapter. They provide a framework against which the Review was able to identify areas which demonstrate a positive culture at ADFA and those that point to areas where reform is needed to improve the treatment of women.

1.1 Military culture

The term ‘military culture’ was referred to frequently in consultations and submissions. Military culture was referred to as one of the single most important factors that can impact on the treatment of women in the ADF, including ADFA. To that end, this section explores the concept of culture and the military.

(a) What is culture?

Culture has been defined as ‘a pattern of shared basic assumptions invented, discovered or developed by a given group’ that is ‘taught to new members of the group.’ It gives members of the group cues about how to act and think about their world. Culture is passed on from one generation to the next through a process known as socialisation.

In the same way that societies and communities socialise children into a particular way of life, groups and organisations also expose new members to their shared ‘way of life’. Through socialisation, groups ensure that while each member changes over time, a shared identity remains continuous and recognisable. In the case of ADFA, considerable effort is made to immerse cadets in the military culture, and especially the ADFA culture, during the Year One Familiarisation Training (YOFT).

Members of occupational groups and organisations carry out a myriad of actions, many of which have unique and specific details, yet which are embedded in and given contextual sense by repetitive and identifiable patterns. These patterns, as far as they can be recognised, describe a ‘culture’.

(b) Subcultures and the military

The ADF is a large and powerful subculture within Australia. There are many common features shared within the culture of the ADF. For example, all members wear uniforms, salute their officers and address superior officers as Sir or Ma’am. They share a strong sense of duty and patriotic service.

Each service – Navy, Army and Air Force – is a subculture within the ADF and some tensions exist between them.

Since ADF personnel wear a uniform, cut their hair in certain ways and develop a particular bearing through their training, they are especially ‘visible’. At ADFA, a great emphasis is placed on these very conspicuous features early on, with frequent reminders about the new identity they are expected to adopt, share and make their own.

(c) Cultures create identities and boundaries

(i) Identity and boundary maintenance are ‘double edged’

The more strongly a group holds to a view, the greater the likelihood that it will establish internal identities and boundaries surrounding them at the expense of ‘outsiders’. There can be internal pressure on group members to conform to an imagined ideal.

In recruiting young civilians and rapidly socialising them into a military culture, ADFA’s task is potentially fraught. Numerous formal practices and customs contribute to this, as do other social customs. For example, the regular use of the same night spots by ADFA cadets socialising as a group enhances and exaggerates the identity split between young civilians and those of the cadet body, who otherwise share the same spaces, activities and interests.

(ii) Isolated locations can exaggerate problems

ADFA is, to an extent, isolated from the wider ADF. This is not uncommon in military training establishments. However, this isolation is reinforced by its young, inexperienced members, who can amplify and distort the culture’s imagined norms in a desire to conform. This can exaggerate the boundaries and disparages anyone judged not to be a ‘perfect fit’.

The Grey Review suggested that this was the case at ADFA in the 1990s. ADFA must remain vigilant about excesses and distortions of military culture, in order to develop and enhance its reputation as an outstanding academy.

1.2 The culture for women at ADFA

In the Review’s consultations, most women cadets stated that they were treated equally and with respect. Overwhelmingly, women cadets felt that ADFA is a place where they are treated well. One confidential submission claims that ‘[t]here is no culture at ADFA that regards women as “less” than men’. Another submission commented:

I am trained in the same practices as men and am able to participate in equal learning opportunities of all types, there are no restrictions or stigmas that may inhibit me from participating in an active role in the ADFA community.

At the World Cafè cadets repeatedly said things along the same lines: ‘[women] get treated like people’, ‘everyone gets treated equally’, ‘we all just consider each other as equals’ and ‘everyone is given equal opportunities to achieve and perform at their best’.

The Review also heard consistent and strongly expressed views from women – both cadets and staff – that they did not want ‘special’ treatment. They wanted to be treated exactly the same as the men at ADFA:

I have always been actively encouraged to do my best and drive towards my goals as have all my peers regardless of gender. I was treated the same as my male counterparts, and I do not believe it should be any different ... the thought that I may in the future be tippy toed around simply as a result of my gender offends me. I have equality in my workplace ...

These assertions about equal treatment of men and women were also evident in expressions of some resentment towards the impact of the Review and its focus on the treatment of women. For example, the following comment was made in a focus group:

I suppose with these reviews I get a little annoyed, because ... later on in my career when maybe I get a posting or a position, it’d be like ‘oh she got that because she’s a female’, not because I deserved it. Because with all these reviews it brings attention on women.

There was also resistance towards any potential findings of cultural problems at ADFA. For example, in summing up cadets’ discussions at the World Cafè, one cadet stated that:

The one point that really came through from absolutely everybody ... is that business as usual is fine ... because we feel there’s no massive overarching problems ... there’s no need to put pressure on Defence to find a problem when really we feel that there is none.

There was also a perception that any gender issues identified at ADFA were representative of the ‘culture of wider Australian society’: ‘the things that the public or that everyone might see as being wrong with ADFA, and wrong with the way the women are treated, aren’t necessarily to do with the culture at ADFA’.

However, while observing that attitudes towards women have changed for the better, one submission noted that:

... not wanting to be singled out or treated differently because one is female is a strong element of [the female culture at ADFA]. Women, and especially Army women, tend to adopt the wider male culture to such a degree they can also appear misogynist.

(a) Inclusion of women at ADFA

Despite the strength of the views set out above, there is also a general acceptance that ADFA is unequivocally a male-dominated environment and the environment may be more difficult for women.

As COL Paul Peterson, Deputy Commandant ADFA says:

in my opinion, women travel a harder road at ADFA than men. This is not to say that they are subject to systemic disadvantage or mistreatment, but it reflects the challenging realities of service in the military.

Barriers to the full inclusion of women continue to exist. For example, the following confidential submission observed:

I see that ADFA has done a fine job in changing behaviour and attitudes toward women, but still has trouble communicating that celebration and acceptance of difference is good, powerful and could be the key thing that distinguishes the ADF from its adversary. Too many women are still measured against the narrow confines of single sex (ie male) styles of leadership, even if those styles are not relevant to their future role in the ADF.

An explicit example of this is the assumption that the male physical standard was the norm. The Review heard in focus groups that women believe they have to compete with men in terms of physical prowess to be accepted as equal:

We sign up to be up an engineer or this or that, not as a female XYZ, so ... and it’s the same training ... the expectations are the same, you still have to get the same marks, you still have to be just as competent ... in our leadership assessments and everything like that, it’s still the same, there’s no different criteria between male and female, as it should be.

The Review heard evidence that women are encouraged to be more masculine by other cadets and some staff. One ADFA staff member observed that ‘success is tied to strength and masculinity, a whole range of things that I think make women feel pressured to perform a lot more’. A confidential submission noted that:

Both male staff and male cadets would regularly make disparaging comments regarding women’s ability to succeed in some areas of military training, especially physical training and shooting. When male cadets made comments of this nature in front of staff, they were never reprimanded for doing so, with staff often joining in with the ‘jokes’.

One female cadet even commented that it should be communicated to women who are thinking of joining that they will have to ‘toughen up’:

... letting them know that the military is a male kind of culture, a strength culture but ... that’s what the military is and that’s what the military does and men will always be associated with that whole macho killing people ... there will be men that will mistreat you. [Women] just need to be educated on the fact that this is the culture that you’re entering into and make sure that you enjoy that environment.

Such an environment clearly carries risks. The overemphasis on physicality means that cadets feel pressured to continue training despite injury. They fear being thought of as ‘weak’ or ‘chitters’ or not being ‘team players’ if they seek medical assistance. These factors continue to operate as barriers to inclusion for those who do not meet these assumed cultural standards.

(b) Sexist and sexualised language and behaviours

The Review also heard of persistent low-level forms of sexualised language and sexist behaviours. A former staff member noted that:

Soon after the first years arrived ... I became aware of a ‘competition’ by the 2nd and 3rd year male cadets to see who could score a ‘trifecta’; that being the first to have sexual relations with a 1st year female from each of the services.

Further, a recently separated cadet stated:

Amongst cadets, there was a strong culture of commodification of women, particularly as sexual objects. Female cadets were often treated as ‘game’ after hours, rather than as respected colleagues. Female cadets were often harassed by male cadets ‘dully hunting’, and on a number of occasions I noted female cadets being encouraged by large groups of older male cadets to drink heavily with them. No initiatives were in place to discourage this sort of behaviour, and the attitude which underpinned these sorts of actions were simply part of the culture of ADFA.

At certain points in the Review women’s behaviour was described in terms of them being ‘sluts’,  ‘one of the boys’, and ‘whingers’. For example a staff member commented in a focus group:

I can say to a male Cadet the same thing that I say to a female Cadet, the male Cadet may sort of look you up and down and get on with it, the female Cadet, generically speaking, will give you a big grin, do the eyelids, that doesn’t work, uh-oh he’s still taking the same tone, then the tears will start, uh-oh he’s still taking the same tone, and then it’s you can’t speak to me like that, it’s equity and diversity type thing.

