tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/adfa-1342/articlesADFA – The Conversation2021-04-21T08:35:37Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1594442021-04-21T08:35:37Z2021-04-21T08:35:37ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: military ‘watch-dog’ Neil James on Afghanistan, China, and Peter Dutton<p>Sunday is ANZAC day - and this year it comes at a particularly important time for Australia’s military image. </p>
<p>Last week, Scott Morrison announced Australia’s remaining troops will leave Afghanistan by September, following President Biden’s announcement of the United States withdrawal.</p>
<p>One negative legacy of Australia’s participation in this conflict is documented in the Brereton report on Australia war crimes, which detailed alleged incidents of unlawful killing and cruelty by some special forces troops.</p>
<p>Among the report’s recommendations was the revocation of the Meritorious Unit Citation that had been awarded to some 3,000 soldiers.</p>
<p>The Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Campbell, agreed with the recommendation. But critics were fierce and this week the new Defence Minister Peter Dutton said the award would not be revoked.</p>
<p>Executive Director of the Australia Defence Association Neil James joins the podcast, to discuss the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the strategic risk China poses, and the high profile new minister in the portfolio.</p>
<p>James is concerned the departure of international forces from Afghanistan will lead to more instability.</p>
<p>“By withdrawing and without a peace agreement with the Taliban, it’s going to be a reasonable problem. The simple thing about all wars is they always end when one side gives up or both sides get tired. And in this case, unfortunately, the message being sent to the Taliban is that the international community has given up.”</p>
<p>On China, James is concerned about any “number of flash points that could easily cause a war, even if only accidentally”.</p>
<p>Taiwan “is the big flash point.” </p>
<p>“President Xi will seek to legitimise his presidency by, in his words, absorbing Taiwan back into the motherland. That will automatically cause a war for the simple reason that Taiwan is a functioning democracy and a lot of the world’s democracies will probably object to that. That’s the biggest flash point.”</p>
<p>On the controversial Dutton decision to override Campbell over the citation, James believes the minister did the wrong thing.</p>
<p>“I think probably, to be brutally frank, he was ill advised. And I think if he [had] bothered to consult a bit more broadly and understood the implications of what he was doing, he may not have done it.”</p>
<p>“[The revocation] needs to be done for the simple reason that the revocation of the citation isn’t an Australian issue - it’s an international issue. We’re showing the world that we’re taking the Brereton report seriously. </p>
<p>"We admit the war crimes occurred even if we have difficulty convicting anyone of it, eventually. They certainly definitely occurred. And therefore, we have to be seen to be doing something about it. </p>
<p>"And by cancelling the revocation, we’re actually sending the wrong message internationally about Australia’s commitment to international law. But we’re also sending the wrong message internally within the defence force about unprofessional behaviour.”</p>
<p>While James thinks Dutton was “the only bloke who could have taken over the ministry after [Linda] Reynolds” was moved, he remains a strong defender of Reynolds.</p>
<p>Even before the Brittany Higgins matter, Reynolds faced considerable criticism from commentators. James believes there was a sexist element in some of the attacks on her performance in the portfolio, and he condemns those who thought Australia couldn’t be “taken seriously as a country when both the foreign minister and the defence minister were female”.</p>
<p>“I mean, that’s just absurd in the 21st century. It was actually absurd for most the late 20th century.”</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the Australian military with executive director of the Australia Defence Associate, Neil James.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/615682016-07-01T00:29:13Z2016-07-01T00:29:13ZCrossing the line: why the royal commission examined initiation rituals and defence abuse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128441/original/image-20160628-7847-1blp872.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Testimonies at the royal commission highlighted the age-old military tradition of initiation ceremonies and their place in building morale.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Richard Wainwright</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/">Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse</a> has <a href="http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/bfb3bfe0-8b4b-4cc8-923b-00ffff789ff5/case-study-40,-june-2016,-sydney">recently heard testimonies</a> of junior military personnel who were subjected to brutality and sexual violence while serving as recruits. The testimonies highlighted the age-old military tradition of initiation ceremonies and their place in building morale.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sinclair_(governor)">Peter Sinclair</a>, a former NSW governor and senior naval officer, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/royal-commission-former-nsw-governor-peter-sinclair-defends-navy-initiation-ceremonies-20160622-gpptwm.html">told the commission</a> sailors have been conducting initiation ceremonies for centuries, but that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Initiation itself is not a bad thing. If it is an initiation that involves bastardry and abuse and physical abuse and denigration, of course that’s not to be condoned.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He conceded, though, that initiations can get “out of control”.</p>
<h2>Why do initiations occur?</h2>
<p>Initiations occur across history and cultures, almost always among groups of young men. Initiations involving hazing occur in educational, sporting, criminal gang and military contexts. </p>
<p>In today’s world, fraternal, gender-divided domains are evident in military barracks, sporting locker rooms, fishing cabins, corporate clubs and gang hideouts. These are places almost exclusively inhabited by men nested within deeply masculine cultures seeking status and exclusivity. </p>
<p>Fraternity, it is argued, builds morale. This is fundamental to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2013.792440#.V3IZa45U6PA">military culture</a> and to the widely held belief that initiations are crucial. While initiations have rich cultural meanings across different cultures working to build solidarity, they are also easily distorted by tribalism.</p>
<p>The recent <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/personalconductpersonnel/Review%20of%20Personal%20Conduct%20of%20ADF%20Personnel_full%20report.pdf">Australian Defence Force (ADF) review</a> into personal conduct argues that tribalism undermines the three tenets of military life – professionalism, trust and capability.</p>
<h2>A long history</h2>
<p>Military initiation rituals include hazing, fagging, ragging, beasting, bastardisation and fourth-class training. These words refer to the practices of beating, basting, penetrating, bullying or humiliating through fraternal rituals. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651844/Australian-Defence-Force-cadets-forced-perform-vile-sex-acts-horrific-initiations-detailed-Royal-Commission-Child-Sex-abuse.html">Nuggeting</a> and the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/army-cadets-forced-to-remove-pants-to-the-tune-of-eagle-rock/story-fncynjr2-1226674199501">eagle-drop</a> are two examples of hazing or bastardisation recorded in the Australian Defence Force. </p>
<p>These are mechanisms of group integration. They are all different sides of a similar phenomenon – the domination of others and the reassertion of the self (or the group). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08164649.2013.792440#.V3IZa45U6PA">Research explains</a> that initiation rituals generate “rape-prone cultures”. They are not in and of themselves corrupt – rather, they create the potential for things to get “out of control”. </p>
<p>In 1898, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Cowards-1898-1901-Contributions-Military/dp/0313312222">hazing scandal</a> at the American military academy at West Point exposed the ongoing brutalisation of Oscar Booz, who <a href="http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19001204.2.38">later died</a> from his injuries. Upon the establishment of the Australian army’s training college at Duntroon in 1911, General W. T. Bridges decreed that there would be no “fagging” at this esteemed college. Duntroon was to be no West Point.</p>
<p>Duntroon and the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) – Australia’s prestigious officer institutions – figure prominently in the public discourses of military culture over the past five decades. </p>
<p>There have been numerous bastardisation and sexual assault scandals over this period; they go hand-in-hand with a deep and enduring history of initiations. The rituals often involve perverse and brutal sexual violence. </p>
<p>Thanks to the royal commission, we <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-abuse-victim-told-injuries-sustained-through-rape-just-anxiety-20160622-gppm7f.html">have learnt</a> about other examples of this archetypal military tradition in the training of young men of other ranks. We have also learnt how these practices spilt into a generalised culture of abuse perpetuated within a rigid, hierarchical and controlling institution.</p>
<h2>Why is the royal commission looking at it?</h2>
<p>In 2011, the ADFA <a href="https://theconversation.com/adfa-skype-scandal-smiths-reviews-could-help-defence-to-change-its-culture-5751">Skype incident</a> opened the floodgates on initiation, abuse and institutional denial over half-a-century old. It instigated a series of cultural reviews.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/dlapiper/Background.asp">DLA Piper review</a> identified about 800 cases of abuse, which led to the establishment of the <a href="http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">Defence Abuse Response Taskforce</a> (DART). The DART has responded to about 2,250 cases of abuse across a period of five decades. It has recently extended its business to investigate more cases.</p>
<p>Military institutions and militarised cultures seek to generate a unity of people and purpose. Initiation rituals have been a historically stable strategy to achieve this.</p>
<p>Within the military institution, this striving for fraternity and unity has culminated in histories of abuse. These are nested with institutional practices that have failed to encourage reporting, recording and accountability. When called to account, the ADF command has contributed to this abuse through deception, <a href="http://apo.org.au/resource/hazing-adf-culture-denial">diminution and denial</a>.</p>
<p>In recent years the ADF has improved its disposition to scrutiny. But, as with any fraternity, scrutiny is considered an imposition rather than an opportunity. The tendency to keep things within the ranks overrides the impulse for openness, fairness and transparency.</p>
