Chapter 5: ADFA’s Role and Purpose (Recommendations 1-5)

Key Finding of Review

The Review found that:

There needs to be a strong reaffirmation of ADFA as the centre of excellence for tri-Service education and training for junior officers. ADFA espouses excellence; however it lacks a well-articulated purpose and a clear vision. This inhibits it from realising its potential and, significantly, from integrating equality, diversity and inclusion in a meaningful way.1

Further, in her message in the Review’s Report, the Commissioner stated the finding that:

there was a degree of ambivalence toward, and inconsistent support for, ADFA from within the ADF.2

In response, the Review made five recommendations to address these issues and in particular recommended that the ADF leadership clearly articulate ADFA’s purpose and the ADF’s commitment to, and vision for, ADFA.

In summary, the findings of the Audit indicate that:

  • There is evidence that these recommendations are being progressed or have been implemented.
  • ADFA’s role as ‘pre-eminent’ has been amended to the ‘premier tri-service military and training establishment in Australia’.
  • Despite improvements to corporate messaging, focus groups and interviews indicate that there is still a lack of clarity and an ambivalence among staff and undergraduates about ADFA’s role and purpose.
  • There is a strong perception among ADFA staff and undergraduates that each of the Services continue to have different expectations of ADFA.
  • The support of the CDF and the greater presence of the Service Chiefs on campus has been noted. Many undergraduates spoke of this positively.
  • Respective accountabilities for the implementation of the Review recommendations have been accepted or delegated appropriately and a performance framework is being utilised.
  • An extensive Communications Plan was finalised in October 2012. While it is very comprehensive the Audit notes that the Plan is still in its infancy and therefore cannot assess its success or effectiveness.

The Audit’s findings in respect of each recommendation follow.

Recommendation 1: The ADF leadership, including the Chiefs of Service, reaffirm ADFA’s pre-eminent role in the education and training of future leaders for the ADF.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The ADF’s ambivalence about the role, purpose and value of ADFA must be addressed. The opportunity to build a workforce of members with a first class degree from a tri-Service environment should be highly valued by the ADF.

Implementation actions

There are a number of significant improvements to the public statements in support of ADFA. For example, at the ADFA website, a prominent online message from the Chief of the Defence Force states that:

As a testament to ADFA’s value as this country’s premier joint training institution, many of the men and women who command Australian Defence Force operations learnt to lead at ADFA. This unique tri-service environment encourages strong, enduring professional networks and prepares our young officers for their role as the ADF’s future leaders.3

Further, there have been subtle but important updates made to the online ‘ADFA Guide for Parents and Guardians’, since it was first examined by the Review in 2010/11.4 The CDF introduces the current Guide stating that:

The unique partnership between the Australian Defence Force Academy and the University of New South Wales offers Midshipmen and Officer Cadets the opportunity to combine world class military and leadership training with a degree from one of the country’s leading universities. I understand the weight of expectations and responsibilities can seem daunting. You may be anxious about your child leaving home so I want to reassure you that we will care for them, support them and encourage them to achieve. This commitment does not end on graduation day. It is a commitment the ADF will honour throughout their military career.5

The CDF’s reference toworld class military and leadership training with a degree from one of the country’s leading universities’ was absent in the previous CDF’s message.6 Also, whilst the message from the previous CDF stated that ‘my priority is the welfare of the people serving in and supporting the Navy, Army and Air Force’, the current CDF’s message makes a commitment to care, support and encourage midshipmen and cadets.

The ADFA Commandant’s message in the 2010 version of the ‘ADFA Guide for Parents and Guardians’ is now replaced by a message from the Commander of the Australian Defence College who states that:

My top priority is to ensure we help our Midshipmen and Officer Cadets to succeed, but do so in a safe environment. To achieve this, the highly skilled academic and military staff at the Academy support our Midshipmen and Officer Cadets in all aspects of their training and education. Success in life and the military does not come easily – however I am confident the Australian Defence Force Academy provides the opportunity for our Officer Cadets and Midshipmen to achieve their full potential.

Audit findings

These are important differences which support the intent of the Recommendation. However, the Audit notes the variation from its Recommendation which was to reaffirm ADFA’s pre-eminent role. Pathway to Change7 and the ‘Broderick Phase One Review Recommendations Progress’8 document confirm that this Recommendation is ‘Agreed in Principle. ADFA plays an important but not pre-eminent role in the education and training of future ADF leaders’.