Some women also reported that the emphasis on physicality led to feelings of being judged physically. They felt there was pressure on them to stay thin and scrutiny of their body shape and eating habits by others:

Very early into our training, we were told by the staff in charge of our division that the women in the division should not eat dessert in the Mess, as we were more likely to put on weight as a result of it. On occasion during my time in the Academy, I was insulted and harassed by other Cadets because of my eating habits ... because they insisted I would get fat like ‘all the other girls.

The issue of sexual harassment and sexual offences is examined in detail in Chapter 2.

(c) Women as a minority

Representing around 20% of the cadet population at ADFA, women are clearly a minority. There was a general acceptance that this was to be expected, that it was normal and reflective of the military environment generally:

I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong. And while it’s changing ... military lifestyle is one that generally appeals more to males than it does to females. So it would make sense that even today, when ... recruiting seems fairly equal, the number of applicants [means] it’s always going to be weighed towards [men].

The minority status of women at ADFA has practical implications. Women at ADFA are likely to have fewer female confidantes and mentors. Some cadets expressed a wish for more female staff as role models and to provide leadership:

I think ADFA could have more female staff but [they] would need to be female staff who are inspiring, not just female staff.

In referring to the valuable leadership example given by one female officer:

She didn’t talk about being a female Naval Officer, she talked about being a Naval Officer who was female ... She spoke about how she became who she was as a person, and an inspiring person, rather than, “I got here because I’m a woman,” which was really, really good.

At the same time, the Review also frequently heard that female staff had a tendency to treat women more harshly. One recently graduated female cadet said:

The female divisional staff were harder on the women than they were on the men ... Whether this be in an effort to prepare the females for survival in a male-dominated environment in the ADF or due to a fallout from the methods employed on them during their training, I found that under a female Officer it was more difficult being a female than a male.

The Kafer Review (2010) observed that the ‘closed nature’ of the environment at ADFA and women’s visibility meant that sex and sexuality became a ‘particularly public issue, and these issues are the source of much content in the “rumour mill”’. Some cadets suggested to this Review that women carry an additional ‘burden’ because they are more visible. For example, one female cadet made the following observation:

Women are the minority in the Defence Force, therefore, they’ll always be easier to identify than men, and I think that is essential in considering bad reputations. I could name tons of guys that I know here that have gained that reputation but, in ten years down the track, who’s going to remember them? They’re going to remember the women.

(d) The myth of the ‘quota’

One recurring theme throughout the consultations was the strong belief that there was a ‘quota system’ as a ‘response’ to the minority status of women at ADFA. This belief is not supported by any formal quota policies at ADFA, nor does ADFA use quotas for recruiting female cadets. Prospective applicants are informed that ‘women are trained just the same way men are. This means they’re expected to perform equally, with natural physical differences taken into consideration.’

The number of female cadets in each year’s intake has varied over time. However, the Review observed that there is a false perception among some cadets that a quota does exist and there is some resentment on account of this. For example, one cadet told the Review that ‘Defence is pressured by the government to make quotas for females.’

As well as recruitment, the perception of quotas for women also related to the allocation of certain opportunities:

There’s a little bit of that at the moment when it comes to overseas trips. In third year ... there’s the opportunity to go and visit other military academies ... There will always be at least two girls on every trip ... We should all be chosen based on our merit, rather than we need two females and two males.

There was a strong view opposing any quotas to increase the number of women at ADFA. For example:

If you’re good enough to be here, then you should be here. But if you’re not good enough to be here then you shouldn’t, full stop. If you can’t hack it then don’t be here.

If there is a quota on females then that’s basically general discrimination against males as well.

The submission by a senior military staff member also made the following observations:

The solution to this demographic imbalance is not the use of quotas. There is no shortage of women ... who want to come to ADFA, but entry standards into ADFA are rigorously applied, and many women are turned away. Quotas for women would almost certainly require some reduction in entry standards, and the consequences of this would be felt soon after arrival in higher drop out rates. Moreover, women at ADFA do not want quotas. My sense is that they value the uncompromising nature of their achievement and they are concerned that quotas would create a risk to their credibility among peers and subordinates.

1.3 Residential setting

The ADFA campus brings together on the one site a range of functions required by its military and academic mission. There are 23 accommodation blocks at ADFA. Each multi-story block houses represents one division, comprised of up to 47 cadets. All divisions are tri-Service. Each Divisional Building is built around ‘sections’ of eight cadets. Each floor has multiple corridors with clusters of four individual rooms running in each corridor. The design of these buildings has been described as ‘cluster-plex’ accommodation.

Cadets have their own rooms, and share bathroom, laundry and recreation facilities with other cadets. First-year cadets live in single-sex corridors, with living arrangements integrated in second and third years.

The group and interpersonal dynamics within the ‘cluster-plex’ design of the Divisional blocks has a significant bearing on the experience of cadets. The cadets’ identification with their Division plays an important role within this residential setting:

The importance of the divisional structure is reflected in everything the cadets and midshipmen do. They live amongst their divisional peers, not their academic peers, and most, if not all, military training is conducted as a Division.

To some extent, ADFA is also physically cut off from the wider community of Canberra, reinforcing the ‘24/7’ cultural reality of the site for the cadets who live there. Some may not leave the site for the duration of YOFT. The mixed gender environment at ADFA, as well as the fact that a number of cadets are under 18 years of age when they enter, places a particular duty of care on the Academy for their supervision and wellbeing.

ADFA has a number of policies and measures in place around security and women’s safety within the accommodation blocks. For example, although men and women share section blocks from second year on, firstyear women cadets are grouped in all female sections.

The Academy Standing Orders (ASOs) have specific rules about accommodation. Unauthorised entry into the room of a cadet without their consent, except in limited circumstances, is prohibited. Cadets must lock their room door on leaving their section and are ‘encouraged to lock their room doors at night whilst sleeping’. Doors must be kept open while cadets have visitors. ADFA also has a number of rules relating to ‘fraternisation’ and inappropriate relationships, which aim to create a professional living and working environment for cadets. This is discussed further in Chapter 3.

The Review heard a range of views in relation to these rules. Some considered that, like the ‘frat rule’, staff often turned a blind eye to room policies. Others thought these rules imposed unfair limitations on intimate relationships, although they also recognised the safety reason behind them.

The Review also heard a range of views on single sex accommodation. Some were against any segregation in living arrangements:

Nowhere in the rest of your life will you be segregated as a female.

When [first years] rock up on their first day and they get introduced to a female corridor, it’s instantly straight away I’m different.

However, providing women only spaces has benefits. ‘Gender integrated’ space does not always mean that it is a neutral or equal space for men and women. One researcher refers to the concept of ‘gendered space’, often arising in single sex and co-educational colleges, particularly where these are or have traditionally been male-dominated. Such space can be characterised by the presence of sexist posters or other messages which send strong signals to women regarding the ‘ownership’ of the space and gender power dynamics.

Women cadets also referred to the value of having close support groups which single sex living arrangements allowed. One submission from a recent graduate noted:

It was ... beneficial living alongside females [in first year] because when emotions ran high you could visit their rooms and express these to your female friends.

There is a strong sense, however, that the military staff who engage most closely in the daily life of the cadets do not regard the residential accommodation as appropriate. From interviews with staff and cadets, the physical separation of spaces in which teaching, pastoral care, military instruction and social life are carried out tends to create a sense of separation between these functions in the life of the cadets.

One staff member observed that the structure of the accommodation ‘where everything is hidden’ is a real issue:

It’s too hidden and also ... we don’t have any Officers working over there on a day-to-day basis.

Cadets, on the other hand, expressed a desire to maintain a physical separation of instructors and academic staff from their ‘out of hours’ activities. This echoes to some extent the Grey Review’s notion of cadets not ‘crossing the road’ to engage with staff:

... when new staff come in, they forget ... that it’s also your home as well. So they’ll try and implement ... things past working hours and that’s when we get frustrated. And that’s when we hate the place that we’re in. It’s because it is a trainee establishment and we shouldn’t have that separation from work and home, but we try to build it so that it is that.

Other issues raised by cadets related to a lack of privacy and private space. As one staff member observed:

Even just for personal relationships and wanting to have a closed door conversation with a close friend, I think that was really tricky. And psychologically these cadets are coming straight out of school, they’ve just left home for the first time, they’re uncomfortable with a new environment and they find it ... difficult to find a place that feels like home, when everything’s public space and everything is supposed to be a work space ...

(a) Supervision: limitations of the current physical setting

The Review’s consultations and the information gathered highlight the fact that a well-supervised residential setting can significantly minimise the risk of unacceptable behaviour. Inadequate supervision of cadets at ADFA has given rise to a systemic deficiency where some cadets do not respond properly to policies and processes aimed at fostering gender equality and creating a safe environment, particularly for women.