<p>The royal commission hearings represent a long-awaited chance to scrutinise what has been another dark national secret. The way forward for institutions like the military is to open themselves to outside scrutiny. Only when these dark practices are exposed to light can we be confident the military is a safe place to serve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61568/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Military institutions and militarised cultures seek to generate a unity of people and purpose. Initiation rituals have been a historically stable strategy to achieve this.Ben Wadham, Associate Professor, School of Education, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347012014-11-27T19:26:54Z2014-11-27T19:26:54ZRoyal commission could shine an independent light on defence abuse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65651/original/image-20141127-15350-1ystth0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A mechanism of independent scrutiny – such as a royal commission – remains the best way forward for alleviating defence abuse.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>As I was showering five or six senior [others] attacked me – they turned off the lights, tied my hands behind my back and proceeded to do things to me. I was held down whilst one of them put his penis in my buttocks, they were all laughing. Then they proceeded to masturbate on me. I was absolutely shocked. At that age I had never even known about things like this. I guess I started to block it out as soon as it happened. – Male Army member, late 1980s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART), headed by Major General Len Roberts-Smith, has handed down its <a href="http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au/reports/Documents/ReportonabuseinDefence.PDF">report</a> on abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). Horror stories of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, physical abuse and harassment and bullying litter the pages. </p>
<p>The report presents a damning presentation of Australia’s military culture. It details a culture of abuse compounded by a culture of silence, a failure to investigate and record and a willingness to discount the victim’s story. It suggests that around 1100 perpetrators of abuse still serve alongside many of those victims. </p>
<p>The DART was established in 2012 as a recommendation of the DLA Piper <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/DLAPiper/Background.asp">review</a> into physical, sexual and other abuse within the Australian Defence Force. The DART report accounts for 2224 cases of abuse relating to more than 1650 male and female victims over about six decades. But this is not the full picture by any account.</p>
<p>Now that the DART has concluded its business, where to from here? A key recommendation of the DART report is a royal commission into ADFA. But is a royal commission necessary, and why only ADFA? </p>
<h2>A culture of abuse, a culture of silence</h2>
<p>The investigations into defence abuse were instigated after the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/adf-sex-scandal-cadet-sues/story-e6frfkvr-1226083850490">Skype incident</a> in 2011. A group of male officer cadets conspired to broadcast one of their fellow cadets having sex with a female cadet to an adjacent dormitory room via Skype. The sex was consensual; the broadcast was not. </p>
<p>The incident became emblematic of male military cultures of entitlement and abuse, as well as the question of institutional accountability. The first insult is the abuse. The second insult is the incomprehensible failure, or resistance of Defence, to address the issue.</p>
<p>The DART report is a record of the failure of one of Australia’s <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/personalconductpersonnel/Review%20of%20Personal%20Conduct%20of%20ADF%20Personnel_full%20report.pdf">most respected</a> public institutions. It is a record of the way in which an institution entrusted with the licence to use legitimate violence in places of conflict cultivated an institutional culture of illegitimate violence. Defence created a workplace plagued by fear, violation and distrust. </p>
<p>Many of these stories come out of the 1980s and 1990s: the time when I served. The stories tell of the barracks I lived and slept in; and practices I witnessed and experienced. It also tells of deeply disturbing practices I fortunately avoided. It tells of an institution designed to build military effectiveness losing its way. </p>
<p>Military training is a violent process. It takes the raw material of the civilian and turns them into the refined product of the soldier, sailor or airman or woman. Hardship is expected. </p>
<p>Being subjected to challenges – physical, mental and emotional – is part and parcel of becoming an effective combatant. Sexual harassment, rape, forced masturbation, being ejaculated upon, having objects such as broom handles forced into your anus or being handed a pistol by a senior commander and told to point it at your head and pull the trigger because you are worthless is not. </p>
<p>Cadets and recruits are young Australians who join the military with great ambition, a commitment to service and trust in the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The ADF and its command, its commissioned and non-commissioned officers, have been agents of betrayal of that trust. And successive governments have failed to respond seriously.</p>
<p>The last five decades have produced around 35 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-14/defence27s-long-list-of-reviews-reports-and-inquiries/4754852">inquiries</a>, reviews and reports into associated matters. Countless recommendations for reform have been made at the expense of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Change has been glacial.</p>
<p>Former defence minister Stephen Smith <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/smith-announces-compo-for-defence-abuse-victims/4572144">demonstrated</a> great conviction and courage in starting to bring this stubborn institution to account. Can his successor, David Johnston, complete the task?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65654/original/image-20141127-10179-6w14wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stephen Smith helped kick-start the long process of cultural reform in the ADF.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tony McDonough</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What have we learned?</h2>
<p>The ambit of the DLA Piper and DART processes has been to identify and compensate victims of defence abuse. It has been victim-focused, and rightly so. </p>
<p>In 2012, the DLA Piper review suggested a royal commission, a judicial inquiry or a parliamentary committee as options of redress. It recommended a royal commission into ADFA. Two years and two extensions later, we are still asking the question about a royal commission. </p>
<p>However, the context has changed considerably. While the well-being of victims or survivors remains paramount, the question of public accountability can no longer be delayed. The DART report outlines a systemic and institution-wide culture of abuse that maintains perpetrators in its ranks. Some, the report argues, are holding senior levels of command. </p>
<p>But the DART rejects institution-wide scrutiny. They say it’s too large, too expensive: too hard.</p>
<p>It is true that the last several years of inquiry have exposed Defence as an employer of risk. Many systemic issues have been identified and measures put in place to address them. Many cases of abuse have been identified and 1159 reparation payments have been made, totalling A$46.705 million.</p>
<p>A royal commission into ADFA is recommended to excavate what is described as a disturbingly high incidence of sexual abuse of female cadets during the 1990s, the serious mismanagement of those cases by Defence and the knowledge of at least 13 perpetrators still serving. A royal commission into the ADF would compound cost significantly; a royal commission into ADFA less so. </p>
<p>A royal commission into the ADF, however, would act on the understanding that the 2200 cases to date represent the tip of the iceberg. That includes the rape, physical and sexual abuse of men and women, both by commissioned officers and other ranks. Serious mismanagement of those cases by Defence over a long-standing period would be considered across the ADF. </p>
<h2>Independent scrutiny</h2>
<p>While a royal commission is incidental, its strength is that it can offer recommendations for the systematic independent scrutiny of institutional practices.</p>
<p>Australia has had this opportunity before. In 2005, 44 senators serving the Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system scrutinised global approaches to military justice and received 144 submissions of defence injustice. They considered the independent military justice arm of Canada’s tripartite judicial system and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Completed%20inquiries/2004-07/miljustice/index">recommended</a> the implementation of a mechanism of independent scrutiny: the ADF Administrative Review Board (ADFARB).</p>
<p>That bipartisan recommendation for independent scrutiny of a closed institution was rejected by then-prime minister John Howard, as advised by the Chief of Defence, General Peter Cosgrove. Then-defence minister Robert Hill argued that Defence should look after its own affairs; military justice should remain within the <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/dco/partners/c1_4.html">“chain of command”</a>. </p>
<p>Today we live with that legacy. Despite the progressive contemporary approaches to cultural reform, Defence appears manifestly incapable of managing its own affairs of justice. In a domestic setting, the chain of command is an excuse for impunity. </p>
<p>A mechanism of independent scrutiny remains the best way forward for alleviating abuse in the military. A royal commission has the weight of authority to put this ideal back on the agenda.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As I was showering five or six senior [others] attacked me – they turned off the lights, tied my hands behind my back and proceeded to do things to me. I was held down whilst one of them put his penis…Ben Wadham, Associate Professor, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/234802014-02-28T21:07:29Z2014-02-28T21:07:29ZThe ADF and Julian Knight: a lesson on defence’s culture reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42337/original/twmwb372-1393218022.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julian Knight is one of Australia's worst mass murderers. But how much do we know about his experience in the military?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In February, Victorian premier Denis Napthine locked the door and threw away the key for Hoddle Street mass killer Julian Knight. Despite being eligible for parole in May after serving a 27-year minimum term in prison, the Victorian government <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/government-to-legislate-to-keep-julian-knight-in-jail-indefinit/5266120">has decided</a> that Knight will never walk the streets of Melbourne again. </p>
<p>On August 9, 1987, Knight took three firearms to Clifton Hill, an inner northern suburb of Melbourne. He propped on the side of Hoddle Street in a copse of bushes, identified unsuspecting targets in his sights, and began to shoot. Forty-five minutes and 114 high-grade rounds later, six people were dead - one mortally wounded - and 17 seriously injured, including two police officers. </p>
<p>Many more, including police and witnesses, were traumatised and scarred for life. As Napthine explained of the government’s new legislation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is guaranteeing that he remains in jail until he’s dead, or so seriously incapacitated he’s no risk to other people in Victoria or indeed in the community.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Victorian government may feel publicly vindicated in passing the law. On one hand, the decision provides an opportunity to reflect upon the circumstances of Knight’s actions. More importantly, it permits us to scrutinise the institutional practices of bastardisation that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) themselves have identified as requiring reform.</p>
<h2>Knight’s military background</h2>