The tension continues to be evident between the Services and ADFA regarding the relative value of building future ADF leaders in a single Service or a tri-Service environment. This tension is explored later in this chapter however none of the corporate messaging reviewed by the Audit explicitly states why the Joint environment is significant or beneficial and what it offers over a single Service environment. The Audit is not aware of the extent to which, if any, these foundational issues have been explored or debated, however the evidence at hand suggests the continuing primacy of the single Service model over the tri-Service environment. The Review identified the ambivalence about the ADFA tri-Service model as a threshold issue and the Audit finds that this continues to be at the heart of many of the issues at ADFA.

The Audit was provided with two draft introductions from the CDF regarding ADFA’s role and purpose for upload on the ADFA internet website9 and some feedback provided by COMDT Kafer.10 These appear to be the precursors to the current message noted above. The Audit notes the suggestion provided by COMDT Kafer in his feedback, to note that ADFA is at the forefront of cultural reform in the ADF.

The Audit supports COMDT Kafer’s intention in this regard as another visible demonstration of the commitment to reform, why it is necessary and the positive role ADFA is playing. However the Audit notes that this message or intent does not appear in the public version.

Recommendation 2: The CDF issue a strong statement in support of ADFA and demonstrate a visible commitment to it.

 

Intent of Recommendation

ADFA is of strategic significance in training and educating the future leaders of the ADF. An unequivocal commitment to developing ethical leaders, building military and academic skills and creating an inclusive, equitable environment brings significant benefits to Defence.

Implementation actions

There is evidence that the CDF and VCDF have visibly demonstrated their commitment to ADFA through their increased presence at ADFA, through the establishment of the RIT, their support of the implementation of recommendations and through various corporate messaging as noted above.

In interviews and focus groups both undergraduates and staff noted the visible commitment demonstrated by senior leadership:

In our first six weeks of training we got a speech from each Chief and the CDF all in one week. Our Sergeant who was in charge at the time told us we are really lucky. It took him six years in Defence to even meet one of these Chiefs. So I guess that’s a pretty big change. I don’t know if they got that last year, but I appreciated that a lot.11

I think everyone understands that the Chiefs are committed to here. They routinely come and talk to the undergraduates and staff.12

Whilst most staff welcomed this commitment, some felt that the increased visibility and presence of the Chiefs was counterproductive. This was summed up by one ADFA staff member who said:

In the first week they meet every single high ranking officer at ADFA and surrounds before they meet their immediate chain of command. So before their OC gets introduced to them, they meet the Commandant, the Deputy Commandant, they meet COMADC. They’re meeting a General before they’re meeting their Major. We suggested back in 2010 that perhaps this wasn’t the best way, but the General wants to meet the undergraduates and tell them how good they are. So they get this really disproportionate idea of who they are in the organisation...It doesn’t actually help the trainees. It doesn’t help us, and it sets them up for failure.13

However not everyone had noticed a change. Nor did they feel that it would make a difference anyway.

I don’t know if it really holds much weight at the end of the day anyway...At the start of the year ...we saw some sort of statement...but other than that we haven’t really seen too much of them or heard too much from them in regards to ADFA specifically.14

Initially after the reports were released there were the media statements from the CDF and stuff like that. But other than that, it’s not something we do . . . At our level, we see it as above our pay grade.15

Audit findings

The Audit welcomes the positive impact the presence of the Chiefs and senior ADF staff has had at ADFA during 2012. However from documentation received it is not clear whether this represents a change in the frequency or nature of visits as a result of the Review’s recommendations or whether it reflects the status quo. An email exchange between the RIT and ADFA16 requests ‘a list of dates and ADFA events where the CDF and/or senior ADF military staff attend’. The reply states that:

The CDF, SEC, VCDF and Service Chiefs along with other Senior Military and Civilian Defence staff are invited a minimum of twice a year to the CDF and Graduation Parades. Generally they are also invited to the ADFA production and the Church Services (held during CDF Week and Grad Week). Additionally the Service Chiefs are usually invited to the individual Service Dining In nights...There will always be other times that Senior Military and Civilian staff are invited to ADFA for ad-hoc events.17

Consistent, strong statements from the leadership which take the messages of the cultural reviews and their importance to ADFA are critical and should be ongoing.

Recommendation 3: The CDF develop for ADFA:

  1. a strategic direction which clarifies ADFA’s purpose and outcomes
  2. an associated communication plan to inform the ADF and the Australian community.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Clarifying and committing to ADFA’s strategic purpose is fundamental to creating a gender equitable environment and improving the treatment of women at the Academy.18 This must be communicated broadly and unequivocally.