The Review heard that the major limitation in the current arrangement is the lack of on site, residential accommodation for staff at ADFA, either on the campus or in the cadets’ accommodation, from which appropriate supervision and support could be provided. While most instructors live in barracks at RMC Duntroon, for example, the lack of residential accommodation at ADFA limits the extent to which staff can supervise activities and behaviour ‘after hours’. This means that cadets are largely left to regulate their own conduct after classes, without consistent residential supervision. One Divisional staff member observed that a higher level of supervision was required:

... to stop bad things happening, because there’s one of us for 44. We’re not here on weekends or at night-time all the time, we’re here sometimes.

Crucially, the lack of ‘after hours’ engagement throws much of the burden of moral and ethical responsibility at ADFA back upon the cadets themselves. Individual staff members may choose to engage with the pastoral, disciplinary and educational concerns of a cadet within what is, in effect, a ‘24 hour a day, seven day a week’ living and learning environment. The value of this to cadets was expressed in consultations. For example, one third-year cadet spoke of the good relationship with their SNCO:

I still talk to [my first-year Senior NCO] now and he’s almost like a second father to me ... So, if you get yourself in trouble, the first thing I ever did was go and talk to him and ask him what I should do, and he could do it outside the system. give me advice. So, I definitely think that they have a pastoral care towards you ... build that bond, that closer bond.

However, this level of engagement is not mandated by the current expectations and structures at ADFA, and one staff member commented, ‘We’re not geared up to provide 24 hour supervision.’

The Review heard that committed DOs often spend long hours on site in such conditions where their office in the Divisional Block serves two purposes – an office and a ‘home’ until late into the night.

1.4 Diversity and inclusion

(a) Demographics and diversity of the cadet body

‘Diversity’ is defined in the Defence Guide to Managing Diversity in the Workplace (the Guide) as ‘valuing the differences that everybody brings to the workplace, and creating an inclusive environment in which they can effectively contribute’. The Guide sets out a wide range of characteristics that contribute to diversity, from gender and ethnicity to values, personality and work and life experience.

The Guide notes that the different backgrounds, skills and innovative ways of thinking found within Australia’s diverse population ‘are things that Defence needs to take full advantage to enhance its capability while competing in a shrinking recruitment pool’.

The ADFA military environment is intended to reflect the character and features of the broader ADF environment. However, there are a number of demographic features which are unique to ADFA, including:

• the tri-Service environment
• the concentration of new entrants of both sexes, ranging in age from 17-23 years, undertaking both tertiary education and military education/training and living in close quarters for an extended period
• the presence of non-uniformed Defence staff, as well as academic staff of UNSW and contractors from the private sector.

Within this diversity, there is a dominant profile. One staff member suggested that ADFA’s demographics could be crudely summarised as ‘a lot of white males that drink a lot’. This corresponds with the finding of the Podger Review that the varied ethnic backgrounds represented in the Australian community are simply not present in the ADF.

The Review was also told that many cadets come straight to ADFA from all-male or all-female schools ‘so they don’t have that exposure to living with just members of the opposite sex.’ In another interview, it was suggested that cadets’ attitudes towards women were influenced by this factor:

We had the two extremes. We had the boy with no sisters who’s been to an all male boarding school and we had the girls with no brothers who’s been to an all girls school. Those two extremes ... they can bring some really bad things with them, [in the case of] the boys a misogynistic attitude.

Survey data of first-year cadets show that they have a more mixed background in terms of their experience of coeducational or public/private schooling than may fit this perception.

The desire to encourage diversity is noted in ADFA’s staff training materials. The YOFT Staff Preparation Guide 2010 suggested that divisional staff should:

... aim to have as much diversity within the Sections of your Division in order to avoid tribalism and foster a greater sense of cooperation. This is best achieved by separating people by states of origin, service, degree, prior military experience (they can then assist less experienced), age and anything else that you consider important.

The small number of cadets from different ethnic backgrounds suggests a culture of limited diversity. It is also potentially an indicator of a less inclusive one. One submission noted:

I believe that the treatment of women is part of a web of issues towards diversity. The composition of ADFA is a tiny slice of broader society. It quickly becomes clear that if someone does not fit into the dominant mould of white, middle-class male, he/she will be derided for it.

Its history as a male-dominated, largely monocultural environment suggests that it is unlikely that embracing diversity will be a natural capability for ADFA.

(b) General attitudes to diversity and inclusion at ADFA

The Review heard a range of views about the inclusiveness and diversity of ADFA. Some comments were very positive and suggested that cadets were conscious of accommodating others and looking out for one another:

They treat each other with respect and this is coming from third years to second years to first years. They might not be best friends and in their little group but seeing them at sports and things like that, they treat each other equally.

Other responses acknowledged that the diversity and inclusiveness of ADFA could be improved:

I think there’s room for improvement in treating people as individuals with strengths and weaknesses ... rather than fitting a mould. We’ve had a few graduates at this place that are really quite eccentric and they’ve done just fine. But on the other hand there are people who are nowhere near as eccentric who seem to feel a very strong need to conform and I mean, I don’t know how much that’s them and how much that’s driven by the organisation.

1.5 Cadets: recruitment, induction, training and mentoring

The ADF’s 2009 Defence White Paper states that ‘people are at the heart of delivering Defence capability’. The Review examined the manner in which ADFA recruits, inducts and terminates the employment of its people and sought the views of stakeholders as to whether these arrangements are adequate or in need of improvement. The Review paid particular attention to the impact of these arrangements on the experiences of women at the Academy.

(a) Cadets: recruitment

Cadets at ADFA are recruited from around Australia. Some will have parents who served or are serving in the ADF. Some will have taken part in Australian Army Cadets activities in high schools or non-school based units, or the Australian Navy and Australian Air Force Cadets programs. Others may be encountering military culture for the first time. All have made the significant decision to pursue a career as an officer in the ADF. ADFA inform prospective cadets that when selecting candidates for admission:

You will need to demonstrate an ability to develop and enhance the skills and attributes which will enable you to be an effective leader within the Australian Defence Force. These are often referred to as Officer qualities.

To this end, candidates must complete a dual admission process consisting of one application to UNSW@ADFA, made through the University Admission Centre (UAC), as well as a separate application to the Navy, Army or Air Force through Defence Force Recruiting. After several initial steps prospective cadets attend an Officer Selection Board (OSB) at ADFA intended to test ‘leadership potential’ and ‘the capability to learn all that is required to become an officer’. OSBs vary according to the Service but may consist of a written examination, oral presentation, group exercise, physical exercise and panel interview. The final step in the ADF application process is the Physical Fitness Assessment, which all applicants must pass before commencing at ADFA.

The Review heard from many cadets and staff that this selection process ensures that ADFA attracts and accepts the ‘best and brightest’:

Applicants who aspire for selection to ADFA must demonstrate leadership as an integral part of the selection process. Consequently, it is not surprising that School Captains, Cadet Under-Officers, Sporting Captains, Coaches, Managers, Debating Team Leaders, SRC members, Mentors, Queen’s Scouts, Duke of Edinburgh Award holders, Prefects, Class Captains and so on populate the ranks of new ADFA entrants each year.

ADFA’s Deputy Commandant noted that this process,

despite being lengthy, delivers quality young people to Defence, and contributes to ADFA’s low failure rates.

On the other hand, a number of staff told the Review that they felt the selection process for cadets was not sufficiently rigorous. Some felt that weaknesses in the process can contribute to incidents of unacceptable behaviour.

The Review heard concerns from parents about the adequacy of the existing recruitment process, for example:

... our household speculated on the rigour of the application process, and the ability of young people just out of school to deal with the many issues they face in a military and tertiary situation.

The Review did not conduct a full audit analysis of ADFA’s selection processes and criteria. However, a common theme in the Review’s consultations was a concern about the presence of cadets under 18 years. Their particular vulnerability and their perceived immaturity can potentially contribute to, or make them at risk of, incidents of unacceptable behaviour.

Candidates can apply to ADFA when they are 16 years old but are generally not appointed to ADFA until they are 17 years. In some instances, there are cadets that apply to their chosen Service for a waiver and are appointed to ADFA when they are 16 years. The vast majority of cadets, however, are required to be 17 years upon joining ADFA. In the past five years, there have been at least 85 cadets under the age of 18 in each year’s intake. This places an additional burden on ADFA to provide greater supervision. Cadets under 18 years were felt to be:

... the most vulnerable to exploitation from older more experienced members. It is no coincidence that most of the worst abuses of ADF members throughout history have been inflicted on the young. Defence would do well to provide a gap year program for members under 18 and allow them to start at ADFA with their same age peers.

Some staff members and others felt that ADFA should introduce a ‘no minor rule’ to ensure that no cadet arriving at ADFA is under the age of 18, because ‘they are of their nature still children [and] legally children, they require greater supervision’.

The Review considers that issues regarding minors – and indeed the relative maturity levels of all cadets – should be given specific consideration in the context of considering the development of options for a first-year single service training and work placement program for all ADFA cadets (see Recommendation 16).