<p>When Knight committed the crime he was 19 years of age. He had just “resigned” from the Royal Military College (RMC), Duntroon. The army was in Knight’s blood. In sentencing Knight, the presiding judge, Justice George Hempel, said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Your fantasy life was built around heroic killing in battle situations, ending up in victory or your own death in the so-called “last man” stance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Knight had an overwhelming desire to see action, and to live and work in a combat environment. The removal from Duntroon, and the circumstances of his resignation, was the final straw. Hoddle Street was the war he could never have. </p>
<p>From as early as his time as an Army Reserve trooper, Knight’s superior officers <a href="http://www.julianknight-hoddlestreet.ca/julians-submission-to-dart.html">described him</a> as immature, despite achieving good results in different aspects of his training. In late 1986, Knight was admitted to RMC. He was assessed as a marginal candidate but as having a very strong motivation for the military. He enlisted in January 1987 and was placed into Kokoda Company, traditionally known as the <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Duntroon.html?id=gwkDAgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y">“bastion of barbarism”</a>.</p>
<p>Within nine months, Knight would be standing trial for the Hoddle Street killings. Several experts were asked in court whether Knight was mentally incompetent: a psychopath. The answer was unequivocally no. </p>
<p>Forensic psychiatrist Allen Bartholomew <a href="http://www.julianknight-hoddlestreet.ca/julian-knight-research-file/psychological-assessment-julian-knight.html">told the court</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I would have said that this man, this prisoner, is not grossly psychopathic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Bartholomew also described Knight as immature, carrying “a personality disorder with some marked hysterical features”. Another expert, forensic psychologist Tim Watson-Munro, <a href="http://www.julianknight-hoddlestreet.ca/julian-knight-research-file/assessment-by-tim-watson-munro.html">explained</a> Knight demonstrated a number of “inadequacies”. They included being an adopted son, having a military obsession and a preoccupation with peer group acceptance. </p>
<p>It was this “immaturity”, as Bartholomew testified, that seemed to always place Knight in a position of tension within the military mould.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>‘Immaturity’ is one simple word you can use, somebody who wants immediate gratification – self-centred, doesn’t learn from experience particularly well, indifferent to other people’s feelings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This immaturity, mixed with the brutality of army bastardisation, was a recipe for disaster.</p>
<h2>Bastardisation, then and now</h2>
<p>Knight attracted the wrong kind of attention at Duntroon. He quickly became identified as different. When military tribalism is rife, those that demonstrate difference are brutalised. </p>
<p>As we know after the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/female-cadet-to-sue-department-of-defence-over-skype-sex-scandal/story-fncynjr2-1226753019089">Skype incident</a> – and the subsequent <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/DLAPiper/Background.htm">DLA Piper report</a> into physical, sexual and other abuse within the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) – this pattern is not isolated. In 2011, a former cadet, who is now a barrister in Western Australia, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/culture-of-abuse-20-years-old/story-e6frg8yo-1226036257416">wrote</a> of his ongoing trauma from experiencing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a world of bullying and harassment that few outside the defence forces can imagine. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 1989 the former cadet’s room was broken into one night as he slept. He was held down, beaten and anally raped. Shortly after, he says, the same happened to a female colleague. He explains he is but one of hundreds of others who have lived through the same mistreatment and carry the same scars. </p>
<p>Knight became hounded, beaten, abused and targeted. He was demanded to complete inane tasks. Knight was picked on by groups of senior cadets as he marched from one place to another. </p>
<p>Knight’s time for preparation suffered and his performance waned. Essential military dress items were stolen; he was forced to attend show parades until early in the morning. He was physically attacked.</p>
<p>Several months in and senior cadets in his company had vowed to have Knight removed from RMC. His performance dropped. Training staff identified him as a poor cadet and he was subjected to several guidance sessions.</p>
<p>This harassment ultimately led to an altercation. One night at a local Canberra nightclub, Knight became the focus of some of those senior cadets – drunk and out to effect some “rough justice”. Fifteen cadets surrounded Knight at the nightclub; he drew a knife and attempted to fight his way out. </p>
<p>This stabbing led to his arrest and his removal from Duntroon. It was the beginning of his journey to commit one of the worst mass killings in Australian history.</p>
<p>For <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2399647.htm">some soldiers</a> – such as privates Jeremy Williams, David Hayward, John Satatas or Lance-Corporal Nicholas Shiels – their response to bastardisation was self-harm. They took their own lives. Knight harmed others.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42621/original/nqvq4kxv-1393463874.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A number of reports have identified bastardisation as more than just isolated incidents in the Australian armed forces.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lauren Black</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reform has a long way to go</h2>
<p>At the time of Knight’s sentencing, Watson-Munro <a href="http://www.julianknight-hoddlestreet.ca/julian-knight-research-file/assessment-by-tim-watson-munro.html">explained</a> that recruitment, training and discharge procedures at Duntroon were a major contribution to Knight’s state of mind on the night of the massacre:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One cannot however overlook the very real and significant impact that his time at the Royal Military College at Duntroon had upon his frame of mind in the setting of the allegations of ongoing victimisation and bastardisation that he was experiencing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet, as part of his plea agreement in 1988, Knight was allegedly persuaded not to raise the matter of bastardisation. If he remained silent, the Crown agreed not to contest a minimum parole term.</p>
<p>Watson-Munro further explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One cannot emphasise sufficiently the negligence of the armed services here in not adequately debriefing Mr Knight at that time with a view to channelling him into treatment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Watson-Munro’s words are not a case for excusing Knight whatsoever. Knight is responsible for his crimes. It was his immaturity that partially brought him under the scrutiny of the Duntroon tribe. It was also partially the reason for the manner in which he attempted to deal with the attention. </p>
<p>It was a vicious circle. But it should have been managed, rather than subsumed into the institutional void of Duntroon. </p>
<p>In a sense, Knight is emblematic of this criminality within the ADF over the years. The <a href="http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">Defence Abuse Response Taskforce</a> (DART) collected around 2300 stories of defence abuse in the past year. It is a skeleton in the closet that the ADF is attempting to remedy. </p>
<p>Bartholomew explained at Knight’s trial in 1987:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You couldn’t say he would do it again in 25 years’ time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The opportunity to prove Allen Bartholomew right may have evaporated for Julian Knight, but the opportunity to reflect on the dysfunctional and violent ends of military tribalism has not. </p>
<p>The Australian military recruit, create and release soldiers back into mainstream society. They have a duty of care. The reviews that acknowledge these matters are, in this sense a beginning to resolution, but they are not, in themselves, an end.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In February, Victorian premier Denis Napthine locked the door and threw away the key for Hoddle Street mass killer Julian Knight. Despite being eligible for parole in May after serving a 27-year minimum…Ben Wadham, Senior Lecturer, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/195222013-10-29T04:36:40Z2013-10-29T04:36:40ZOn best behaviour: three golden rules for ethical cyber citizenship<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33954/original/r38mdy52-1383006941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Should I ... or shouldn't I?'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Victor1558</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/cyber-bullying">Cyberbullying</a> is a form of technology misuse that is a problem not only in schools, but in the wider community. </p>
<p>A serious <a href="https://theconversation.com/adfa-skype-scandal-smiths-reviews-could-help-defence-to-change-its-culture-5751">case in point</a> is that of the two Australian Defence Force Academy (<a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/">ADFA</a>) cadets who used Skype to transmit and receive images of a sex act without the knowledge or consent of the female partner. </p>
<p>Last week, at the trial, the cadets were able to <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/lessons-in-online-ethics-needed--expert-20131023-2w221.html">convince the court</a> that they did not know what they did was a crime. This led to Australian Federal Police detective superintendent Nigel Phair to call for a major education campaign to ensure all Australians knew how to be “good digital citizens”.</p>
<p>Ongoing investigations suggest the ADFA Skype case was not an isolated incident. It prompted Australia’s army chief David Morrison to issue a strong warning – see the video below – to all defence force members: anyone who degrades another will be given their marching orders. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QaqpoeVgr8U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As Morrison bluntly says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If that does not suit you, then get out! You may find another employer where your attitude and behaviour is acceptable, but I doubt it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ADFA Skype case is an example of how new technology can be misused, and also how new behavioural protocols become established – albeit in a top-down command way that is possible in the military but more difficult in the civilian world.</p>
<p>We can probably all think of examples of people using new technologies in ways that range from outright criminal all the way down to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRU5UhLHw0">merely impolite</a>. </p>
<p>Eventually, but not soon enough for some, society evolves rules of acceptable use that become established as standard behaviour.</p>
<h2>Principles for ethical technology use</h2>
