Chapter 6: Equity and Diversity (Recommendations 6-10)

Key findings of Review

  • The principles of equity and diversity should provide overarching, positive values to inform everyday practice within the ADF.
  • At ADFA, the Review found equity and diversity to be conceptually grounded in disciplinary and punitive processes and framed as a response to unacceptable behaviour.

The Review made five recommendations with the aim of reframing the way equity and diversity functioned at ADFA, enhancing the positive values based aspects of the concept, and embedding it into everyday practice.

In summary the findings of the Audit indicate that:

  • ADFA has undertaken a number of significant actions with the aim of promoting a more positive and values based concept of equity and diversity.
  • The COMDT is leading from the front in promoting equity and diversity. A new policy statement signed by the COMDT promotes the value of equity and diversity at ADFA and outlines its benefits to the organisation.
  • Equity and diversity training incorporates the COMDT’s policy statement, but some lessons continue to aggregate equity and diversity with unacceptable behaviour and the complaints process.
  • The close alignment between equity and diversity and the complaints process makes it difficult for ADFA to teach equity and diversity principles as core values underpinning ethical leadership.
  • The expansion of the Equity Adviser Network is a positive step but further evaluation is required to understand and address issues of access to the Network.
  • The creation and expansion of the Sexual Offence Support Person (SOSP) Network is welcomed. This is an important source of support and assistance to complainants and respondents.
  • More work is required to create regular forums for undergraduates and staff where female role models from within and beyond the ADF present on their experiences.
  • The ‘Linking with Universities’ forum is a positive development that ADFA could build upon.

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

Recommendation 6: ADFA develop and articulate a clear, unambiguous and widely disseminated statement about diversity, inclusion and gender equality which:

  1. recognises the fundamental importance of women to the sustainability of the wider ADF
  2. provides a framework for the creation of a diverse workplace where both men and women can thrive
  3. emphasises the unacceptability of sexual harassment, abuse and discrimination to ADFA and the wider ADF.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review observed that equity and diversity often functions as a punitive and process oriented response to unacceptable behaviour at ADFA, rather than a positive, values based cultural underpinning. The intent of this Recommendation was to begin the process of reframing the concept in order to draw upon its established positive benefits.

Implementation actions

ADFA has developed an Equity and Diversity Policy Statement that broadly addresses the items in Recommendation 6.1 It is presented as a message from the COMDT that outlines the aims and objectives of the policy, as well as what is expected of individuals. A list of specific values and requirements include statements that:

  • the existent diversity in Defence is ‘fundamental to the successful operations and sustainability of all Defence units’
  • sexual harassment, abuse and discrimination, as well as other unacceptable behaviours, will not be tolerated.

There is also a list of principles that ‘all who live and work in the ADFA precinct’ are expected to abide by, including that they:

  • Develop a fair, respectful, supportive and inclusive workplace
  • Make judgements based on merit and fairness
  • Demonstrate, through their behaviour, a commitment to ensuring that everyone who works and lives in the ADFA precinct is treated fairly, with respect and dignity, and their contributions are recognised and valued.

According to information provided to the Audit, the statement has been widely disseminated via:

  • Posters placed in the work and residential areas at ADFA
  • A statement on the undergraduate intranet
  • COMDT address to staff in 2012
  • COMDT address to all undergraduate squadrons in 2012
  • Inclusion in the 2013 YOFT and staff induction programs
  • Incorporation in equity and diversity training packages.2

Audit findings

The Equity and Diversity Policy Statement developed by ADFA is a thoughtful document that addresses diversity and its benefits to ADFA. It does not focus on gender equality, but includes gender as one of the areas of diversity that are fundamental to success. This is understandable insofar as the statement is part of ADFA’s equity and diversity package, which covers more than gender. This does, however, mean that there is not a stand-alone statement about gender inclusion.