(b) Cadets: induction

A cadet’s initial period at ADFA is a crucial time in his or her development as an officer and as a young adult. Most cadets are between the ages of 17 and 23 years. Most will have moved to Canberra and be living away from home for the first time. The majority will have come to ADFA straight from high school. For young adults across Australia, this is often an age of experimentation and intense development. At ADFA this situation is complicated by the fact that new arrivals are living, studying and working together with fellow cadets.

As a minority at ADFA, this transition period can potentially be more stressful for female cadets. One senior staff member told the Review that:

While men must also deal with this separation from family, the simple fact is that there are far more ‘brothers and father figures’ at ADFA than there are ‘sisters and mother figures’.

In order to manage this transition, ADFA runs the six-week YOFT program. The program is designed to provide cadets with the basic military and personal skills essential for their careers and for living and working at ADFA. Lessons include drill, physical training, communal living and uniform maintenance, first aid and weapons training. Cadets also receive training in equity and diversity, healthy lifestyle and alcohol and drug awareness. The Review heard that YOFT is an intense period for cadets but also a formative one which can ‘break down’ boundaries between cadets. As one cadet told the Review:

... it forms a bond amongst each other ... Whether or not you stay with those same people, those friends and mates that you make in the first six weeks, and for the rest of that year, are pretty much your best from then on.

Incoming cadets are told that ‘midshipmen and officer cadets are not permitted to resign during the first five weeks. This time also allows [them] to make a well-informed decision regarding resignation from ADFA’. Staff opinions regarding this policy were mixed. Some staff members felt that it served ADFA well, while others resented having to devote time to cadets who ‘think the culture doesn’t suit them.’

The clearest message that the Review received about YOFT was that it was a packed schedule and potentially overwhelming for new cadets. The speed with which they were expected to absorb the information delivered to them was widely considered to be unrealistic. This includes training that cadets receive that has the potential to impact on the treatment of women at ADFA.

The Review considers that the YOFT training cadets receive on equity and diversity, unacceptable behaviour and respectful relationships is currently insufficient and in need of improvement. At present, cadets receive a series of short briefings on subjects such as equity and diversity, drugs and alcohol, healthy relationships and ‘reputation management’. However these briefings are delivered under time pressure and at a time when cadets are expected to absorb a large amount of other information.

The Review was also told that there was a need to better manage cadets’ transition from YOFT to normal ADFA life, once the initial six-week period ended. It heard that the increase in free time had the potential to lead to incidents of unacceptable behaviour. As one former cadet said:

Once YOFT is over cadets are not told how to manage their freedom. Everyone gets a bit crazy.

Special attention needs to be paid to managing this transition phase. ADFA could improve the way it does this with an increased focus on cadets’ induction, particularly in the areas of equity and diversity and unacceptable behaviour training.

(c) Cadets: training

One obvious feature that differentiates ADFA from a civilian university is that alongside academic study towards an undergraduate degree, cadets complete a program of military training designed to develop skills relevant to their careers as officers.

Military training at ADFA is delivered in two ways: the Academy Military Education and Training (AMET) and the Single Service Training (SST) programs. All cadets, irrespective of their chosen Service, complete AMET training during and outside ADFA’s academic sessions. Subjects studied during AMET include leadership and management skills; drill and ceremonial; defence studies; weapon training; military law; mess customs and etiquette; an oral and written communications program; physical and recreational training; stress management; first aid and health; and alcohol and drug awareness.

SST training is designed to meet the specific needs of each Service and is normally conducted outside the academic sessions. Separate programs for the Navy, Army, and Air Force occur twice a year. SST is conducted at establishments around the country in a variety of training institutions, operational units and ships. During SST, cadets are employed by their respective Services and provided with a further insight into the single-Service environments in which they will be working upon graduation.

ADFA’s mission is to provide a ‘military education and training combined with a balanced and liberal university education’ however, there often appeared to be a tension between cadets’ academic and military responsibilities. Further, the Review heard that the existing training program has long fallen short of its intended aim of providing cadets with comprehensive training and the adequate leadership experience to prepare them for their careers as officers. In the words of one staff member, ‘there are no proper control mechanisms in place to develop the curriculum or to maintain it.’

Formal leadership training within AMET appears to be conducted largely on an ad hoc basis, with two major leadership activities taking place in cadets’ second and third years of study. One senior staff member suggested that these major pieces of the curriculum are ‘just done because they’ve always been done’ and that there is no underpinning philosophy to the leadership training that cadets receive. The idea that there is a lack of strategy in leadership development was reinforced by other staff. One suggested that cadets were almost subject to training by osmosis, or ‘watch, learn, and try and replicate it when you’re commissioned’. Cadets themselves have expressed frustration at the leadership opportunities that they are given, with one noting that ‘you don’t get much hands on experience there now they’ve got rid of the rank structure.’

The AMET program is currently being redesigned, with a view to making the program more consistent and more closely aligned with the needs of the Services for well trained officers. It is critical that this redesign specifically address the need for cadets to develop appropriate leadership skills as part of their formal training. The Review understands that this redesign is still at a ‘very conceptual’ stage.

(d) Cadets: mentoring

ADFA has no system of formal cadet hierarchies, in contrast to many military academies around the world. Cadet hierarchies were abolished shortly after the publication of the Grey Review, which concluded that they were a cause of many cultural deficiencies at the time. Since the removal of formal hierarchies, there has been a reduction in inter-year bullying and harassment, but also new issues in terms of inter-year interaction, peer support mechanisms, and leadership opportunities.

Mentoring opportunities develop leadership, but are often seen as entwined with cadet hierarchies at ADFA, which complicates this issue. One senior staff member acknowledged that there was ‘strong resistance’ to the reintroduction of a cadet hierarchy among those with knowledge of the pre-Grey Review situation, but that ‘not having one at ADFA undermines the whole point of officer training.’ A current cadet suggested that their support of a reintroduction was ‘controversial’ but that the absence of hierarchies made it ‘hard for young officers under training to develop.’ A parent noted that the reintroduction of anything approaching a hierarchy would need careful management because it was ‘that supervision role ... which caused the [pre-Grey Review] problem.’

In recent times, the foremost vehicle for inter-year interactions and the development of informal hierarchies has been the sporting clubs and other voluntary extra curricular activities. These have been supplemented in 2010 and 2011 by reforms to the cadet squadron structure and a new student body mentoring system which has paired senior and junior cadets in semi-formal situations.

ADFA’s sporting clubs function as a source of information exchange and leadership development, where junior cadets are mentored by more senior peers, and seniors gain valuable leadership experience. Current cadets told the Review of ways in which their clubs have encouraged these relationships, and the value that they derive from them. One said that ‘at the start of the year ... first years are linked up with a second or third year who’s been in the club and they sort of understand’ ADFA.

Mentoring relationships established through the sporting clubs deal with more than sporting matters. One cadet explained that:

I’m in the AFL team with these girls and I know that we’ve helped them out a little bit and I know that I got helped out last year, (including with) academics, what subjects to take, things like that, so the sporting clubs take up a big role of mentoring ...

One staff member told the Review that there are ‘a lot of informal relationships developed through the sporting system and that’s where the cadets get a lot of ... support.’ And a parent similarly acknowledged that their children were involved in sporting clubs where they had seen ‘first years, second years and third years interact together, forming that wonderful group of mentors among themselves’.

(e) Squadron restructure and semi-formal mentoring

There has been a reorganisation of the Squadron structure in 2011. Cadets are now assigned to a single Squadron for the entire duration of their time at ADFA, but move through Divisions within this structure. This was a recommendation of the Kafer Review, which argued that such a change was ‘likely to aid the development of a sense of esprit de corps and improve the motivation and commitment of the cadet body’.

Third year cadets now have responsibilities as mentors for junior members of their Squadron. Several cadets suggested that this new system required further development. One noted that:

they haven’t really put you with people you have anything in common with. Like they’re not necessarily people in your Service or your degree or maybe your sport or something like that like where it would be good if you know, you had an engineer with an engineer.

Another cadet noted that ‘you can’t have a mentoring program without training the mentors’ and a senior staff member reinforced this, noting that ‘presumably being an effective mentor or whatever requires you to have some skills.’

This mentoring system is very new and requires close monitoring in order to ensure that it achieves its intended purposes.

1.6 Social context

(a) Adjusting to ADFA life

Cadets develop friendships at ADFA in various ways. On arrival they are allocated to divisions with up to 47 other cadets from their own year group with whom they live and undertake tri-Service military training. Various cadets spoke of developing friendships through their divisions but suggested that this could be limiting. One cadet noted that their previous division ‘had a really good culture ... but [we are] only friends with each other’.

Cadets commonly develop relationships through their academic studies – ‘I know all us engineers just hang out together’ – and develop friendships outside of their year groups through participation in voluntary extracurricular activities (VECA) such as community service, drama productions, the precision drill team, sailing and debating. ADFA offers rugby union, rugby league, netball, AFL, soccer, volleyball, basketball, touch football and rowing.