<p>Is there a set of general rules for ethical technology use that everyone can use? Arguably, there is. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=969&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=969&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=969&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1217&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1217&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33957/original/f4gcrrnx-1383009341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1217&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Immanuel Kant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These guiding principles are based on the work of philosopher <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/">Immanuel Kant</a> whose ideas continue to exert a strong influence on the study of ethics today. </p>
<p>They are simple enough and general enough to work in the virtual world as they have in the physical world. At the very least, they are a starting point for discussion. </p>
<p>At the risk of oversimplifying Kant’s ideas, I’m suggesting that his <a href="http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16prm/">categorical imperatives</a> (unconditional requirements that are always true) be adapted as guiding principles for ethical technology use:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Before I do something with this technology, I ask myself, would it be alright if <em>everyone</em> did it? </p></li>
<li><p>Is this going to harm or dehumanise anyone, even people I don’t know and will never meet? </p></li>
<li><p>Do I have the informed consent of those who will be affected?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, then it is arguably unethical to do it. These rules are based on rational principles and hold true in both the virtual world and physical world, applying the same standards to both.</p>
<h2>Technology as a force for good</h2>
<p>While it is true that technology has the potential to harm people, let us not forget that at its finest, technology also has the potential to help people to become the fullest expression of their human potential. </p>
<p>This is tied to what psychologist <a href="http://www.maslow.com/">Abraham Maslow</a>, best known for creating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs">Maslow’s hierarchy of needs</a>, called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23902918">self-actualisation</a>. </p>
<p>Imagine Mozart in a world before the technology of the piano had been invented, Van Gogh in a world before inexpensive oil paints or George Lucas before the technologies of film. Today, there are millions of children being born for whom their technology of self-expression has not yet been invented.</p>
<h2>Why we need a code of technology use</h2>
<p>Technology is becoming more and more a part of our lives. More than just hardware, technology is an extension of our body and mind. Computers allow us to extend our ability to think and process information beyond our biological brain. Most of us would be devastated if our computer had a fatal accident. It would be not unlike having a stroke to suddenly lose that memory and processing power. </p>
<p>This ability to push our minds out into the world did not begin with information technology. We have been doing it for at least a hundred thousand years, probably much longer. </p>
<p>Cognitive scientist <a href="http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/clark/publications.html">Andy Clark</a> describes how brain scans show that if you were to pick up a tool – such as a garden rake – and you start to use it, within a short time your brain will map the tines of the rake to be extensions of your hands.</p>
<p>With our technological tools being an extension of our biological brain, people have a more personal relationship with their computers than they realise. As millions of extended minds reach out and merge with each other we can observe a remarkable phenomenon, the formation of a new layer of cognition in the world: the internet. </p>
<p>As Wired magazine founding editor <a href="http://www.kk.org/biography.php">Kevin Kelly</a> observed in his excellent 2007 TED talk (below), the internet is a neural network that at the time approximated one human brain in complexity. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yDYCf4ONh5M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Kelly suggested the internet is doubling in computational power about every two years. He predicted that by 2040, the total processing power of the internet will exceed that of six billion human brains. A staggering number, by any standards.</p>
<h2>The singularity approaches</h2>
<p>This burgeoning growth in complexity and computational power is leading us towards an event horizon some time around 2045 that influential futurists like <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-bio">Ray Kurzweil</a> and <a href="http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html">Vernor Vinge</a> have called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity">singularity</a>. </p>
<p>With exponential growth in computing power coupled with advances in <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/artificial-intelligence">artificial intelligence</a>, the singularity is the point at which a super intelligence comes into being. Some may dismiss this as mere science fiction, but that would be to display a serious lack of understanding of this complex situation. </p>
<p>The singularity will come about when a critical mass of computational power, vast amounts of accumulated data and advanced artificial intelligence capable of intelligently organising the data all combine in a spontaneous moment of creation. </p>
<p>In his book The Singularity is Near, Kurzweil predicts this moment will occur about 20 years from now. Even if Kurzweil <em>is</em> the ultimate techno-optimist, his predictions are based on rigorously quantitative measures, so his conclusions are certainly worth thinking about. </p>
<p>Whether you love or loathe this vision of the future, one thing is for sure – if we do not adopt a code of ethical technology use, the consequences in this brave new world will be very interesting indeed. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19522/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cyberbullying is a form of technology misuse that is a problem not only in schools, but in the wider community. A serious case in point is that of the two Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cadets…David Tuffley, Lecturer in Applied Ethics & Socio-Technical Studies, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/81602012-07-11T02:24:10Z2012-07-11T02:24:10ZPaying the Piper: the ADF must finally face its culture of abuse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/12811/original/vsrhz9pw-1341971859.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is a culture of abuse in the ranks of the ADF – only a Royal Commission will uncover it fully.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alex Coppel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How does one establish a plan to lure one of your female colleagues into a dormitory room for consensual sex, but unwittingly into the scope of a webcam for broadcast? How does it come to fruition? What provides the impetus to carry it out?</p>
<p>One word: culture.</p>
<p>Yesterday the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith released the <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/CultureReviews/Docs/DLAPiper/">DLA Piper Report</a> of allegations of sexual and other abuse in defence to the public. </p>
<p>It is, for the most part, an incisive and detailed account of military culture. A portfolio of accounts of abuse, systemic dysfunction, a culture of non-reporting, and a massive failure of duty of care. All bound in a cloak of secrecy.</p>
<h2>Band of brothers</h2>
<p>The young men responsible for the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/features/adfa/two-cadets-charged-over-adfa-sex-scandal/story-fn8eum6d-1226046815851">Skype incident</a> were colluding for the ritual of mateship and the embellishment of the self. It was an act of identification and of military performance. </p>
<p>It was an act of bonding: pleasing each other at the expense of their colleague. It was carried out in the tradition of “the trifecta” – where male cadets gain kudos for having sex with a female cadet from each service. In my time is was known as “gaining your wings”. Overwhelmingly, this is the rule of brothers in the defence force.</p>
<p>This is a force that incites young men to form groups to bash, sexually humiliate, rape, bastardise or abuse other men. It is the same imperative that underlies men watching pornography together, engaging in rituals of degradation, or consuming too much alcohol and playing up.</p>
<p>Brotherhood translates to male entitlement that underlines the rape and sexual harassment of women. When there is a failure to report, it is to a large extent because of fear or a failure to be listened to by those in command. When victims of abuse summoned the courage to report and were told to “suck it up” or adapt to reality, they experienced the closure of brotherhood: a culture of secrecy, denial, prevarication and distortion.</p>
<h2>A culture of denial</h2>
<p>Culture is a word of great contest in this affair. Commander after commander has attested, as scandal after scandal erupted, that there is no culture of abuse in the defence force. </p>
<p>There was apparently “no culture” in 1913 when the first scandal hit the newly formed Royal Military College at Duntroon. In his <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2422275">history of the college</a>, Darren Moore described the behaviour that caused the scandal:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Upon emerging from the bathroom, the Fourth Class cadets had to climb a greasy rope, while the senior cadets flicked them with wet knotted towels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the time, Commandant General W.T. Bridges argued that it was the normal play of young people in universities.</p>
<p>There was “no culture” in 1969, when Military College academic Gerald Walsh explained that hazing, initiations and the systemic abuse of junior class cadets was dangerous and detrimental to cadet learning. </p>
<p>There was “no culture” when bastardisation <a href="http://www.news.com.au/news/australian-defence-force-scandals/story-fn7djq9o-1226035328870">hit the headlines</a> in 1992, and was described by the army media spokesperson as “just the rough and tumble of normal universities”.</p>
<p>And there was “no culture” when the Skype incident became public last April. Then Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston argued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you draw comparisons against similar institutions - I am talking about university campuses - I think the number of incidents of this kind is less at ADFA than any other campus in the country …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the defence force cannot deny its culture any more.</p>
<p>If anything has shifted in this <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/culturereviews/index.htm">last raft of reviews</a> it is this point. There is a culture. Acknowledging the problem is the first step to resolution.</p>
<p>The DLA Piper Report is at pains to articulate this in a way that no report has done before. The authors make the point with some labour.</p>
<h2>Beyond sex and violence</h2>
<p>There were around 1300 submissions to the DLA Piper review, and around 800 were deemed plausible or within the terms of reference. The review is a partial account of some victims willing to talk this time about sexual harassment and physical violation. For all we know, it may only be scratching the surface in this regard. </p>
<p>But defence culture goes deeper than sexual abuse. It underlies how people see themselves and others: how they interact. </p>
<p>The DLA Piper review’s terms of reference failed to follow up on a series of associated abuses: unfair dismissals, the grief of families deprived of information about their lost child, the closed and parochial character of defence investigations, the opprobrium for talking about illegal or immoral practices, the failure to maintain the obligations of public service across the ranks, accommodating unlawful behaviour such as fraud, distotion or lies. Why stop at sex and violence?</p>