Implementation actions

Strategic Direction

With regards to developing a clear strategic direction, there are a number of documents which outline the ADFA mission and charter.19 The Audit notes the changes from the ADFA mission and charter received during the Review20 but also notes the differences between some of the current versions. An RIT document21 states that:

A formal Charter signed by the Commander ADC which aligns with the Australian Defence Charter jointly signed by the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) states the government’s reason for ADFA. ADFA’s mission, role and purpose have been drafted and are yet to be approved by the Commander Australian Defence College.

Audit findings

As at January 2013 clear and explicit statements regarding ADFA’s purpose and outcomes do not appear on the ADFA website or the Defence Jobs website.22 Strategic statements should be harmonised and then appear consistently in all relevant corporate communications.

This ongoing lack of clarity was also manifest during focus groups and interviews with ADFA staff and undergraduates. As in the Review, the Audit encountered variation regarding the understanding of ADFA’s role and purpose. Some felt that ADFA’s purpose is clear:

In terms of the purpose, until this year I’ve never heard anyone actually say the purpose of ADFA is number one, to get your degree, and number two, to get a tri service military education...but staff this year have been mentioning that kind of thing, like, this is why you’re actually here.23

However, the following comments are more typical of the responses the Audit received:

Depends who you ask... [you’ll get a] completely different answer...They say the academics are more important here, but I’d say the military is more important from staff’s perspective. The majority of us know the AMET training we get here isn’t anywhere near up to the calibre it probably should be at the moment, so a lot of us just see this as a university and we see the more military training side is in our Single Service Training [SST] programme. I know for me, my SST work experience is much more beneficial than the AMET.24

Well, we sort of understand the role of it. I mean sometimes you lose track of it I suppose. ADFA seems like it’s sort of separated from the actual Defence Force and people lose track.25

(ADFA) struggles between deciding whether this is a uni or whether this is a military training establishment...it’s really hard to balance it.26

As at the time of the initial Review, the primary tension identified was the different needs and perspectives of each of the three Services.

Is the role and purpose of ADFA clear? I think each Service has a slightly different idea. I think it’s not always clear, even when we look down at how the Services run their individual training blocks.27

[I agree with] ADFA’s role as an academic institution, yes. ADFA’s role as a military institution? Maybe. I’d caveat that by saying that all three Services have got different requirements for the officers ADFA produces.28

I think there’s still some haziness around what we are here to achieve. It’s never as clear as I think the single Service colleges, which have a very clear idea of what they’re trying to achieve.29

It appears that the individual Services continue to value their single Service model over the tri-Service model. This is evident in the downgrading of the Review’s Recommendation from ‘ADFA’s pre-eminent role’ to ‘ADFA as the premier tri-Service military and training establishment in Australia.’30

Each Service continues to compare ADFA to its own Officer training establishment. However, ADFA provides a different environment and the opportunity for a different outcome.

The Audit acknowledges that these changes may take time. However, clarifying and consistently communicating ADFA’s role and purpose and the value of the tri-Service environment is an essential first step in realising the intent of these recommendations.

Communications Plan

The Audit received a very detailed, comprehensive Communication Plan from the RIT.31 The Plan demonstrates clear evidence that ADFA is moving toward taking a more proactive stance in its messaging, is actively seeking varied opportunities to promote the benefits of an ADFA education and is positively communicating the reform program. The Plan clearly identifies goals, objectives, risks and strategies and provides talking points on each of the Review’s major recommendations. The Plan analyses each recommendation, details actions, target audiences, timing, coordination and establishes a priority for each item. Status is monitored and updated regularly.

This is an important working document and the Audit commends ADFA and the RIT for its comprehensive approach. The Plan is still in its infancy having only been approved at the end of October 2012. If implemented in accordance with its intent the Audit is confident the Plan will provide timely and relevant information on the implementation and outcomes of the reform program.

Recommendation 4: ADFA develop a performance framework that incorporates the current metrics and new metrics to capture the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Ongoing, visible accountability for the implementation of recommendations is vital in the achievement of sustainable cultural change. Active monitoring of performance metrics and transparent reporting to the ADF leadership demonstrates successes and enables corrective action to be taken where required.

Implementation actions

There is significant progress on this Recommendation at two levels.

Firstly, the RIT has documented a cultural change approach which takes a holistic view of the various reviews at ADFA, including the Broderick Review but also the other Defence culture reviews conducted in 2011 and 2012.32 This paper, ‘Cultural Change Management at ADFA’33 maps relevant recommendations against previous review recommendations34 which remained outstanding, including the Grey Review (1998).35 The paper attempts to synthesise and categorise all of the current and outstanding recommendations into themes and align them with change initiatives. The paper gives an update and overview of activities as at September 2012. Other documents provided to the Audit outline the system requirements to support the implementation of recommendations including learning management systems, complaints tracking and records.36 These are sound approaches to ensuring implementation is comprehensive, cohesive and minimises duplication of effort.