Participation in these activities facilitates friendships and informal mentoring and enables cadets to learn more about ADFA and receive assistance with studies, training or difficult personal issues that arise.

One cadet remarked ‘everyone has people they can depend on.’ Another stated:

I’ve heard that from quite a few people that if it wasn’t for the club that they wouldn’t be here. I know myself I had a few issues last year and it was my support group that came from the club that got me through it and right at the start of first year one of the older members said to me the club is my family and if it wasn’t for them I would have gone home ages ago. Sometimes they really get you through the tough parts of being at the academy.

(b) Support networks

A Foster Family Scheme (referred to as ‘sponsor families’) is also offered to first year cadets. The cadets are matched with families from the Defence community in Canberra (this includes families of current, retired or exService Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers and UNSW @ ADFA staff). This program links cadets with other members of Defence, and gives them a ‘home away from home’ in Canberra. Participation in the scheme is voluntary and in recent years, female cadets have participated in the scheme to a greater extent than male cadets. Since 2008, 38% of male first year cadets and 59% of female cadets have participated in the Scheme. One parent noted that the Scheme

gives them a chance to talk to somebody that’s not family that understands what they’re going through and I think that’s the key issue, the fact that they talk about something and you know exactly what they’re talking about ...

Further, cadets identified this informal support network as offering an alternative to the more formal support mechanisms in place at ADFA that cadets appear to be uncomfortable accessing at times. One cadet noted that:

if you don’t want to go and talk to the Chaplains or the Psych or the E&D Adviser or your DO or whoever, like, you’ll hardly ever find that there’s a problem without someone’s mates already knowing about it, you know, they’ve already talked about it or whatever.

(c) Socialising outside ADFA

Cadets have spoken of challenges to maintaining friendships outside ADFA.

Some cadets reported having had difficulty relating to and maintaining contact with people with whom they had previous social involvement. One said that ‘since you’re away from them so much and you don’t really get much time to go home, you lose the friends that ... weren’t close.’ Another spoke of the difficulties in relating to civilian friends:

It’s a bit hard when you first join to kind of relate to them ‘cause you’re telling them stories that are funny to you but they don’t understand what drill or field or anything is; they’re kind of just like, ‘What are you talking about?’

A particular problem noted by cadets is the scheduling of single service training during the ADFA break for some services. The result of this is that it ‘completely cuts your family and friends from the outside off.’

Other cadets spoke of the negative stereotypes associated with ADFA, and indicated that this can limit their opportunity to interact with civilians. One cadet noted that ‘Saturday night you’ll be out in a bar and, as soon as someone hears the word ADFA, they go, “Oh,” and everything changes.’

However, some have noted the importance of maintaining relationships with their friends outside ADFA: ‘you just need someone outside, ‘cause you’re stuck, not stuck, you live with people here all the time and you kind of need a break from it.’

(d) Social context – themes

A number of interconnected themes emerge from the Review’s analysis of the social context at ADFA.

The notion that the cadets are a ‘family was discussed frequently by cadets and is evident in a range of contexts, particularly in relation to sport and divisional activities. For example, one cadet stated ‘in your div you’re like a family. Like us, we’re like a family, so you can talk about anything.’ This idea appears to be encouraged by ADFA staff. A cadet reflecting on their training said:

I remember getting a talk about how we should treat the others with us as brothers and sisters and look out for them and it was mostly about looking out for the other females in defence and you know looking out for one another, making sure they’re all right ...

Many cadets spoke about the sense of protectiveness they feel towards each other, notably, that female cadets feel supported by the male cadets, their ‘brothers’. This is particularly evident when cadets speak of their social activities outside ADFA:

The male and female cadets are very protective over each other, on the town we act like brothers and sisters if anyone gets into trouble.

This sense of protection can extend to cadets stepping in when their friends behave inappropriately:

... we look out for each other. Like if you see someone going the wrong way, you say (to your) mate: “I think you need to slow down.” There are steps that you can take, you can inform your sergeant or your DO and say look, I don’t want you to do anything but, cadet X might have a problem so I just need you to ... keep an eye on him for me.

However, in another focus group, it was discussed that a cadet reporting an incident or issue relating to one of their friends through the chain of command may be seen as ‘betrayal’ unless some prior warning was given to the friend.

The values of mateship and loyalty are held up by cadets as being among the most important elements of ADFA’s culture; indeed, the importance of mateship is instilled by ADFA itself in training such as ‘Keep Your Mates Safe’, which is given to first year cadets. One focus group participant stated ‘the Defence culture is clear. It is protect your mates, look after your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, you know support people all the time.’A staff member stated:

... traditionally they’ve always had a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ kind of thing. You don’t inform on your peers, you’re very loyal to your friends, mateship is very high on your agenda. Yes you have integrity and all those things but when it comes to a choice between that and loyalty, well loyalty comes first ...

There is significant pressure placed on cadets not to ‘jack on your mate’. As outlined by one cadet, while there may be an expectation among cadets that those who behave inappropriately will come forward, cadets generally will not report on each other:

I think that the biggest sin is selling out your mates, ‘cause you’re all living together; if you sell out one of your mates, you’re gone ... usually people have the integrity to come forward. If they’ve done something bad and, they will usually go forward and say it, because that’s one of the things we’re taught here. So, you don’t really ever have to tell on anyone and you’re not going to anyway.

Another stated ‘the only thing though is keep it in house, like, it’s no one else’s concern’. This is consistent with the idea of military cultures creating boundaries between ‘insiders and outsiders’ discussed earlier in this Chapter.

This reluctance to report on one’s fellow cadets is borne out by quantitative data. In response to a survey undertaken in preparing the Kafer report in 2010, only seven per cent of the 186 survey respondents answered ‘never’ to the statement ‘During my time at ADFA I would lie to the staff to protect my mates’. Only five percent of cadets would always or ‘usually, almost always’ ‘report to the staff a cadet who violated the code of conduct’.

The reluctance to report is potentially problematic when the loyalty and protectiveness cadets feel towards each other prevents them seeking assistance when it might be required with the consequence that they and their peers may then be isolated from outside support networks.

1.7 Alcohol

Not all cadets participate in drinking activities. However, the Review’s consultations illustrate that alcohol use is a significant part of cadet life at ADFA. This is not a new phenomenon. The report of the Grey Review stated that ‘alcohol plays an important role in the social activity of most cadets. Alcohol is a feature at virtually all formal and informal social activity in which cadets engage, both at the Defence Academy and in the wider community.’The Kafer Review also noted the ‘ongoing existence of a drinking culture at ADFA’. The Inquiry into the Learning Culture in ADF Schools and Training Establishments, 2006 (the Podger Review) acknowledged most ADF training establishments have a strong drinking culture.

The issue of alcohol use and misuse was raised by ADFA cadets, staff and parents. One senior ADFA staff member stated ‘there’s no doubt that too many of our people misuse alcohol.’ Cadets frequently referred to particular local bars as being part of the experience of ADFA life. For example, a third year cadet stated that one of these bars is an ‘unofficial kind of Academy spot. It’s where we all go and you’re guaranteed to know people there.’

ADFA has existing education and support mechanisms in place to address and reduce alcohol use. These include displaying photographs of cadets who are under 18 years old at the ADFA bar, to prevent them from being served alcohol; mandatory training on alcohol and drug abuse; and a ‘Controlled Leave/Alcohol and Drug List’, the purpose of which is to ‘control leave and prohibit the consumption of alcohol for those members who have either been convicted of an alcohol or drug-related offence, or who have been identified as having an alcohol or drug-related problem’.

ADFA cadets are also subject to broader ADF policies and procedures relating to the consumption of alcohol and prohibited drugs, including testing procedures. The 2010 Report of the Inspector General Australian Defence Force illustrated that testing for prohibited substances occurred more frequently than alcohol testing at ADFA. The report states that while 481 drug tests were undertaken between May and September 2010, only one targeted alcohol test was undertaken at ADFA in the 12 months to September 2010. ADFA subsequently advised the Review that a total of 28 breath tests for alcohol were undertaken in 2010, and that 331 alcohol breath tests have so far been undertaken at ADFA in 2011.

Some views expressed to the Review suggest that the use of alcohol at ADFA is reflective of similar cultures in other academic institutions and indeed Australian society in general. For example, an ADFA staff member stated ‘Truthfully, we don’t know if alcohol use is more of a problem for us or if it is simply a representative (of the Australian community).’ This view was echoed by cadets, with one noting that ‘the public has been very critical towards an ADF drinking culture. I think the important thing is it’s not just us, it’s an Australian problem, and especially a youth Australian problem.’