<h2>The need for a Royal Commission</h2>
<p>So it remains that while all the reviews have been thorough and with many useful outcomes and recommendations, they have only revealed the tip of the iceberg. Any further action must have further reaching investigative powers.</p>
<p>A Royal Commission is clearly the strongest mechanism for this. </p>
<p>Royal Commissions are trials of stamina for the victims, who are once again called upon to steel against their trauma and publicly account for their grief. But publicity offers transparency and accountability, something the ADF has been, and remains, shy of. </p>
<p>A Royal Commission or judicial inquiry places this tragic saga on the public record with authority, opening a bad sore to the fresh air. Reconciliation, acknowledgement and public apologies offer personal salve. Compensation is a pillar of any option.</p>
<p>The DLA Piper review has opened a box from which many difficult decisions spring forth. One can be cynical toward the cycle of reviews, pessimistic for change. While the focus on defence culture has changed, and the command is only just “getting it”, there will be resistance as the message spreads down through the ranks from commanding officers to local command. For the ADF the work is only just beginning in earnest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How does one establish a plan to lure one of your female colleagues into a dormitory room for consensual sex, but unwittingly into the scope of a webcam for broadcast? How does it come to fruition? What…Ben Wadham, Senior Lecturer, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/76952012-06-15T05:48:39Z2012-06-15T05:48:39ZReconciliation or Royal Commission? ADF abuse and the public record<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11790/original/6p8fb6nw-1339738645.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some ADFA cadets have been through horrific abuse. It's time for their trauma to be on the record.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One could be mistaken for thinking that the recent flurry of activity around Defence abuse is a recent phenomenon. The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-skype-scandal-pair-charged-20110429-1dzmp.html">Skype Affair</a> of 2011 drew nation-wide attention, and brought the culture of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) into serious question.</p>
<p>Five male officer cadets’ lecherous broadcast of one of their mate’s sexual interactions with a female peer, without her knowledge, seriously disturbed civil mores. </p>
<p>It raised the question: “Can we, civil society, tolerate the sexual and prejudicial conduct of military personnel toward others, even in consideration of the hefty obligations they adopt as potential combatants and national guardians?” Do we expect more? The community response suggests we clearly do.</p>
<h2>Disgusted and perplexed</h2>
<p>The public discourse that ensued was polarised. The Defence establishment, a loud minority of retired Generals and the Australia Defence Association (ADA), argued vehemently that there was no culture of abuse, that any organisation has the same problems and that 700 cases over 50 years is a mere drop in the ocean: nothing to be concerned about. And what would civilians know about the real ADF anyway?</p>
<p>Civil society was disgusted and perplexed, especially in the context of accompanying incidents of sexual predation and alcohol abuse on the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3146095.htm">HMAS Success</a> and a Gay Hate Facebook page aimed at ADF members. In the past four months another series of rapes and sexual abuse cases has marred the ADF’s reputation from <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-29/defence-group-downplays-townsville-drug-abuse/2638442">Townsville</a> to <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/defence-is-sitting-on-1000-sex-abuse-allegations-20120603-1zq5j.html">Canberra</a>, across the Navy and Army. </p>
<h2>Under review</h2>
<p>Of particular interest is how the Skype incident generated a wave of correspondence - reportedly hundreds of mails - to the Minister for Defence by victims of this abuse. An event that propelled the Minister into action and prompted the <a href="http://www.dlapiper.com/australia/">DLA Piper</a> review, and reviews into complaints handling in the ADF, the <a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/14/minister-for-defence-release-of-the-executive-sumary-of-volume-1-of-the-dla-piper-report-allegations-of-sexual-and-other-abbuse-in-defence/">treatment of women</a> at ADFA and in the ADF more generally, and the ADF <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/culturereviews/docs/personalconductpersonnel/Review%20of%20Personal%20Conduct%20of%20ADF%20Personnel_full%20report.pdf">personnel conduct review</a>.</p>
<p>In the past six months or so the DLA Piper review of Defence abuse, and the raft of internal reviews culminating in the <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/culturereviews/docs/120410%20Pathway%20to%20Change%20-%20Evolving%20Defence%20Culture%20-%20web%20version.pdf">Pathways for Change</a> document, underscored community concern and left the Defence establishments’ attempts to neutralise the matter out in the cold. </p>
<p>The ADF acknowledged the propensity for abuse within military culture, and DLA Piper outlined the tendency to silence, cover up or fail to report abuse, and systemic forms of bullying, bastardisation and sexually criminal practices in detail. Questions of incidence are relevant and remain open but making an assessment is near impossible given the opaque character of ADF data recording and reporting.</p>
<h2>Why a Royal Commission?</h2>
<p>On the table are a number of responses: compensation, a reconciliation process and/or a Royal Commission. A Royal Commission has immediate appeal but also various drawbacks.</p>
<p>The principal appeal is that it is an independent review with wide ranging investigative powers. The recent raft of inquiries, not to mention most of those before, has been internal. </p>
<p>The terms of reference were established by the ADF, under the authority of the Chief of Defence. Investigative Officers were almost always compromised by their place within the Chain of Command, exposed to the same kinds of peer and organisational pressure of conformity described in the DLP Piper review contributing to group abuse and the dysfunctional culture of reporting.</p>
<p>The integrity of a Royal Commission lies in the development of appropriate, and serious, terms of reference. A significant suggestion in the DLA Piper review is that personnel who have engaged in abuse in the past are still serving. They are still in command of troops and they remain accountable for their abuse and criminality. </p>
<p>An appropriately defined Royal Commission must be able to engage with this issue.</p>
<h2>On the record</h2>
<p>Matters of abuse within Defence are as old as the organisation itself yet there is no comprehensive public record of this phenomenon. The media, as an arm of civil society has been the principal means of public accountability. </p>
<p>But the fourth estate, given its commercial interests, is not without its drawbacks. Journalists and editors change positions and defence abuse over the years has become discovered and rediscovered. A Royal Commission contributes to the consolidation of this institutional history and its practices, not simply emerging from the shock and awe of the Skype incident but concerned with the longstanding history of this concern.</p>
<p>However, Royal Commissions are expensive: a gravy train for the legal fraternity and the other crowd of bureaucratic beneficiaries. The DLA Piper intervention has reportedly cost up to $14 million over about 12 months. The cost must be justified with the integrity of the process. Royal Commissions take time and by necessity ask the victims to relive their trauma to an impersonal and administrative entity.</p>
<h2>Restoring confidence</h2>
<p>Confidence in the ADF reviews has been, and will continue to be, a significant obstacle to the victim’s engagement. The Defence establishment’s claim that 700 claims over 50 years is minimal is profoundly naïve. Incidence cannot be adequately considered when victims fear reprisal or are cynical of real action given their experience within a dispassionate and recalcitrant institution. Many rejected DLA Piper’s offer to tell their story because of the firm’s engagement with the ADF defending cases in the past. The real population of victims remains unknown.</p>
<p>The strongest sentiment from my experience with around 140 victims of Defence abuse is reconciliation. The unfortunate subjects of military violence, by the nature of the institutional solidarity, have been shunted into the void. Many lead lives of darkness with depression and associated conditions. </p>
<p>Their confidence must be restored, to the extent that it can. Their voices heard, and their trauma acknowledged. Reconciliation processes provide greater compassion and public accountability. Compensation options should remain on the table.</p>
<h2>A history of violence</h2>
<p>The history of Defence abuse has caught up with the institution. </p>
<p>While the ADF have in numerous ways attempted to manage this matter themselves, the nature of military fraternity is self-interested and profoundly defensive. </p>
<p>The ADF recognises the need to modernise and the Pathways to Change document begins that process in earnest, building on already established strategies. </p>
<p>A Royal Commission has the overwhelming benefit of naming Defence abuse over time, and consolidating it on the public record. This cannot be underestimated. But the equally overwhelming concern is the need to finally attend to the needs of the victims of military violence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One could be mistaken for thinking that the recent flurry of activity around Defence abuse is a recent phenomenon. The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) Skype Affair of 2011 drew nation-wide attention…Ben Wadham, Senior Lecturer, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/57952012-03-12T00:45:08Z2012-03-12T00:45:08ZMalcolm Fraser: Stephen Smith is right on ADFA<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8533/original/bfc8zsft-1331509040.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Defence Minister Stephen Smith launches the report into complaints about a culture of bullying and harassment in the ADF.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Department of Defence/Lauren Black</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Defence Minister Stephen Smith last week released <a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/07/minister-for-defence-release-of-redacted-extracts-from-executive-summary-and-findings-of-volume-1-of-the-dla-piper-report-allegations-of-sexual-and-other-abuse-in-defence/">a statement</a> regarding a series of reports of abuse and bullying, some of it sexual, in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).</p>
<p>Of particular media and public interest was the so-called “Skype Scandal”, revolving a female cadet being broadcast having sex with a fellow cadet on Skype at the Australian Defence Forces Academy. It’s alleged she suffered subsequent bullying when she reported the incident.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/07/minister-for-defence-outcomes-of-the-kirkham-inquiry/">Kirkham review</a> clears Commandant Commodore Bruce Kafer of any wrongdoing. Kafer was sent on leave after Smith was heavily critical of his handling of the affair, and the review finds no legal basis for dismissing him.</p>