The statement makes reference to areas a), b) and c) as per Recommendation 6 within its broad focus on diversity. It notes that people of ‘different backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, life experiences, family responsibilities and religious beliefs’ work at ADFA and are central to successful operations and sustainability; it outlines expectations of those working at ADFA, and; it specifically notes that sexual harassment, abuse and discrimination will not be condoned at ADFA.

The statement has been circulated widely at ADFA and incorporated into equity and diversity training programs. Undergraduates confirm an awareness of the new statement.3

Recommendation 7: ADFA teach equity and diversity separately from complaints procedures.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Following on from the above Recommendation, the aim of this Recommendation was to ‘de-couple’ equity and diversity from punitive complaints processes, and develop the idea that equity and diversity is a positive concept in itself.

Implementation actions

ADFA has taken steps to amend equity and diversity training and has developed an equity and diversity training continuum through which undergraduates move during their time at ADFA.4

All undergraduates receive standard mandatory training sessions.5 The sessions provide a gradual approach to equity and diversity training, addressing different parts of the program after undergraduates move to second and third years.6 These sessions are provided under the Course Learning Outcome (CLO) ‘Apply ADF E&D Principles.’ First year undergraduates receive the following training sessions:

  • Understand Types of Unacceptable Behaviour (as part of YOFT)
  • Understand Sexual Offences & Sexual Offence Support Network (as part of YOFT)
  • Dispute Resolution Options – Self Resolution
  • Understand the Equity Adviser Network.

Second year undergraduates receive one presentation in session one, and another in session two. These include:

  • Understand the Complaint Management Process
  • Equity and Its Strategic Focus in Defence.

Third year undergraduates receive one session, the Equity Workshop for Commanders, Managers and Supervisors.7

The Audit has been advised that complaints management is taught separately as part of the Military Law package however no documents have been provided in this regard.8 Lastly, compulsory equity and diversity training has undergone a name change and is now known as Workplace Behaviours.9

Audit findings

The amendments to the ADFA equity and diversity training involve partial separation of equity and diversity training and complaints procedures. In some instances the training has been separated, however, in many cases the training is still intertwined and at a broader structural level the concepts are still connected. The Audit has been advised that:

equity and diversity training does include information on where and how to make a complaint when equity and diversity principles have been breached.10

Further, complaints training remains part of the Course Learning Outcome ‘Apply E&D Principles.’11

The training for first year undergraduates is comprised of the mandatory training and four additional sessions. Each of the four sessions substantially combines unacceptable behaviour and complaints with equity and diversity principles.12 This makes it difficult to separate the concepts.

The two lessons in the second year program provide a better example of the separation of the training. The first deals with complaints and the second focuses on the importance of equity and diversity. The aim of the latter presentation is ‘to understand that E&D has a strategic, operational and tactic[al] focus and to realise the impact of unacceptable behaviour.’13 This session frames equity and diversity as a positive contributor to defence culture, and undergraduates are encouraged to consider the purpose of the equity and diversity policy.

However, even in this session the focus is on unacceptable behaviour, which maintains the nexus between equity and diversity and complaints. An examination of the harmful effects of breaches of equity and diversity is important and warranted, however this should be taught separately to ensure the positive notions of equity and diversity are not diluted.

On the whole, as noted in the ADFA Report, the training largely reflects the Defence Instruction DI(G) PERS 35-3: Management and reporting on unacceptable behaviour, which focuses on the impact of unacceptable behaviour, definitions, making a complaint and options for resolution.14

Comments from an ADFA equity and diversity adviser suggest an enduring perception of the connection between complaints and equity and diversity:

I realised equity and diversity is a very soft fuzzy name that I think has lots of negative connotations attached to it. It dawned on me it’s all about conflict resolution and that’s how I frame it to other people.15

In consultations with undergraduates, the Audit heard a similar sentiment:

We still joke about the fact that I E&D’d my [superior], that kind of thing. So yes, there’s certainly some stigma attached to it.16

[equity and diversity and complaints] are very definitely [tied] together.17

As discussed below in Recommendation 8, equity and diversity is connected to complaints and unacceptable behaviour in key Defence documents.18 The rebranding of equity and diversity training as training in Workplace Behaviours may better separate equity and diversity and complaints training however, at this stage the Audit cannot make a definitive assessment.19

Material provided to the Audit notes that this Recommendation has been implemented. The Audit considers that further work is required, and encourages ADFA to continue to work towards separating the punitive processes of complaints from the positive value of equity and diversity.