Secondly, more detailed progress on each recommendation is tracked on a performance matrix and forms the basis for discussions between the RIT, ADFA and senior leadership. The performance matrix also connects the recommendations with Pathway to Change, the Defence, ADFA and RIT leads, actions to date and status.

Further, the performance matrix identifies a ‘longer term impact’ for each recommendation. This is a commendable development as it identifies the outcome the recommendation is intending to achieve. The Audit suggests that this could be the basis of communications around the intent of the recommendations. The Audit also suggests that ADFA consider developing key performance indicators or appropriate measures which can indicate and communicate the extent to which these outcomes have been achieved.

A risk matrix has also been applied at two levels. At the macro level, the ‘Broderick Review Recommendation Implementation Risk Matrix’ identifies a number of high order implementation risks including lack of resourcing and/or lack of support and identifies mitigation strategies. It is unclear to the Audit, however, how regularly these risks are assessed and to whom this is reported. At the micro level, status against each recommendation in the performance matrix is identified on a four tier risk assessment, i.e. from ‘significant problems or questions’ to ‘implemented’.37 As at 28 September 2012 the 31 recommendations were assessed as either on-track (17) or implemented (14).

Audit findings

Interviews between the Audit team and the RIT on 12-13 September 2012 indicated that, whilst mostly in agreement, there were some differences of opinion between members of the RIT themselves as to whether recommendations were partially or fully implemented. There were also some differences between individual assessments and assessments documented on the performance matrix at that time (as at 11 September 2012).

The most notable differences of opinion between RIT members were on Recommendation 9 (Equity Adviser Network), Recommendation 10 (embed Equity and Diversity in all policies and practices), Recommendation 12 (provision of high quality staff), Recommendation 21 (Redevelopment Project) and Recommendation 24 (Hotline). The Audit understands that this may have been a question of interpretation, timing or lack of information or because individual RIT members were working independently on specific recommendations. However as the central coordinating group for implementation there may be a need for more consistent communication within the RIT.

Sometimes there were also differences in the interpretation of recommendations between the RIT and the Audit which impacted on the assessment of progress. The Audit perceived that while particular recommendations were being actioned, the context within which they had been developed had sometimes lost relevance. For example, implementation of recommendations regarding Accommodation and Supervision became focussed on factors such as physical infrastructure (locks, lights, CCTV and car parks) at the expense of socio-cultural factors aimed at building a shared ‘common commitment to maintaining, and where appropriate, enforcing cultural standards.’38 So while they had been assessed by the RIT as ‘implemented’ or ‘on track’,39 the Audit took the view that the intent of the recommendation had not been met. This will be further discussed in the chapter on Accommodation and Supervision.

Similarly, the initial response to Recommendation 16 c) was a cursory statement that the main life course difference between men and women is that women have children and that this happens later in life, typically after they leave ADFA. However the context and intent of this Recommendation was to build some flexibility into the entry points into ADFA to allow for different life choices, circumstances and caring responsibilities. The introduction of people of different ages and with different life experience could also introduce some diversity into the undergraduate population.

At a number of points in the Audit the COMDT and the RIT sought clarification on the intent of particular recommendations. This was welcomed by the Audit and proved very useful in clarifying and re-orienting effort.40 The regular meetings held between the COMDT and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner prior to COSC meetings were also valuable opportunities to discuss progress and effort.41

Recommendation 5: The VCDF be accountable for the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report to ensure the full inclusion of women at ADFA.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Because of the strategic significance of ADFA to the future of the ADF, the accountability for the implementation of the Review’s recommendations is to be held at the highest appropriate level in the organisation. This was identified as the VCDF.

Implementation actions

The Audit has received documentation which formally acknowledges the VCDF’s accountability for the implementation of the recommendations and delegates responsibility as appropriate.42

Audit findings

Appropriate lines of accountability, delegation and reporting have been established and are being operationalised.

Conclusion

Accountability for the implementation of the Review’s recommendations has been established and the leadership of the ADF has affirmed and communicated their commitment to ADFA. This has been noted, and is appreciated by, undergraduates. Monitoring and accountability mechanisms are in place to track the implementation of recommendations.

ADFA is not positioned as the pre-eminent training institution but rather the premier tri-Service training institution. There is still progress to be made in making explicit the unique value of the tri-Service environment.