<p>Flinders University military culture expert Ben Wadham provided The Conversation with <a href="https://theconversation.com/adfa-skype-scandal-smiths-reviews-could-help-defence-to-change-its-culture-5751">an initial response</a> to how Smith and the government handled what is a tense and often contested situation.</p>
<p>Now former army and defence minister – and prime minister – Malcolm Fraser (also a Professorial Fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law at Melbourne University) tells us why he believes Smith has handled the matter correctly. He argues there is indeed a greater role for ministerial oversight in military personnel issues.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Please outline your concerns about some of the reporting of how Steven Smith handled to ADFA sex scandal. Are there issues around where you think there’s been misreporting around ministerial responsibility?</strong></p>
<p>The Skype problem I know is still ongoing as there are inquiries underway, and it’s not really finished. But the article by Ben Wadham suggested that acting as he had, the minister had encroached on areas that were traditionally left to the military, that he shouldn’t have done it. That’s not really accurate.</p>
<p>I’m not an authority on what has happened in personnel matters since the amalgamation of the departments and since service ministers were abolished, but certainly in earlier days if there were disciplinary problems, personnel problems, they went to the minister for the army, the adjutant general who was on the military board responsible for personnel matters, would often refer things to the minister, and it was common for people to write for, and on behalf of soldiers, and that would lead to an inquiry. </p>
<p>So ministers then were very much involved, and there was a particular case involving alleged water torture, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Lynch">Phillip Lynch</a>, when he was army minister, and concerning the behaviour of some commanders in Vietnam to some soldiers who’d done something wrong. </p>
<p>To suggest therefore that Stephen Smith should not have acted in this case because of tradition is just wrong. I’ve got no doubts that the service personnel would prefer the ministers kept out of these matters and that it was left entirely to them to sort things out in the way they wanted to in military terms, but we’ve seen over a long periodthat the forces have not been able to handle all their disciplinary problems. We’ve seen that they’ve had extraordinary difficulty in accommodating when the armed services there are problems. </p>
<p>This suggests that leaving it to the military has not been a very effective way of achieving the objective that is necessary and desirable.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8532/original/9pq896ws-1331509011.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cadets graduate from ADFA in 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Do you think there’s a case for perhaps greater departmental, ministerial involvement in the military, or perhaps organisations outside of the military that could develop structures to deal with some of these problems the military is showing it’s unable to deal with itself, internally?</strong></p>
<p>I believed in the unification of the service structures that took place, but three service ministers were abolished, and it was all put on the plate of the Minister for Defence.</p>
<p>There are many things service ministers used to do that will just not be done, and keeping an eye on personnel matters I suspect is one of them. I know when I was army minister many long years ago, correspondence I had on personnel matters often coming from parents were substantial, even if it wasn’t initiated from outside the army. If there was a particularly sensitive matter the adjutant general would often talk to me about it, as army minister. </p>
<p>So certainly in those days there was not a feeling that ministers had no role. This was certainly going to be answerable in the parliament when something went wrong. And ministers are ultimately responsible for what happens on their watch. </p>
<p>To me, while we haven’t had the full report on this Skype business, and the commandant has been reinstated, because there were no regulations that he transgressed, I would support Stephen Smith when he indicated it was an error of judgement to continue with charges unrelated to this particular incident when this overriding dramatic, and unfortunate Skype incident was being examined. </p>
<p>Other issues, other charges, whatever they were, I believe, certainly should have been set aside, until the issue was handled. As I understand, that was the point Stephen Smith was making, and I believe he was perfectly entitled to make it. Now the report apparently has come out and said that according to military tradition the commandant behaved without fault. </p>
<p>Now, if the inquiry hadn’t been told, or believed that these matters were traditionally left to the military to resolve on their own account, and if the persons enacting the inquiry believed that, then historically it’s just not right. </p>
<p>The minister has been under some criticism since. Some people have said he should apologise, he’s really stuck to his guns, well, he gives me the appearance he’s stuck to his guns, and in the sense I totally support him in that. </p>
<p>And my own experience, either as army minister or defence minister, would have enforced that, and, if you leave these issues to the armed services alone, personnel issues, I believe, will often be handled, in regard to what authority believes to be in the best interest of the armed service, but not necessarily in the best interest of natural justice. People talk about a culture changed, and the need for a culture change has been reinforced by the introduction of women into the armed services in a major way. That surely is a significant test, but it’s a test that other elements of the Australian community seem to have met much better than the military up to this point.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm Fraser is a former Army Minister (1966 - 1967), Defence Minister (1969 - 72) and Prime Minister (1975 - 1983)</span></em></p>Defence Minister Stephen Smith last week released a statement regarding a series of reports of abuse and bullying, some of it sexual, in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF). Of particular media and public…Malcolm Fraser, Professorial Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/57512012-03-07T19:38:07Z2012-03-07T19:38:07ZADFA Skype scandal: Smith’s reviews could help defence to change its culture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8434/original/fn7dqgjd-1331105850.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=87%2C78%2C2412%2C1587&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chief of the Defence Force General David Hurley and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith respond to reviews into Defence's culture and the Skype scandal.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Defence media</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Defence minister Stephen Smith <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-07/defence-releases-sex-scandal-findings/3874246">has released the findings</a> of a series of reviews into last year’s ADFA sex scandal and the culture of the defence force.</p>
<p>The scandal revolved around an incident in March last year, in which consensual sex between two cadets was broadcast via Skype without a female cadet’s knowledge. Two male cadets who were involved are currently <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cts=1331101349680&ved=0CEEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnews%2Fnational%2Fadfa-sex-scandal-lands-in-act-court%2Fstory-e6freuzr-1226047123627&ctbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01-03-2011%2Ccd_max%3A01-07-2011&ei=kf5WT_TrMcLPmAWG1PChDw&usg=AFQjCNEG9yAZoO1LYGdUokc_cPNDRFMc9w">facing criminal proceedings</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/07/minister-for-defence-outcomes-of-the-kirkham-inquiry/">One of the reviews</a> clears Commandant Commodore Bruce Kafer of any wrongdoing. Kafer was sent on leave after Smith was heavily critical of his handling of the affair, and the review finds no legal basis for dismissing him. </p>
<p>Another report by law firm DLA Piper <a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/03/07/minister-for-defence-release-of-redacted-extracts-from-executive-summary-and-findings-of-volume-1-of-the-dla-piper-report-allegations-of-sexual-and-other-abuse-in-defence/">recommends</a> further investigation into 775 claims of abuse within the defence force since 1951.</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with Flinders University’s Ben Wadham about the reviews, and what this means for Smith as defence minister.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The Kirkham Inquiry has exonerated Commandant Kafer, how do you think this will be seen within Defence?</strong></p>
<p>When Minister Smith intervened with the ADFA Skype affair suspending Commandant Kafer due to allegations that the ADFA command weren’t handling complaints fairly, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) were shocked and disgruntled by the intervention of a minister.</p>
<p>Traditionally there is a strong convention that civil and military control are separate. And so the minister in that intervention has moved into defence’s jurisdiction. </p>
<p>However, the claims about how Kate [the female cadet] was treated are not incongruous with previous ways of defence in how it does manage these things. They weren’t surprising. </p>
<p>So the finding that Minister Smith was incorrect in his judgment to intervene, the personnel of the ADF will be satisfied with that and will feel exonerated. They should now look to building confidence with the minister and restoring the integrity of that civil-military divide.</p>
<p><strong>More broadly how do you see Smith’s handling of the scandal and the reviews that followed?</strong></p>
<p>Personally, from my own experience in researching defence, I felt Stephen Smith acted with some conviction addressing what can be an obstinate culture. And this is something that ministers of defence have traditionally been very reluctant to do. </p>
<p>The writing has been on the wall for some time that there needs to be cultural change in the defence force. At the time of the Skype affair, he announced a range of reviews and he also announced the intention to open up full employment for women in all areas of the force.</p>
<p>These sorts of announcements tend to distract from the initial incident and they do tend to diffuse our attention from the real issues. On the one hand, all these reports being announced at once gives us all a lot of reading, but it also has the effect of difussing our assessment of the suite of reviews and the outcomes and recommendations.</p>
<p>However, from my first glance at the material I’m quietly confident and encouraged that the kinds of words defence are using. Issues they are identifying are in line with a genuine attempt at cultural change. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8435/original/bjrhtn76-1331106324.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stephen Smith holds a copy of the government’s “Pathways to Change: Evolving Defence Culture” report.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Defence media</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>This case highlights the differences between what the civilian world expects and what the defence world expects. Is “fixing” defence culture through these reviews possible?</strong> </p>
<p>Defence needs to modernise and modernisation is definitely possible. We see it happening at different rates of intensity in different militaries across the globe. Some of the sticking points in the debate have been identified by defence in these reviews, particularly in the “Pathways to Change: Evolving Defence Culture” report. For example, they have shifted from thinking that misconduct is down to a few bad apples. Defence is now arguing that is not the case, and it is down to culture.</p>