Recommendation 8: ADFA teach equity and diversity principles as core values underpinning ethical leadership.

 

Intent of Recommendation

Today’s AFDA undergraduates are tomorrow’s ADF leadership. Embedding equity and diversity as a core principle underpinning ethical leadership at ADFA is a vehicle for embedding equity and diversity in ethical leadership across the ADF.

Implementation actions

The Audit has been provided with a number of documents which guide behaviour in this area. It has also been advised of reforms made to the training program to include aspects of ethical reflection. Documents provided include:

  • Defence Instruction DI(G) PERS 35-3: Management and reporting on unacceptable behaviour
  • ADFA’s new equity and diversity training continuum
  • Various equity and diversity lesson and module plans
  • ADFA leadership challenge exercises for years one, two and three.

DI(G) PERS 35-3, the 2009 directive on the management and reporting of unacceptable behaviour, is useful for contextualising how equity and diversity, unacceptable behaviour and complaints management are entwined in Defence policy. This document was examined in the ADFA Report and is not part of ADFA’s post 2011 reforms.20

ADFA’s new equity and diversity training continuum has been redeveloped for 2013. As noted above, much of the package continues to focus on unacceptable behaviour, complaints and reporting, however part of the second and third year training concentrates more on the strategic focus of equity and diversity in Defence.

Undergraduates conduct specific leadership exercises and projects each year at ADFA. Each has an ethics component. Leadership Challenge One is a four hour exercise designed to assess teamwork and leadership skills. There are eight components to this challenge, one of which is ‘ethical dilemmas’, in which undergraduates are expected to address ‘the tactical as well as the ethical or moral decisions’.21 Leadership Challenge Two is a two-week exercise, and includes the ‘Intro to Practical Leadership and Moral Self Assessment’ as its first objective.22 Leadership Challenge Three includes an evening activity, ‘Model for Guided Reflection’, that draws on various ADF leadership doctrines.23

Additionally, the Audit has been provided with an outline of the ‘ADFA Citizenship Package’, under which training is organised.24 The citizenship package, as drafted, deals with a number of components including ‘Equity and Diversity’, ‘Military Ethics’ and ‘Character Development’. The content of the equity and diversity component is the training continuum referred to above, and this was provided to the Audit. The Audit received no information on the military ethics or character development components.

At the completion of the Audit process, the team had the opportunity to attend the second annual ‘Linking with Universities’ conference at which ADFA undergraduates and other tertiary students examined ethical decision making. Presentations and sessions were facilitated by the St James Ethics Centre, the AFP and various academics.

Audit findings

The documentation provided to the Audit about policy and training – some newly designed, and some ongoing – indicates that there are links between equity and diversity principles, ethics and values, and leadership, but that these are not clearly or consistently applied.

An underlying cause for the lack of a positive link between equity and diversity and ethical leadership is the way that ‘equity and diversity’ is conceptualised in Defence policy documents. For example, DI(G) PERS 35-3 outlines unacceptable behaviour and complaints management policy in the ADF and refers to equity and diversity principles in this context. It notes that:

Everyone in Defence is required to be treated with respect, fairness and without harassment. Values underpin relationships and behaviour. Values-based behaviour in Defence requires everyone to accept personal responsibility and accountability for their actions and to think clearly about the consequences of their actions for Defence.25

Equity and diversity principles and training are framed as strategies to minimise unacceptable behaviour. For the purposes of this Recommendation, this directive cannot be said to address the teaching of equity and diversity principles as core values underpinning ethical leadership. On the contrary, it requires adherence to equity and diversity guidelines as a way to avoid complaints and unacceptable behaviour.

