Culture trouble - the ADFA, the Ministers, and the Commissioner

Lt-General Peter Cosgrove, then head of the ADF, said this 'reinforced' what he had 'always believed' – namely, that there was no culture in the army of 'widespread or systemic avoidance of due disciplinary processes or the use of violence to maintain discipline…' The government and the wider community should take note of the Burchett Review as 'an important demonstration' that 'we are a disciplined force', he said, adding that it was time to 'get on with that work'.

The work continued, and in January 2006 the ADF announced it would undertake an inquiry into bullying and harassment. This followed a Senate inquiry which uncovered suicide and other damage and injury caused to cadets and military members of the ADF by a culture of bullying, harassment and intimidation. Yet this was one more announcement about one more inquiry – following earlier announcements, earlier inquiries, and earlier revelations about bullying, harassment, injury, damage and suicide.

During Bronwyn Bishop's time as Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, a portfolio she held from March 1996 to October 1998, she spoke publicly of her intent to address the issue. Her concerns were located in revelations of harassment and bullying within the ADF.

Before Minister Bishop became involved, whilst the Liberal-National Party were in Opposition, Peter Reith brought the problem of harassment and bastardisation to the attention of the then Minister, John Faulkner. Subsequently, in 2000, he became Minister for Defence. The problem remained.

So – with the latest revelations and the ADF's announcement of 'an inquiry', we could rest assured it was full steam ahead until the next cycle. Allegations of abuse, exploitation, bullying, bastardisation. Next, the making of a complaint or complaints when someone – victim/survivor, parent, sibling, or some other brave soul believes their concerns will be taken seriously and dealt with. When this belief fails to be fulfilled – it's out to the media or some other external agency in the hope that this will ensure the problem is addressed. Once publicity descends, it's time for the follow-up – an announcement of, yes, that ubiquitous 'review'.

This time, a football official said the problem should be dealt with by the ADF employing consultants to review processes and 'train' personnel in 'conduct becoming'. This is surely ironic, for it can hardly be imagined that football is free of abusive conduct: indications to the contrary assail readers' eyes, listeners' ears, and viewers ocular and olfactory nerves on what often seems to be a daily basis. In any event, the ADF had already tried this: at one stage, consultants were brought in to 'solve' the problem. On another occasion, consultants were asked to review and propose equal opportunity and associated measures.

Clearly, more than one cadet or member of the military was not listening, more than one was not 'retrained', more than one was not 'persuaded' of the need to re-adjust.

Rather than continue with the notion that 'culture' is not the problem, that these events are 'isolated' (each of them, however many there may be proven to be), and that another review is the answer, the ADF needs to acknowledge that these 'episodes' arise directly out of a military and militaristic culture that relies upon power and subordination at its very heart. Power and subordination lie in the notion that women and gays are unacceptable in the ranks – whatever the rules are, as to women and gays. Power and subordination are promoted through notions that cadets are 'sissy' if they do not perform at a particular standard, whether or not that language is alleged to be 'outlawed'.

Like other organisations and institutions that face regular exposes of a similar kind, particularly (although not only) directed against women, the ADF will continue to be subjected to necessary public scrutiny. If only those in power within the military could orientate themselves to a position that acknowledges the nature of the problem rather than relying upon the conservative notion that all's right and proper, 'the culture's fine', the issue is bound to return – time and again.

For once, a Minister for Defence has had the wit to name the real problem as one of 'culture'. He says this is 'the first step in the comprehensive review of the culture both within ADFA and the ADF to address ongoing areas of concern in relation to promoting appropriate conduct, including the treatment of women, alcohol use and use of social media and representational behaviour more generally'.

That culture is unlikely to change, so long as the ADFA remains cocooned in Canberra, along with the students and personnel. If the ADFA is to stay as the centre of training for cadets, the winds of change need to be blown through it at a furious pace – and not just on a 'one off'. Continuing and continuous training in anti-discrimination has to be entrenched.

The role of the military is changing – significantly. Today 'peace keeping' is a major responsibility. 'Peace keepers' don't – or ought not to – engage in sex/gender and sexuality superiority. The culture has to change not only to ensure that the cycle of problem-review-problem-review-problem … ceases, but so that the military accommodates to its changing role.

The report of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner will be awaited with interest, just as will the reports of the other reviews the Minister has initiated. The Minister's approach is to be applauded. Will the ADFA and the ADF be able to meet the challenge?

Let's trust that the Commissioner for Sex Discrimination and her team can make a crucial difference to what has been a saga of reviewing. Let's trust that this time, the outcome is not just another report that precedes another episode of culture trouble.