However, some consultation participants noted that conditions at ADFA may be particularly conducive to the use of alcohol. Cadets have high levels of disposable income and alcohol is inexpensive at the ADFA bar; one beer costs only $2, while some spirits are only $1.80. Cadets also have access to discounted drinking at local bars. Other factors cited include peer pressure, young cadets living away from home, experimentation with alcohol (noting that some cadets turn eighteen while at ADFA) and the pressured environment at ADFA. One focus group participant stated:

... the culture unfortunately across the board, 17, 18, 19 year olds, is drink until you fall over. Our kids have money that kids at Sydney University and others don’t ... Our kids are away from the home, they’re away from their normal peers, and they’ve got something to prove with new peers, and unfortunately keeping up with how much you can drink and the effects of what happens after that.

Another submission stated:

It is from my personal experiences that I have seen a number of ADFA first year cadets who turn eighteen while in their first year resort to binge drinking ... Last year upon turning eighteen, I went through a similar experience with my year twelve friends, when the majority including myself after turning eighteen felt that being now allowed to binge drink legally in clubs was something of a phenomenon we must simply experience.

The Independent Advisory Panel on Alcohol has also noted the existence of similar issues in its draft Report to the Minister for Defence and Chief of Defence Force on issues related to alcohol use in the Australian Defence Force. That Report makes a number of recommendations aimed at addressing the excessive use of alcohol in the ADF, including among those in their early training.

Regardless of whether the ‘drinking culture’ is unique to ADFA, the link between alcohol misuse and risk taking and unacceptable behaviour, including sexual misconduct, is supported by numerous studies.

Both ADFA staff and cadets have identified the role alcohol may play in risky behaviour and instances of unacceptable treatment of women. For example, a senior staff member stated:

We do know that a majority, certainly a very high percentage of our problems with unacceptable behaviour have an alcohol component and that includes issues associated with the harassment of women.

Other staff members have reinforced this position. For example, participants in one focus group commented: ‘I have no particular beef against drinking but that’s very powerful and leads to a whole lot of anti-social behaviour’ and ‘I think when there’s a lot of alcohol around, there’ll be a lot of risky sexual behaviour.’ Another staff member suggested a link between alcohol use and unacceptable behaviour, stating:

I think it’s an issue in behaviour that could be defined as abusive. I think it’s a very unlikely that young men, or young women, would treat the opposite sex in a terrible way if they were stark sober.

A similar view was also expressed by a cadet:

The only instances where in my previous six months [of] being in the Defence Force and studying at ADFA where I have seen instances where the treatment of women may be brought into question would be when there has been alcohol involved.

1.8 Reputation management

It was clear from the consultations that cadets feel that their ‘reputations’ are of vital importance to their lives at ADFA, and their future careers within the ADF. Cadets continually conveyed the importance of ‘reputation management’. The emphasis placed on this concept, and the stakes involved, create unique challenges for young people who live, work, study and socialise together.

Cadets suggested that reputations could be impacted for better or worse in a number of ways, including by excessive drinking or being good at sporting or academics.

In many cases however, ‘reputation management’ was closely related to sexual behaviour, and it was stressed that this was particularly the case for female cadets. A current staff member told the Review that ‘young female Cadets, in particular perhaps – there’s no avoiding it – they have reputations that follow them.’

Cadets are made aware of the importance of ‘reputation management’ as part of their private gender briefings in the YOFT period. A female cadet suggested that the brief for women was split into two parts, and that:

half of it was uniform ... your hair, earring size ... stockings ... The other half is reputation. Basically you don’t sleep around, otherwise you’ll get a name for yourself.

The training materials provided to the Review broadly support this. The session appears to touch on the history of women in the ADF and specific expectations, challenges and issues that women face at ADFA and in the military. The importance of ‘reputation management’ is emphasised during this session, and then is informally reinforced at the Divisional level.

Cadets and staff have indicated that the gender demographics within ADFA and the ADF, as well as wider societal double standards about sexual behaviour make ‘reputation management’ more of an issue for female than male cadets. Cadets, military and academic staff suggested that women’s reputations were at issue more than men’s because ‘women are the minority in the Defence Force, therefore, they’ll always be easier to identify’.But they also noted the existence of double standards about gender and sexual behaviour. Michael Flood has written that in contemporary Western culture, including Australia:

heterosexual sexual experience has an almost entirely positive significance among young men, [but] for young women, sex can be a means to the destruction of one’s social standing and reputation.

This sentiment was reflected in several focus groups, where female cadets noted that:

what happens here isn’t any different to what happens in normal society. Females will acquire a reputation much differently than what males do ... you sleep with a hundred girls you’re a legend, you sleep with a hundred guys you’re a bit of a slut.

Current cadets note that they have seen ‘reputations’ spread within the military. One cadet observed that cadets will ‘go out on ... Single Service training and [ADF members will] just be like “oh, you’re that girl, you slept with these people.”’ Another said that they had been at an external base earlier in the year and ‘there were lieutenants talking about girls at ADFA who they’ve already heard about their reputations.’

The Review also received several submissions noting the negative aspects of the focus on women’s sexuality at ADFA. One former cadet suggested that:

a woman’s sexual history is also seen to be an indicator of her moral worth. If a woman is sexually active (or if the rumour mill says she is), she is derided as a morally reprehensible person.

A former staff member noted that ‘there is no doubt in my mind that a female’s reputation in the ADF is far [more] easily damaged in comparison to their male counterparts.’ The Review’s consultations suggest that this is very much the case at ADFA.

The situation in relation to intimate relationships is further complicated by the existence of a fraternisation rule within ADFA, and the ADF more broadly, which limits the extent to which cadets are able to have romantic relationships with each other. Fraternisation rules are discussed further in Chapter 3.

However, ADFA cadets do develop romantic intimate relationships with each other. A number of female cadets reported having boyfriends at ADFA. It was also noted that some cadets have casual sexual relationships, although they do not appear to be viewed positively by the cadet body:

I know from living out of home before I came here with my friends ... it was much more accepted to just have friends with benefits with them than it was when I came here.

It was noted that it can be difficult for cadets to maintain a long-term romantic intimate relationship:

I think the thing at ADFA is that we’re only here for three years and ... Army don’t even know where they’re going to get posted ‘cause we don’t even know our jobs, and then, with the different services, like it’s very difficult to maintain a long term relationship.

1.9 Illness and injury

Female cadets at ADFA experience injuries at a greater rate than their male counterparts. Data from ADFA indicates that around one third of all injuries at ADFA since 2006 have been suffered by female cadets. This is notable given that women form around just one-fifth of the cadet population.

ADFA, and the ADF more generally, have mechanisms in place to address injuries and illness. Medical assistance is available near ADFA’s premises at the Duntroon Health Centre. Cadets who are unwell or injured may be given a medical certificate (‘Medical Advice Card’ or ‘chit’) which outlines any treatment or limitation required. Under Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 16-22 ‘Australian Defence Force rehabilitation program’, ADF members can access the ADF Rehabilitation Program. This program aims ‘to assist members by providing a personal case manager and structured support to recover from injury or illness’. Cadets with serious medical conditions may be monitored by ADFA staff through the Board of Review process.

Concerns were raised with the Review about how ADFA’s injury and illness management mechanisms work in practice. The Review heard that a cadet who was subsequently diagnosed with a serious gynaecological issue:

was never referred to a gynaecologist or a female doctor of any kind and she felt that right from the beginning she was branded a malingerer and that went on for a long time.

Further, among some ADFA staff there is limited understanding of women’s specific health issues, and little sensitivity to the fact that women are physiologically different to men, and may experience different health or physical concerns. There is a perception among some staff that female cadets are more likely to try to get out of training, and may use conditions such as their menstrual cycle as an excuse to do so. The Review heard statements such as ‘Females milk it more ... The period thing gets trotted out as well.’

Within ADFA, there is a significant stigma attached to being injured or unwell. This can have a greater impact on female cadets, given their higher rates of injury. In response to the 2011 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey, 45.5% of female cadets and 17.9% male cadets who responded to the survey reported that at least once they had ‘been treated differently, victimised or harassed because of their medical status (for example, being on a ‘chit’/medical restrictions)’. This is supported by qualitative evidence heard by the Review, particularly in cases where an injury or illness is not visible to others.

The Review was told about one case where there were rumours that a female cadet with a bacterial illness was ‘faking it’ to get out of academic commitments. Another cadet referred to the experience of a cadet who was suffering from shin splints: ‘You can’t see them and the boys are like “they don’t exist” and made her cry all the time’.

Injury and illness is often linked to ‘weakness’. One submission noted that:

[Cadets] believe everyone identified as weak is basically unworthy and should be removed from training and/or sent elsewhere. Sometimes they try to help this process along by targeting these people and making them feel so uncomfortable in the military they want to leave.

Cadets noted that this particularly affects female cadets:

... if you’re a male and you have a chit they can just laugh about “oh I have a sore leg, I’m just going to get out of PT today.” But if a girl would go and do that, it would be so much more unacceptable.