As discussed in Recommendation 7, the majority of the equity and diversity training package continues to focus on complaints and unacceptable behaviour, reflecting the fact that equity and diversity is aligned with unacceptable behaviour in a key ADF policy document.

Similarly, the Leadership Challenges contain ethics components, but do not appear to have been designed with the aim of teaching equity and diversity principles as core values underpinning ethical leadership.

As noted above, recasting mandatory equity and diversity training as ‘Workplace Behaviour’ offers an opportunity to develop the positive values of equity and diversity.26 Elements of the citizenship package such as military ethics and character development, that appear to be under development at this time, may assist in this process.

The ‘Linking with Universities’ ethical decision making conference is a positive initiative with potential for growth and wider application. The presentations and discussions were consistently of high quality and ADFA undergraduates had the opportunity to engage with peers from other institutions. This provided undergraduates with an opportunity to interact with a range of different perspectives and opinions about ethical issues. The Audit sees potential for the expansion and growth of ‘Linking with Universities’ across ADFA and beyond. Certain sessions (e.g. building respectful relationships among men and women) lend themselves to a wider application at ADFA to give more undergraduates an opportunity to be involved.

Recommendation 9: ADFA evaluate the effectiveness of the Equity Adviser Network to strengthen its advisory capacity.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review found that the Equity Adviser Network (EA Network) was not functioning optimally, and many undergraduates were reticent to approach an adviser. This Recommendation encouraged an examination of the EA Network with a view to strengthening its processes, role and profile.

Implementation actions

ADFA has expanded the EA Network from 16 equity advisers in 2011 to 35 in 2012.27 ADFA has advised that all equity advisers undertake an Equity and Diversity Course run by Defence Fairness and Resolution Branch.

New 2012 EA Network posters were widely disseminated and displayed in accommodation buildings, administration buildings, UNSW departments, the library, all Academy messes and the cafeteria. The poster contains photographs and contact details of practicing equity advisers. The poster also contains a message from the COMDT demonstrating commitment to equity and diversity and in particular to the EA Network.28 The Audit is advised that posters updated with newly trained personnel are in the process of being printed.29

As part of the strengthening of the EA Network, ADFA has established a Sexual Offence Support Person (SOSP) Network (SOSP Network), based on the scheme at HMAS Cerberus, which is being coordinated by the senior equity adviser. SOSPs provide guidance and support to members after an allegation of a sexual offence.

Audit findings

ADFA has undertaken a number of important steps to increase the effectiveness of the EA Network. The number of equity advisers has increased and the SOSP Network has been established. This is welcomed by the Audit.

Evaluation of the Equity Adviser Network

In response to the Recommendation, ADFA equity advisers met and there was a subsequent increase in the number of equity advisers.30 This is a welcome development, but it appears that the evaluation conducted may have been narrow. Whilst there was an increase in the number of equity advisers there was no consultation with undergraduates, nor is there any evidence that broad cultural barriers to accessing the EA Network (e.g. not trusting the EA Network, or, not wanting to ‘jack on your mate’)31 were considered. Therefore, whilst the EA Network has been strengthened in terms of numbers, the Audit cannot assess to what extent it has been strengthened in terms of reducing barriers to access or effectiveness.

The Audit acknowledges that access to a range of advisers is an important part of strengthening the EA Network (as per DI(G) PERS 35-7).32 For example, as one undergraduate told the Audit, the wide range of advisers was beneficial because there are some advisers that ‘I wouldn’t want to go up and talk to’ whereas the undergraduate knew other advisers through socialising or sport with whom she would speak.33

It is also acknowledged that the distribution of material advertising the new Equity and Diversity Policy and EA Network (Recommendation 6), and enhanced training (Recommendations 7 and 8) play an important role in building undergraduate understanding and use of the EA Network.