<p>That position was a hallmark of defence resistance to cultural change. It now recognises the culture can heighten the potential for inapproprate conduct or for poor reporting or for poor complaint management, or poor leadership. </p>
<p>But while the Pathways to Change Report points towards an authentic appraisal of the situation and an indication of genuine intent to shift that culture, a key question remains which is curcial to the success of that cultural change. That’s the question of independence.</p>
<p>In 2005, the then inquiry into the effectiveness of Australian military justice system recommended there be an independent mechanism to the military justice system. This review doesn’t seem to have focused on that issue, a lack of independence could perpetuate the culture that we’ve seen. </p>
<p>There is a quote by the previous Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), Angus Houston, “I cannot and will not do anything to cause embarassment to serving or former defence officials.”</p>
<p>This highlights the resistance to true independent scrutiny of defence’s practices. That’s the make or break of sucessful cultural change in the ADF.</p>
<p><strong>With the DLA Piper review, how looking back at all these allegations, will it help Defence to improve its culture?</strong> </p>
<p>A number of instituions in Australian public life have undergone this sort of scrutiny of the abuse of people within its care or service. And those organisations have benefited from this kind of assessment in hindsight. </p>
<p>Defence needs to truly understand the sorts of processes and cultures that facilitated this kind of abuse and misconduct, and will benefit from taking a look at the different contexts in which they happened.</p>
<p>We have to see that the DLA Piper review is a first step in a process. And now the question is, what sort of response will be made to those people who have been aggrieved by the defence forces? </p>
<p>There was a lack of confidence in the way the review was held, and there was a feeling by some of the complainants weren’t being treated personally, which is very important when you’ve experienced the level of abuse that these people have. </p>
<p>So it’s important now that the government addresses the personal and human needs of the complainants. There needs to be a diverse response which addresses everything from apologies through to compensation and criminal action. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Defence minister Stephen Smith has released the findings of a series of reviews into last year’s ADFA sex scandal and the culture of the defence force. The scandal revolved around an incident in March…Ben Wadham, Senior Lecturer, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/36222011-10-02T19:22:12Z2011-10-02T19:22:12ZWhy I want to serve on the front line, despite challenges for women at war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4012/original/Taliban_offensive.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women will soon join their male colleagues on the front line in dangerous deployments like Afghanistan.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Australian Department of Defence</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I wish to serve my country and the national interest in the best way possible. Now <a href="http://theconversation.com/women-in-combat-the-battle-is-over-but-the-war-against-prejudice-grinds-on-3593">women are to be allowed to serve on the front line</a> becoming an infantry officer is a real possibility. But there are hurdles for the Australian military to overcome in these challenging, yet hopeful times.</p>
<h2>Politics and policy</h2>
<p>First, we cannot separate the politics from the policy. The Minister for Defence has declared that the policy of opening all ADF roles to women will be rolled out within five years. </p>
<p>I believe in gender equality in the armed services, but we should be clear about the timing of the announcement and its impact on this deadline. </p>
<p>Although political intentions can lead to progressive and positive outcomes, there will be pressure to produce the ADF’s first female Infantry platoon commander within the alloted timeframe. </p>
<p>There is every chance that the right women will pass through the ranks of <a href="http://www.army.gov.au/rmc/Duntroon.asp">Duntroon</a>, the Army’s officer academy, or the <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/">Australian Defence Force Academy</a>, a tri-service educational institution. </p>
<p>But the political reality is that without such a woman produced by that time, there is a risk that a focus on numbers as a measure of success may drive a particular outcome.</p>
<h2>Physical standards </h2>
<p>There is also confusion about physical standards. </p>
<p>The policy has been announced without a detailed plan of implementation; in particular, without any indication as to whether physical standards will be raised or lowered. As it stands, there are currently <a href="http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/">different physical fitness requirements</a> for men and women wishing to enter the ADF. </p>
<p>We don’t know whether the final requirements for each ADF role will be the higher set of standards (that is, those for males) or will fall in between the standards. </p>
<p>If the physical standards are high, particularly for infantry and special forces units, and only a few women pass, then that is the reality of the situation. </p>
<p>The ADF will have a small proportion of willing and able women in these units. This only becomes problematic if it runs counter to political expectations of what sort of outcome would be achieved with the gender policy reform. </p>
<p>If standards are lowered, then there is some credence to protests of critics who predict a diminution of combat effectiveness. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it will be up to the <a href="http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/">Defence Science and Technology Organisation</a>/University of Wollongong <a href="http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/5839/">program</a> to provide comprehensive research supported by robust data to determine the correct physical requirements commensurate with expected combat effectiveness.</p>
<h2>Unit cohesion</h2>
<p>There are legitimate concerns that unit cohesion will be affected. This is particularly important for the infantry, and essential for mission accomplishment. More women will be encouraged to apply in light of institutional and legal barriers being lifted, but the proportion of women in combat units is unlikely to be significant in number. </p>
<p>That said, a robust understanding of the realistic challenges these demographic changes will mean, especially for the infantry, is paramount. </p>
<p>An army is a complex system of individuals who, in arduous physical and psychological circumstances, must work cooperatively and efficiently in defence of the national interest. </p>
<p>The introduction of women in combat units will not rupture their espirt de corps but it will bring a range of psychological challenges to bear between soldiers and within units.</p>
<p>It will fall to unit commanders and army psychologists to manage these challenges but not without greater support from the Defence organisation.</p>
<h2>Initiation</h2>
<p>Let me take the extreme case of an Infantry platoon deployed at length to Afghanistan chronicled in <a href="http://www.sebastianjunger.com/page/the-book">Sebastian Junger’s book, “War”</a>.</p>
<p>It is a visceral account of modern warfare that focuses on close quarters combat and intra-soldier relations. What Junger depicts is an extraordinary level of “brotherhood” forged between the men of Battle Company through a shared experience of killing, death, bullying, hazing, sexual deprivation, and immense psychological and emotional pressure. </p>
<p>Initiation into the unit is conducted by way of physical beating by the entire platoon, a practice tacitly condoned by officers who themselves undergo this process.</p>
<p>Whether these practices are right or wrong, an important question to ask is, how seminal are these experiences and these bonds to the role of fighting and killing in war? </p>
<p>Whether a woman would want to undergo such rites of passage in this case is immaterial. The question is, what sort of informal initiation processes actually exist and can be expected? Would male colleagues subject their female counterparts to this?</p>
<p>It is not to say that these sorts of practices necessarily exist in the Australia, or cannot change over time, but we must be open minded about the reality of what certain soldiers experience. </p>
<h2>Female exceptionalism </h2>
<p>Isolated cases of female snipers and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-08/world-war-ii-heroine-nancy-wake-dies/2828854">Nancy Wakes</a> are not enough in themselves to justify a cultural shift without adequate understanding of human complexities. Nancy Wake is often cited as proof that women can fight and kill alongside male operatives, but hers was a very different time and exceptional circumstance. </p>
<p>The very fact we celebrate her life and death with such fascination (noting that she was one of many other Special Operations Executive agents) suggests a sense of female exceptionalism that must be, over time, dismantled. Thus, the integration of women into all kinds of combat roles requires careful study.</p>
<p>It has been a momentous week for women in the ADF but we should pause to consider just what we’re asking men and women in uniform to do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Sambhi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>I wish to serve my country and the national interest in the best way possible. Now women are to be allowed to serve on the front line becoming an infantry officer is a real possibility. But there are hurdles…Natalie Sambhi, Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Hedley Bull scholar, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/35932011-09-28T20:38:37Z2011-09-28T20:38:37ZWomen in combat: the battle is over but the war against prejudice grinds on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3932/original/PIC_-_women_in_combat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Australian soldier in Afghanistan: women will now have the chance to join combat units.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Defence Minister Stephen Smith <a href="http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/09/27/minister-for-defence-removal-of-restrictions-on-combat-roles-for-women/">has announced</a> the Australian Defence Force will open up full employment opportunities for women. </p>
<p>In a decision made by Cabinet on Monday night, with the full support of the Defence Chiefs, the last 7% of “combat” roles will be available for women to serve. The ADF has outlined a five-year transition plan. </p>
<p>For supporters of the policy, the move is an historic one. Australia becomes one of only four nations globally, along with Canada, New Zealand and Denmark, that offers women the same employment opportunities as men within the Defence Forces. </p>
<p>Women will now be able to serve in the artillery, as navy clearance divers, airfield defence guards, infantry and the Special Air Service Regiment. As long as they meet the requirements, and demonstrate the capacity. </p>
<h2>Masking conservatism?</h2>
<p>Enthusiasm for the policy begins to slow down around questions of women’s capacity to execute the role. Heated responses to the policy move argue that women will not be physically able to make the cut. </p>
<p>Do these arguments hold water or do they just hold women back? Is the question of capacity a mask for cultural conservatism? </p>