There is also a link to the strong emphasis placed on the values of mateship and teamwork, through a perception that cadets on medical restrictions may be ‘slacking off’ and letting their mates down. As one former cadet who experienced ongoing medical issues stated, ‘I was weak, I was jack on the group because I wasn’t able to ... keep up with my duties. I was a burden.’

1.10 Military staff: recruitment, induction and leadership

(a) Military staff: recruitment

Previous reviews, including the Grey Review and the Kafer Review, have highlighted the importance of posting high-quality military staff to ADFA. ADFA staff require a special set of skills in dealing with young people, assessing risks to their safety and assisting in their development as the next generation of ADF officers. They should also have appropriate skills to work effectively in a mixed-gender and tri-Service environment. In the view of one parent:

These young folks are going to go off the rails if nobody’s managing them and mentoring them because they’re off doing something else. I think that they need to go and pick people that come here to be their mentors ‘cause that’s what they are.

For this reason, recruitment to DO and DSNCO positions is particularly important, as they have the most day-to-day contact with cadets. The Deputy Commandant told the review that ‘emphasis on the careful selection of quality staff is, without doubt, the most important factor in sustaining the morale and welfare of students at ADFA.’ He said that he ‘cannot speak too highly of the staff at ADFA’.

However, the Review also heard that the quality of staff that each of the Services posts to ADFA can vary significantly and that there is very little that ADFA can do to reject a staff member who is of insufficient quality. At present, the career management agencies of each of the Services (Navy, Army and Air Force) are responsible for recruiting staff to ADFA. These agencies make ‘initial assessments regarding whom to post to ADFA, with some opportunity for discussions with staff at the Academy regarding the suitability of staff selected by these agencies.’

Variation in the quality of staff members posted to ADFA contributes to the lack of consistency in staff interaction with cadets. Cadets feel this inconsistency most acutely at the DO and DSNCO level, where staff are most likely to be required to deal with issues that impact on the treatment of women, including incidents or complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and abuse.

There was a wide recognition from junior staff, senior ADFA leadership, and career management agency staff that ADFA is not a prized posting. In particular, time at ADFA is not seen to contribute positively to career development. There is a perception that ADFA could lead to ‘degradation’ in the technical skills required for career progression, particularly in the Navy and Air Force. This impacts negatively on the quality of staff recruited to ADFA, their morale while posted there and, in turn, the experiences of cadets.

(b) Military staff: induction

The current induction program for new military staff arriving at ADFA could be significantly improved. New military staff complete a two-day program known as Academy Staff Induction Training (ASIT). All military staff with instruction duties complete a ten-day program known as the Instructor Preparation Course (IPC). Both programs take place prior to YOFT and consist mostly of a series of short briefings on a wide range of subjects, including Equity and Diversity, Suicide Awareness and OH&S.

Much of the material covered has the potential to positively impact on the treatment of women at ADFA, by giving new staff the knowledge and skills to more effectively promote and protect the wellbeing of female cadets in their care. However, this potential is often not realised because new staff are expected to absorb a large amount of information in a very short period of time. The information is also not delivered in a way that encourages staff to incorporate it into their daily practice.

Both ADFA’s senior leadership and the career management agencies acknowledge the need to improve the program of staff induction. However, they stress that the ability to implement an effective and thorough induction program is limited by timing constraints at the beginning of each year. The Kafer Review noted this same scheduling problem in its report. As ADFA’s Deputy Commandant told the Review:

Staff development is also very important, but the constraints of academic and military training programs means there is insufficient time to undertake all necessary training before cadets arrive in January each year. For this reason, staff education and training is progressively staged throughout the year. Some staff arriving at ADFA have had limited experience working with women and some take longer than others to become comfortable with this.

(c) Military staff: leadership

Leadership development and practice is a major ADFA goal. The Review examined the current leadership landscape in relation to military staff at ADFA and identified ongoing issues with leadership continuity at its most senior level.

The mission of the Commandant, the most senior position at ADFA, is:

... to undertake the professional development of initial entry officers that provides them with the foundation skills, knowledge and attitudes needed by junior officers, including military training and tertiary education.

Since February 2006 there have been six Commandants (including two acting Commandants). The Review found that the quality of recent Commandants has been high and indeed, cadets, staff and parents commented favourably on CDRE Kafer’s leadership and commitment to ADFA. However, the level of turnover within ADFA’s senior office hinders strategic direction and sustainable reform. The ADF Leadership Doctrine and the Learning Culture Inquiry both suggest that executive instability will affect institutional outcomes. The Leadership Doctrine has highlighted the link between leaders and followers, and turnover. In addition, the Learning Culture Inquiry noted the connection between ‘short tenure amongst the executive group’, ‘high turnover of staff’ and the effectiveness of the training facility. The precedent set at the top of the chain has been replicated throughout the ranks of ADFA staff. There is currently a turnover of approximately 40% of all military staff each year.

Cadets told the Review that they model their development on the staff that they respect and appreciate having appropriate role models and mentors (e.g. by gender, by Service). Defence suggests that ‘no aspect of leadership is more powerful’ than exemplary leadership role modelling. One cadet stated that:

As a cadet under training, you are continually looking up at your chain of command and evaluating their leadership styles.

Another noted that:

You notice ... which DOs that you respect, and they’re the ones you want to be like.

The leadership provided by DOs was identified as a key issue by cadets. One current cadet noted that ‘each Divisional Officer has obviously had a different take on leadership and how they’re going to try and teach it to us’ while another found that ‘there’s no consistency’ among divisional staff. A former cadet said different outcomes among cadets could be ‘based upon the attitudes and expectations of their divisional staff.’ There are clearly many high-quality DOs at ADFA. However, under-performing DOs can greatly undermine the leadership training of their cadets.

Divisional Officers’ duties include:

... all the functions of command, leadership, mentoring and counselling, as well as contributing to the detailed day to day welfare, morale, health, physical fitness discipline, and administration of midshipmen, cadets and other military personnel allocated to his or her Division.

There is scope for improving the vital connection between DOs (and other divisional staff) and cadets, in order to provide cadets with strategically important leadership training and mentoring.

The complex requirements of DO’s role have been raised in various reports since 1998. The Kafer Review found that:

All cadets noted having at least one Divisional staff member whom they considered incompetent, inconsiderate or unsupportive during their time at ADFA, many in fact noted having multiple during their time at ADFA.

The roles of the DO and DSNCO are especially significant given their responsibility to interpret and facilitate the delivery of the curriculum ADFA needs high-quality Divisional staff delivering a well-designed training program in order to deliver the leadership training required.

1.11 Removal of underperforming staff and cadets

Staff members told the Review that ADFA’s tri-Service nature makes it difficult to remove cadets and staff who have underperformed or displayed unacceptable behaviour within a reasonable timeframe:

[The] Commandant can recommend the termination of a cadet’s appointment to a delegate in the Navy, Army or Air Force, but this can be a lengthy and administratively taxing process. In some cases, such recommendations have taken over 12 months to finalise.

In several cases, staff appeared to resent what they feel is a situation in which it is difficult to remove underperforming cadets unless they are failing academically.

The Review heard that it is similarly difficult to terminate the positions of staff who are underperforming or engaging in unacceptable conduct or misconduct. As noted, ADFA’s military staff have responsibility for training, supervising and, in some cases, mentoring young people. Underperforming staff can therefore negatively impact on the treatment of women at ADFA by failing to deal appropriately with incidents of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or abuse, as well as by actively participating in such behaviour themselves.

While cadets frequently told the Review about high-quality staff they had encountered while at ADFA, they also spoke of cases where staff had either failed to respond adequately to incidents of unacceptable behaviour, had appeared to either implicitly or explicitly condone it, or had themselves taken part.

---

 EH Schein, ‘What is Culture’ in M Godwyn & JH Gittell, Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships (2011) 311, p 313.

 EH Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed, 2010), p 7.

 Confidential submission 7.

 Public submission Liebhart.

 The World Cafè was a group discussion held with 40 cadets from across Services and years – further detail at Appendix B.

 Public submission White.

 Cadet focus group.

 World Cafè.

 World Cafè.

 Confidential submission 9.

 Public submission COL Petersen.

 Confidential submission 10.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Confidential submission 13.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential submission 8.

 Confidential submission 13.

 Cadet focus groups; Staff focus groups.

 Cadet focus groups.

 Cadet focus groups.

 Staff focus group.

 Confidential submission 13.

 Staff focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Public submission LEUT Russo.

 CDRE BJ Kafer, Report of the Review of the Australian Defence Force Academy Military Organisation and Culture, Part 2 (2010), p 18.

 World Cafè.

 Defence Force Recruiting, ADFA Entry Requirements,  (viewed 10 August 2011).

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Public submission COL Petersen.

 A Devlin, S Donovan, A Nicolov, O Nold, G Zandan, ‘Residence Hall Architecture and Sense of Community – Everything Old is New Again’ (2008) 40(4) Environment and Behaviour 492.

 Confidential submission 9.