During consultations with undergraduates, on occasion concerns were raised with respect to the EA Network. The Audit was informed of an incident of unacceptable behaviour involving an equity and diversity adviser which raised questions about the selection procedure.34 Other undergraduates commented that the confidentiality of claims could not be assured and recounted personal examples to this effect.35 As a result, they did not trust the EA Network or the process. The Audit also heard concerns about whether the EA Network sufficiently differentiated between legitimate equity and diversity claims and claims of a different nature.36 These issues need to be evaluated and addressed in order to strengthen the EA Network and reduce any barriers to access.

Sexual Offence Support Person

ADFA has established a SOSP Network, based on the scheme at HMAS Cerberus, which is being coordinated by the senior equity adviser.

The COMDT’s Directive which establishes the SOSP Network outlines the role, duties and training required of a SOSP.37 The Directive states that:

Command will identify members who are deemed to be suitably qualified or trained as a support person...The SOSP will be selected based upon their experience and professional competence, with consideration also given to their ability to provide an appropriate management response to offences of a sexual nature.38

A Code of Practice has been prepared which outlines the role and responsibilities of a SOSP, including working with clients, the SOSP interview, confidentiality and privacy, clinical supervision and support, integrity of the SOSP Network and the training and accreditation requirements.39 A SOSP Network Client Handout and SOSP Quick Assessment Checklist have also been prepared.40

The creation of the SOSP Network represents a significant effort to provide support and assistance to those who have been involved in an indecent act or a sexual offence.

In 2012 four ADFA SOSPs were trained at HMAS Cerberus. They returned to ADFA and provided support to complainants and respondents throughout 2012. In March 2013 a further 11 SOSPs (six women and five men) were trained. There were a mix of ADFA, Australia’s Federation Guard and CTMC staff among the SOSP trainees. This was the first time the course was conducted at ADFA and the Audit had the opportunity to observe the training. Members of the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team (SACAT) with the Australian Federal Police, Defence Policing Unit, ADFIS, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre and SeMPRO were also in attendance and provided briefings on their respective roles and processes. The course was well structured, had highly relevant content, and provided ample opportunity for questions, interaction and case study discussions. The course also included a site visit to SACAT at the Belconnen Police Station. In the week commencing 25 March 2013 ADFA staff also received training on the role of SOSPs to enhance their awareness of this important source of support and the associated procedures.

There is a session devoted to understanding sexual offences and the SOSP Network during YOFT. Ongoing communication to undergraduates across all year groups about this program is a vital step in contributing to the effectiveness of the SOSP Network.

The Audit was also advised that the equity and diversity poster which has the photos of all equity and diversity advisers is being updated to include the photos and contacts of all members of the SOSP Network as well. This is a welcome development.

ADFA advised the Audit that further SOSP training is planned for the end of 2013 and will be offered to other bases in Canberra including RMC Duntroon, HMAS Harman and possibly Defence Offices at Russell.

The Audit congratulates ADFA on this important initiative and welcomes its attempts to roll out this program to other bases. The Audit also congratulates ADFA on the close connections it is building with internal and external agencies in order to ensure that the right support is offered to those involved, and the most effective response is provided.

Ongoing evaluation of training, selection procedures and operation of the SOSP Network is suggested and SOSPs must ensure that they are effectively linked with SeMPRO once it is fully established.

Recommendation 10: ADFA embed equity and diversity in all policies and practices through:

  1. ADF and ADFA senior leadership teams championing diversity and gender equality and publicly condemning all forms of sexism, sexual harassment and violence against women
  2. ADFA introducing regular forums for all cadets and staff where female role models from within and beyond the ADF present on their experiences.

 

Intent of Recommendation

This Recommendation aims to highlight the positive value of equity and diversity and embed it into ADFA’s everyday practice. Clear statements and actions by leadership, as well as exposure to, and interaction with, female role models were identified as powerful strategies to reinforce these principles.

Implementation actions

ADFA’s equity and diversity policy statement is framed as a personal message from the COMDT, and the COMDT’s photo appears prominently on the circulated message. A shortened version of this message appears on the posters advertising the current equity advisers.