<p>Those resistant to the notion explain women will not be able to meet the endurance requirements, carry the heavy packs and weapons, or manage the dirty, dangerous work of the combat trades. </p>
<p>Psychological concerns focus on the way women will disrupt the combat unit. The “die hard grunt” will argue that a woman cannot be trusted to do the job properly, that there will be a need to constantly scrutinise her work.</p>
<p>And some say women have aberrant hygiene needs that a group of warriors could not possibly manage.</p>
<h2>Dead Diggers </h2>
<p>Capacity arguments are irrelevant to the policy reality. No military personnel can fill these trades if they do not meet the physical standards required. </p>
<p>And the fear is misplaced. There will not be a horde of women coming over the top to infiltrate these trades. Just as many men reject the trades of combat, so will many women. </p>
<p>Other Defence Forces who have taken this step still have marginal representation in these roles some years after the gender barrier was lifted. </p>
<p>Subsequently, arguments such as that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8792023/Australia-women-allowed-to-take-on-frontline-military-role.html">made by</a> the Executive Officer for the Australia Defence Association (ADA) Neil James reflect a rendezvous with the ridiculous:</p>
<p>“The issue they don’t appear to be willing to address is the risk of disproportionate casualties. Someone, is going to have to face the people of Australia and explain why we’re killing our female diggers [soldiers] in larger numbers than our male diggers.”</p>
<h2>Women in combat are as old as war itself</h2>
<p>It seems if you resist an idea, there are plenty of ways to make an argument against it. </p>
<p>Women have been involved in warfare in the past and are engaged in warfare now. In the 1941 Yugoslav liberation war, around 100,000 women were active combatants. Women also fought alongside their male counterparts in the Algerian liberation war. </p>
<p>Today, women serve in roles in Afghanistan that come under fire, and indeed numerous women have been killed in action in the British, Canadian and United States forces. </p>
<p>The capacity arguments draw on the authority of science to thinly veil a cultural resistance to women serving in combat roles. And it is indeed cultural barriers that present the biggest challenge to women wanting to move into these male realms. </p>
<h2>Can a hyper-macho culture be changed?</h2>
<p>In Australia currently, about 86% of the ADF is male. Apart from support roles to the combat trades, combat roles are exclusively populated by men. These are male domains. </p>
<p>The reality that very few women will move into these roles is both a reason to keep our feet on the ground but also a reason for concern. </p>
<p>The infantry battalion, for example, is a profoundly hyper-masculine environment. The infanteer embodies a warrior ethos scaffolded by a logic of brotherhood. </p>
<p>In this context, men who do not meet the cultural standards of the group are ostracised. </p>
<p>Given the way in which incidents like the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/defence-academy-says-it-will-be-vindicated-20110927-1kvi5.html">ADFA Skype affair</a> or the <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/hmas-success-investigation-deficient-20110922-1kn1i.html">HMAS Success</a> “Love Boat” scandal persistently arise, this is the barrier that must be most seriously addressed. </p>
<p>These incidents are marked by male predatory sexual behaviour and represent an institutional culture that does not yet provide genuine safety for women that serve in the ADF.</p>
<p>This is the real challenge for women moving into these domains, and this is the biggest challenge for the ADF in genuinely opening up full employment to them. </p>
<p>This challenge will need to be met by the provision of effective equity mechanisms, and complaints services and procedures. The attitudes the Command have demonstrated in taking this policy direction must become an institutional disposition. </p>
<h2>Zero tolerance for discrimination</h2>
<p>So often, the prejudice of men is tacitly condoned among the ranks and local leadership. From section, to platoon commander and upwards, the ADF must embrace a genuine policy of zero tolerance of men’s discriminatory practices. </p>
<p>Opening up full employment in the ADF is so much more than an argument about capacity or even military effectiveness. These ideas are important when argued sensibly, but this move is about cultural change. </p>
<p>The ADF as an institution must modernise to maintain organisational effectiveness. It must also work hard to correspond to broader community standards. </p>
<p>Opening up full employment for women is just the start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wadham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Defence Minister Stephen Smith has announced the Australian Defence Force will open up full employment opportunities for women. In a decision made by Cabinet on Monday night, with the full support of the…Ben Wadham, Senior Lecturer, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/30882011-08-30T04:48:25Z2011-08-30T04:48:25ZWhy privacy laws should not be a game of roulette<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3192/original/Mobile_Flickr_Esther_Gibbons.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C53%2C1014%2C928&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian law needs to catch up with technology which means we can be watched at any time.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Esther Gibbons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Watching other people is human. It’s why TV shows like Big Brother, and paparazzi magazines flourish. But while some people choose to expose private moments, others do not. And Australian law doesn’t always help those who would rather not be watched.</p>
<p>The law recognises the importance of private life, but it doesn’t provide adequate protection against unwanted surveillance. That much is evident in two incidents over the past week. </p>
<p>In one a Sydney architect <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-26/voyeur-escapes-jail-over-underage-upskirt-films/2857548/?site=sydney&section=news">was convicted</a> of “upskirting” - the process of surreptitiously filming underneath the skirts of women and girls. </p>
<p>In the second, a cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-27/adfa-cadet-suspended-after-shower-scandal/2858408">was charged with</a> an act of indecency, allegedly using a mobile phone to capture images of a fellow cadet in the shower. </p>
<p>ADFA has already launched investigations into <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/skype-sex-scandal-accused-face-court-20110429-1dzln.html">an incident earlier this year</a> after two cadets were charged and suspended from training after one of them had consensual sex with a colleague. The prosecution alleges the woman concerned did not know she was being filmed at the time, and the event was being streamed on Skype to other cadets. </p>
<p>These types of offences are nothing new: “Upskirting” predates the digital camera and can be traced to before the <a href="http://www.thebigcamera.com.au/Brownie.html">Box Brownie</a> was used a century ago. The author of the 1888 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1560864&pageno=1">My Secret Life</a>, for example, expressed prurient delight at standing in basements looking through the footpath gratings at the bloomers of passers-by. But the two recent investigations remind us the law needs to be reformed to bring it into the digital age.</p>
<h2>Privacy not a fundamental right</h2>
<p>Protection against surveillance in Australia is distinctly uneven. There is no broad right of privacy in the national constitution, a document written in the age of whalebone corsets and thus not enshrining what most Australians would regard as fundamental rights. </p>
<p>Australian law does not provide meaningful compensation for illicit surveillance: voyeurs may be fined or imprisoned but law does not soothe the victim’s pain with a payment from the offender or an organisation that was vicariously liable for the offence.</p>
<h2>Regional differences</h2>
<p>What law deals with the alleged “showercam” and similar incidents? Regrettably, the law varies significantly from one place to another. </p>
<p>In the ACT there is specific protection under the <a href="http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2011-4/current/pdf/2011-4.pdf">Workplace Privacy Act</a>. An ADFA cadet’s shower, toilet or bedroom is not however a workplace, meaning that there is far less protection at home or in places such as public toilets. </p>
<p>If a voyeur relied on a wireless camera, wifi laptop, mobile phone or other networked device the illicit surveillance is potentially addressed under Commonwealth law about misuse of a telecommunications network. </p>
<p>If the surveillance device is not networked Commonwealth law does not come into play. </p>
<h2>How is a recording made?</h2>
<p>Some jurisdictions protect against particular devices. Police in the ACT would hope that the surveillance involved a sound recording, given that illicit use of an image-only device would not breach the Territory’s <a href="http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1992-57/current/pdf/1992-57.pdf">Listening Devices Act. </a></p>
<p>That Act is only concerned with sound recording – bugs, not cameras. NSW has been more progressive, criminalising improper use of any surveillance device.</p>
<p>Law traditionally deals with “peeping toms” by criminalising trespass, “peeping & prying” and “offensive behaviour”. </p>
<p>Some Australian jurisdictions specifically criminalise the making (and possession and distribution) of sexualised images of children.</p>
<p>But the alleged victims in the ADFA incidents are not children, so they would not be covered under this. </p>
<p>Some jurisdictions specifically criminalise illicit surveillance in intimate circumstances, for example in the shower. That is not the case in every state and territory. </p>
<h2>The need for a national law</h2>
<p>In 2011 we need to move beyond that sort of “privacy roulette”. The <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-108">Australian Law Reform Commission </a> and its state counterparts have suggested development of a principled and comprehensive privacy regime that is independent of specific devices and that features a tort of breach of privacy. </p>
<p>That tort would provide victims of illicit surveillance with scope for claiming damages for that denial of their dignity. The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s exemplary 2010 <a href="http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Law+Reform/Home/Completed+Projects/Surveillance+in+Public+Places/LAWREFORM+-+Surveillance+in+Public+Places+-+final+report">Surveillance in Public Places report</a> noted that the act of intruding upon a person’s seclusion or invading their private space is in itself objectionable conduct. </p>
<p>It recognised that there can be serious invasions of privacy without any publication of personal information, ie without any dissemination of images from a bathroom or bedroom.</p>
<p>Australians might ask why we don’t have a consistent legal remedy for illicit use of devices to monitor conduct that individuals reasonably believe to be private or to view parts of a person not open to public gaze.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3088/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Arnold is a lecturer in the Law Faculty at the University of Canberra. He is a contributor to and general editor of Privacy Law Bulletin</span></em></p>Watching other people is human. It’s why TV shows like Big Brother, and paparazzi magazines flourish. But while some people choose to expose private moments, others do not. And Australian law doesn’t always…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.