Some of the corporate and strategic messaging about ADFA lacks clarity and consistency. This lack of clarity also continued to be evident among staff and undergraduates at ADFA. The recently approved communications plan is comprehensive and should contribute to better and more consistent communication about ADFA’s role and purpose.


  1. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p xxii. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  2. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p xii. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  3. Australian Defence Force Academy, Message from the Chief of Defence Force, http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/news_events/Message_from_CDF.html (viewed 2 January 2013, 20 March 2013).
  4. Australian Defence Force Academy, Parents and Guardians Guide. At http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/docs/about/2012/ADFAPublications_120413_P... (viewed 10 November 2011).
  5. Australian Defence Force Academy, Parents and Guardians Guide. At http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/docs/about/2012/ADFAPublications_120413_P... (viewed 10 November 2011).
  6. Australian Defence Force Academy, Parents and Guardians Guide. At http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/docs/about/2012/ADFAPublications_120413_P... (viewed 10 November 2011).
  7. Department of Defence, Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture, 2012, p.42. At www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/index.htm (viewed 7 March 2013).
  8. RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  9. ‘Draft Message from the Chief of the Defence Force’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  10. Email from CDRE BJ Kafer to S Longbottom, 1 September 2012, provided to the Audit by D N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  11. Interview 16, Air Force undergraduate male, 15 October 2012.
  12. Interview 28, Army staff male, 15 October 2012.
  13. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female only, 16 October 2012.
  14. Interview 32, Army staff male, 16 October 2012.
  15. Focus group S8, Mixed Service staff male only, 16 October 2012.
  16. Email correspondence between C Rainsbury, Office of COMDT ADFA, and S Longbottom, ‘re: CDF attendances at ADFA’, 7 and 12 June 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  17. Email correspondence between C Rainsbury, Office of COMDT ADFA, and S Longbottom, ‘re: CDF attendances at ADFA’, 7 and 12 June 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  18. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 80. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  19. Australian Defence Force Academy, Parents and Guardians Guide. At http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/about/parents.html (3 January 2013, 20 March 2013); excerpts from the Parents and Guardian Guide, ‘Our Purpose’ and ‘Our Mission’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ‘ADFA Command, ADFA Undergraduate and ADFA Postgraduate Mission and Charter’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  20. Rear Admiral James Goldrick, AM, CSC, RAN, Commander, Australian Defence College, ‘The Australian Defence Force Academy, Mission and Charter’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ‘ADFA and UNSW Vision and Mission’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  21. RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  22. Australian Defence Force Academy, Welcome to ADFA, http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/ (viewed 3 January 2013); Australian Defence Force, ADF Education, http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/education/adfa/ (viewed 4 January 2012).
  23. Focus group U1, Mixed Service 2nd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
  24. Interview 22, Air Force undergraduate, 16 October 2012.
  25. Interview 13, Army undergraduate male, 15 October 2012.
  26. Interview 15, Navy undergraduate female, 15 October 2012.
  27. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female only, 16 October 2012.
  28. Interview 26, Navy undergraduate male, 16 October 2012.
  29. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female only, 16 October 2012.
  30. ADFA is the only tri-Service military and training establishment in Australia.
  31. RIT, ‘Communications Plan – Implementation of Broderick Phase One Recommendations’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  32. RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  33. RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  34. A list of relevant ADFA Reviews indicates that between 1998 and 2012 there have been 20 reviews making a total of 441 recommendations: RIT, ‘Matrix of all ADFA Relates Reviews from 1998’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ‘ADFA Relevant Reviews’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  35. Australian Defence Force Academy, Report of the Review into policies and practices to deal with sexual harassment and sexual offences at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Department of Defence (1998).
  36. ‘Requirements for Phase One Broderick Review Performance Framework’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ‘System Support for Performance Management Framework’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  37. RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Recommendations Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, Review Coding Framework, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ‘Broderick Review Recommendation Implementation Risk Matrix, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  38. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 93. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  39. For example, Recommendations 19 and 21 assessed as being ‘On Track’. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  40. For example, meetings on 15 June 2012, 12 and 13 September 2012, 19 November 2012 and 15 February 2013.
  41. Meetings held between Commissioner Broderick and CDRE BJ Kafer and members of the RIT and Audit teams on 16 March 2012, 15 June 2012 and 14 December 2012.
  42. Office of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, ‘Minute VCDF/OUT/2012/78’, 18 March 2012; Office of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, ‘Minute VCDF/OUT/2012/79, Action Emanating from the Review into the Treatment of Women at ADFA (‘Broderick Review’ Phase One) – Recommendation 12’, 17 March 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.