 In first year, women live together in corridors of four for the whole year. In second year, living arrangements are integrated (with two women and two men in each corridor). In third year, the living arrangements are fully integrated. The gender division is not fixed (for example, three women and one man might live in one corridor). In 1986, when ADFA commenced, females lived in half corridors of four cadets. At the time of the Grey Review, mixed gender accommodation blocks were being introduced throughout the ADF. To give young cadets time to develop a mature attitude to managing living and working in a mixed gender environment, the Grey Review recommended that integration of mixed-gender accommodation be a gradual process over the three years of training. Following the Grey Review, in 1999 first year females lived in all female divisions. However, this became very problematic for a number of reasons and single-sex divisions ceased in 2001: LTCOL N Fox, Email to the Review, 22 August 2011.

 Staff focus group.

 Staff focus group.

 N Funnell, Interview, 8 August 2011.

 Public submission Burnham.

 Confidential interview.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Staff focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 See Appendix G.

 Confidential interview.

 Defence Equity Organisation, Defence Guide to Managing Diversity in the Workplace, Department of Defence (2004). At (viewed 23 August 2011).

 Defence Equity Organisation, above.

 Confidential interview.

 A Podger, C Harris and R Powell, Final Report of the Learning Culture Inquiry: Inquiry into the Learning Culture in ADF Schools and Training Establishments, Department of Defence (2006), para 224.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 See Appendix A.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, YOFT Staff Preparation Guide (2010), pp 6-7, provided to the Review by LTCOL N Fox.

 Public submission Brooks.

 Staff focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Department of Defence, Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030, Defence White Paper 2009 (2009). At (viewed 23 August 2011), p 113.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, Applications,  (viewed 11 August 2011).

 Defence Force Recruiting, Officer Selection Board,  (viewed 11 August 2011).

 Confidential submission 9.

 Public submission COL Petersen.

 Staff focus group.

 Confidential submission 4.

 LTCOL N Fox, Email to Review, 22 August 2011.

 LTCOL N Fox, Email to Review, 10 August 2011.

 Confidential submission 9.

 Confidential interview.

 ‘Less than eighty of the one thousand cadets at ADFA are from Canberra families’: Public submission COL Petersen.

 Public submission COL Petersen.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, Joining Instruction, Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) – January 2011 Intake of Officer Cadets,Department of Defence, ADFA/OUT/2010/617 2010/1105646/1(1) (2011).

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, note 74.

 Staff focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, note 74, p 8.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, above, pp 8-9.

 Confidential interview.

 Confidential interview.

 Confidential interview.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Confidential submission 9 suggests that this fact makes it unique among military academies.

 Confidential submission 9.

 Cadet focus group.

 Parent focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Parent focus group.

 CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, p 36.

 Confidential submission 9.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group; Confidential interview.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Derived from data provided by ADFA: ‘110819 Broderick Review Task 100 and task 80 Amended ADFA Cadet and WOMEN INTAKE STATS (2001 – 2011) verified with annual reports’ provided by LTCOL N Fox to Review, 19 August 2011; ‘110810 Broderick Review Task 84 ADFA sponsor Family Scheme – cadet participation break down’ provided by LTCOL N Fox to Review, 10 August 2011.

 Parent/sponsor family focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Public submission Hanneka.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 Cadet focus group.

 CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, p 90.

 Australian Defence Force Academy, Report of the review into the policies and practices to deal with sexual harassment and sexual offenses,Department of Defence (1998) pp 1-40.

 CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, p 12.

 A Podger, note 53, p 60.

 Confidential interview.

 Cadet focus group.

 Confidential interview; Australian Defence Force Academy, Academy Standing Orders (2011), chapter 6, paras 6.24-6.27; Australian Defence Force Academy, ‘Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drugs Program Awareness Brief 2011’, Year One Familiarisation Training Materials (2011) provided to the Review, 9 August 2011.

 Department of Defence, Defence Instruction (General) PERS 15-2, ‘Involvement by members of the Australian Defence Force with a prohibited substance’, 20 June 2005; Department of Defence, Defence Instruction (General) PERS 15-4, ‘Alcohol testing in the Australian Defence Force’, 14 November 2003; Department of Defence, Defence Instruction (General) PERS 15-5, ‘Management of the use or involvement with prohibited substances in the Australian Defence Force, 3 April 2011. For further information about the ADF’s policies and procedures on alcohol use, also refer to Department of Defence, Defence Instructions (General) PERS 15-1, ‘Misuse of Alcohol in the Defence Force’, 24 October 1980.

 Inspector General Australian Defence Force, Report of Inspector General Australian Defence Force Military Justice Performance Audit – Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) 2010/1102552/1 (2011), p 6.

 ‘ADFA Alcohol Tests 2010’, provided to the Review by CMDR A Westwood, 27 September 2011; ‘ADFA Alcohol Tests 2011’, provided to the Review by CMDR A Westwood, 27 September 2011.

 Confidential interview.

World cafè.

Confidential interview; Independent Advisory Panel on Alcohol, draft Report to Minister for Defence and Chief of Defence Force (8 August 2011), p 46.

Parent/Sponsor family focus group.

Confidential submission 6.

Independent Advisory Panel on Alcohol, draft Report to Minister for Defence and Chief of Defence Force (8 August 2011), pp 4548.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Risk Taking by Young People’, Australian Social Trends, cat no 4120.0 (2008) (viewed 26 August 2011); J Norris ‘The Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Sexual Victimization’ (2008) VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women 1, pp 1-13. At (viewed 26 August 2011); A Morgan & A McAtamney, ‘Key Issues in alcohol-related violence’ (2009) 4, Research in Practice 1, pp 1-8. At  (viewed 9 September 2011); T Stockwell, R McLeod, M Stevens, M Phillips, M Webb and G Jelinek, ‘Alcohol consumption, setting, gender and activity as predictors of injury: a population-based case-control study’ (2002) 63(3) Journal of Studies on Alcohol 372, pp 372-379. At espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=search-simple-go&ADJACENT=Y&REQUEST=EPR-152 (viewed 9 September 2011); National Health and Medical Research Council, Alcohol and health in Australia,  (viewed on 6 April 2011).

Confidential interview.

Confidential interview.

Staff focus group.

Confidential submission 6.

World Cafè.

World Cafè, Cadet focus group.

Confidential interview.

Cadet focus group.

Australian Defence Force Academy, ‘Female Briefing 2011’, Year One Familiarisation Training Materials (2011) provided to the Review, 9 August 2011.

World Cafè; Confidential interviews.

M Flood, ‘Men, Sex and Homosociality: How Bonds Between Men Shape Their Sexual Relations with Women’ (2008) 10(3) Men and Masculinities339, p 347.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus group.

Public submission Brooks.

Confidential submission 8.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus group.

‘ADFA AC 563 summary for period 2006 – 2011’ provided to the Review by LTCOL N Fox, 21 September 2011; furthermore, ‘110811 Broderick Review – Task 82 -OH&S stats 2009 – 2011’ provided to the Review by LTCOL N Fox, 11 August 2011, indicates that female cadets have received about one third of all ‘chits’ since 2009.

Australian Defence Force Academy, Academy Standing Orders (2011), chapter 8.

Brochure: ‘The Australian Defence Force Rehabilitation Program – Are you injured or ill?’, provided to the Review by LTCOL N Fox, 11 August 2011.

Australian Defence Force Academy, Academy Standard Operating Procedures (2011), chapter 4, para 4.39(a).

Parent/Sponsor family focus group.

Staff focus group.

See Appendix E for further information about the Unacceptable Behaviour Survey 2011.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus group.

Confidential submission 9.

Cadet focus group.

Confidential interview.

Confidential interview.

Parent/Sponsor family focus group.

Public submission COL Petersen.

Confidential submission 19.

CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, p 31.

Staff focus group.

LTCOL N Fox, Email to Review, 22 August 2011.

In addition, there is the ADFA Staff Education and Training (ASET) program which runs throughout the year and is designed to deliver ongoing professional training to all staff (LTCOL N Fox, Email to Review, 22 August 2011).

CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, pp 20-21.

Public submission COL Petersen.

RADM J Goldrick, Directive by Commander Australian Defence College to the Commandant Australian Defence Force Academy, 1 July 2010.

Centre for Defence Leadership Studies, Executive Series ADDP 00.6: Leadership in the Australian Defence Force (2007) p 1-19, para 1.20; p 5-8, para 5.19. At  (viewed 18 July 2011); A Podger, note 53, p 17.

Confidential submission 19.

Centre for Defence Leadership Studies, note 180, p 3-21, para 3.36.

Confidential submission 11.

Cadet focus group.

Cadet focus groups, Public submission SBLT Cusumano.

Australian Defence Force Academy, Duty Statement Divisional Officer, 2004/1036487 (2006)

See CDRE BJ Kafer, note 28, p 6.

CDRE BJ Kafer, above, p 21.

Confidential submission 19.

Staff focus group.