ADF’s longest conflict has been in the battles of culture on the political frontline 

Jun 5, 2022
ADF personnel boarding a Chinook helicopter on board HMAS Canberra in June 2018
Nourished via the ANZAC portal, the ADF is largely taken for granted under ever increasing displays of public gratitude. Image: Wikimedia Commons

As the ADF emerges from two decades of war fighting, they are called to fight natural disasters, pandemics and manage aged care.

Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton wasted no time in politicising Rear Admirable (RADM) Justin Jones unconventional but convenient announcement of the turn back of an asylum seeker boat on election day. As the head of Operation Sovereign Borders (a militarised title and role under which the mistaken and immoral policy placement of asylum seekers sits) RADM Jones participated in what appears to be a carefully choreographed but abhorrent performance of political interference for political purpose. How rehearsed this grubby tango, between various actors, was to coincide with the election and breach caretaking conventions is unclear. Never the less RADM Jones is perceived to have participated in party politics. How willingly is subject to an inquiry lead by another potential collaborator in this whole sordid affair.

Prime ministers and their governments seemingly stretch the doctrine of ‘selfless service’ in many ways and are not shy to remind the public, that we are unconditionally thankful. Nourished via the ANZAC portal, the ADF is largely taken for granted under ever increasing displays of public gratitude. It’s a paradox that comes at the cost of other public institutions, diminishing concepts of peace, good policy and diplomacy and a view of national identity, held hostage for the pleasure of political and military agendas. A politicised military distanced from the public – from whom they recruit- is also a military distanced from introspection, change, accountability and social capital.

The ADF is a revered and celebrated institution that has worryingly become an untouchable sacred and romanticised site of Australian identity, tethered to military exceptionalism under the cover of pernicious politics. This dynamic is traded on and dispatched by military and political figures for self-serving purposes. Military and political bedfellows are an unlikely couple in a democratic system. But when they do hook up, they’re an exclusive power couple to the detriment of the wider Australian family. We know they are a little too close for comfort when we hear politicians titillating ‘got your back’ narratives with their military mates. Or when ANZAC qualities such as loyalty have come to dismiss serious transgressions, then morality is a victim of valour, service is for the few and not the many, and humour is lost on selfishly guarded egos.

Their relationship is in trouble. As the military comes to grips with failures and the omnipresent cultural change challenge, political interference or deference, depending on what suits, is a constant drag. The public is left to gaze on, swaying between adulation, intimidation and horror. It’s difficult to frame an invention with most toxic relationships. Especially when the tension points are politicised in gaps between how we liberalise an authoritative institution and how we have force that fights with discipline and honour. Whilst the majority of the members serve admirably, the force is persistently bogged down by an entitlement culture, sneakily taken advantage of and crafted by others.

Decades of hacking away at ADF’s firewall, is delivering unprecedented penetration and visibility in the public domain not experienced or tolerated before. Within a period of six months the delivery of the Brereton Report into war crime allegations, and the unfolding Royal Commission into veteran suicide and abuse, has the potential to address the toxic viruses that fester in varying degrees and ways across the ADF platform. But spilling out into a post integrity landscape will pose problems.

Some in the military and political sphere will rally their gatekeepers, and in turn the public, to treat this intrusion as a Trojan horse moment: a malicious attack on a sacred site and fortify their defences. Others will give a nod to ‘it’s all in the culture’, tweak with a one size fits all malware, tick some boxes and wait with bated breath for the next posting. Or, in the case of politicians, perhaps hijack the next ANZAC or Remembrance Day, war, strategic threat, failure or disaster, or even school curriculum history review- in the case of Alan Tudge – to reinforce how faultless our ADF is and how unpatriotic it is to disrupt them. Power is an insidious bug, resistant to change. It thrives in maintaining the status quo and doubles down in the treachery of reform and accountability.

Evidence suggests that significant and serious breaches on multiple fronts on the battlefield and in the barracks have murderous and suicidal consequences. And while the military is in the killing business, to excuse abuse perpetrated in your own ranks, or killing civilians in war, we have a duty to pursue justice. Yet clearing a space to understand why such issues have festered, and internal processes have been absent from the ADF landscape, presents a complicated terrain.

So as the fogs lifts, we will be forced to face the inflicted and the inflictors, sometimes one and the same. They are confronting and complex issues to grapple with for sure. In doing so, we must also drag out of the trenches a hubris maintained by a culture of impunity, obfuscation, code of silence, cover ups and toxic white masculinity. It is an amalgamation of personalities, reinforcing and rewarding the culture, so bloated by self-interest it’s difficult to see how they have remained hidden. In these hazy shadows will emerge political, promotional, status, dynamics manifested in power.

We have been here before. In recent history are glimpses of the challenges and opportunities for a better outcome. Towards the later end of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, matters of abuse and suicide were gaining air. A review period led to a clearer understanding of abuse mismanagement in the ADF. In 2005 a major inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee found that a closed military hierarchy was incapable at administering justice and performing with impunity. A unanimous bipartisan vote to establish a system of justice outside of the ADF was put into motion. Military heavy weights, namely former Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) General Cosgrove, argued that military justice should remain within the chain of command.

In an extraordinary overreach of executive power (one of a number) Prime Minister Howard, against a bipartisan vote, overruled such efforts and supported his Chief, arguing, with war rhetoric, that such a change would undermine the support of our troops, who were currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Howard’s inhouse justice model was later, under Labor, constitutionally challenged and unanimously overturned, by the High Court. However, tension between closed and open processes remains contested.

A snapshot into how one form of abuse such as sexual abuse becomes politicised and convoluted, where the victim is punished and the perpetrator rewarded, is no better illuminated than that of the Skype scandal (2011). Stephen Smith, Defence Minister at the time, coming off the back of a review into serious sexual offences in the Navy, was then exacerbated by the news of sexual and bullying offences committed against and in the treatment of an 18 year old woman cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). Without consent, she was filmed having sex, which was skyped to other members of her class and photos of the incident were also distributed throughout the Academy. She went public. Punishment was swiftly delivered, she was ordered to write apology letters to the men involved. In response Smith publicly criticised the ADFA Commandant for his handling of the matter.

ADF hierarchy muscled up. In a calculated display of prowess, military leaders Jim Molan, Peter Cosgrove, Peter Leahy, James Cantwell, along with Tony Abbott cheering on from the political sidelines, accused Smith of publicly undermining military authority, requesting he apologise and, resign, even for their own inquiry into Smith’s interference. In the face of ongoing harassment and stigma, the young woman left the ADF, whilst the young men involved pursued their ADF careers.

The Skype scandal, like many ADF scandals only scratched the surface. So In 2012 Prime Minister Gillard commissioned former Major General and Justice of the Supreme Court, Len Roberts-Smith, to chair an Independent Defence Abuse Taskforce (DART) to compensate victims of sexual abuse and issues of abuse. Before resigning from the taskforce, Len Roberts Smith, overwhelmed by the number of claimants and their systemic roots, recommended a Royal Commission. This was later quashed when Tony Abbott became prime minister.

Fast forward another ten years, to just last week, with no public notice, and in the shadow of a Royal Commission, Pru Goward delivered a report into the handling of sexual misconduct in the military. Findings of the review, initiated by the Independent Defence Force Inspector General, showed that sexual misconduct in the ADF has continued to rise and victims are less likely to report offences than ever before. Over $12 million has been spent over a 10 year period on inquiries and cultural reforms in the ADF space.

The Brereton Report exposes serious allegations of war crimes occurring at the pointy end of lethal force within the ADF. Conducted by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF), a body that exists outside the chain of command, it was found that 23 incidents involving 39 killings were unlawful. It emphasises that evidence from such killings, differentiates them from fog of war or heat of the battle killings.

The Report was comprehensive interviewing 300 or so soldiers. This dark chapter in Australian military history was presented to the public by the current CDF. He calls for a military moral reckoning and cultural reform. He sought action to disrupt a ‘warrior’ culture in the SAS, embraced by some identities. This included abolishing particular reward systems, and for individuals responsible to be referred on for prosecution. A formidable task and process no doubt, that has been met in some quarters by disturbing ambivalence and critique. The last time I checked under rules of engagement for modern militaries, of liberal democracies, killing civilians didn’t feature. Yet here we are with Defence Minister Dutton and others obstructing these processes. Along with meddling from the Australian War memorial elite, criticising the report and backing the ‘warrior and hero worship construct’ of which they trade in.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran suicide, and the Brereton Report, signify a moral reckoning under public scrutiny on a grand scale. We are of course invested in the ADF’s reputation, possible sacrifice within a lawful and ethical construct. The nature of public trust is a two-way street, but more often than not, both streets lead exclusively to national identity. I fear that reforms will land in a dead end. A space to indulge in, with ever increasing forms of creative validation and entitlement. Watching political, military and allied punters dance recklessly, out of touch and step, around the illusive totem pole of power. We all must ask ourselves is this national identity worth anything when it has no consciousness or maturity and leads us to a dead end.

Share and Enjoy !

Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter
Subscribe to John Menadue's Newsletter

 

Thank you for subscribing!