The Audit also recognises the numerous and significant initiatives across the broader ADF in supporting the implementation of the Recommendations of the Review’s Phase Two Report and Pathway to Change. For example, the Chief of Army has joined the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Male Champions of Change, which aims to elevate the issue of women’s representation in leadership.41 All three Services have also undertaken a number of activities in support of diversity and gender equality, and many of these are documented on the Women in the Australian Defence Force website.42 The Audit also had the opportunity to attend the ADF’s first Gender in Defence and Security Leadership Conference held 12-13 March 2013.

At ADFA, three events were organised in 2012 promoting women in the military:

  • Canadian Combat Commanders on 8 May 2012
  • Female Aircrew on 29 May 2012
  • Female Engineers Week and Lunch from 8 August 2012.

Audit findings

The COMDT has assumed personal responsibility for ADFA’s Equity and Diversity Policy Statement and this has been circulated to staff and undergraduates through various lessons and packages. As the leader of ADFA, this is a powerful signal.

There is also evidence that these matters are being championed by the ADF leadership in response to the broader ADF cultural reform program.

The Audit has received little information about forums at ADFA where female role models from within and beyond the ADF present on their experiences. Whilst undoubtedly of value, the 2012 events did not appear to be part of a scheduled, ongoing program. Extension of the successful ‘Linking with Universities’ conference could include a session at which female role models from within and beyond the ADF present on their experiences.

The Audit was also provided with a discussion paper on mentoring. It recommends consideration of a three day series of networking visits for female second year cadets, or an annual networking forum for all second year cadets, male and female. These options are further discussed under Recommendation 17. Development of these programs could help ADFA meet the intent of Recommendation 10.

Conclusion

The COMDT is clearly championing equity and diversity and is building strong support mechanisms to ensure that the principles and practice of equity and diversity are demonstrated at ADFA. The COMDT has developed and disseminated a clear and unambiguous statement about diversity, inclusion and gender equality which identifies the organisational benefits of diversity. To date, however, there does not appear to be a well organised program of forums featuring female role models from within and beyond the ADF which could further support these initiatives. Further progress in this area would be welcome.

Amendments to training at ADFA have partially separated equity and diversity and complaints procedures. However, there is still a strong linkage between the positive values of equity and diversity and the punitive aspects of unacceptable behaviour and making complaints. The Audit acknowledges that this linkage is drawn and reinforced at the broader ADF organisational level but encourages ADFA to do more to promote the positive, not punitive aspects of equity and diversity, particularly as a core value underpinning ethical leadership.

While the significant increase in the number of equity advisers is a welcome development, it appears that some undergraduates are still unwilling to access the EA Network. Any remaining barriers to access require further evaluation and response in order to further strengthen the EA Network’s advisory capacity.

The establishment of the SOSP Network is strongly supported by the Audit and the attempt to roll out the SOSP Network to other Defence bases is welcomed. Ongoing evaluation of the SOSP Network is encouraged and SOSPs must be effectively linked with SeMPRO when it is established.


  1. CDRE B Kafer, ‘Commandant Australian Defence Force Academy Equity and Diversity Policy Statement,’ 1 July 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  2. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  3. Interview 20, Navy undergraduate male, 16 October 2012.
  4. ADFA, ‘Training Overview – Equity and Diversity: CLO 17: Apply E&D Principles’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Brief on the Revised Equity and Diversity Network and Training Continuum within ADFA’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  5. ADFA, ‘Training Overview – Equity and Diversity: CLO 17: Apply E&D Principles’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  6. ADFA, ‘Brief on the Revised Equity and Diversity Network and Training Continuum within ADFA’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  7. ADFA, ‘Training Overview – Equity and Diversity: CLO 17: Apply E&D Principles’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Brief on the Revised Equity and Diversity Network and Training Continuum within ADFA’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  8. ADFA, ‘Training Overview – Equity and Diversity: CLO 17: Apply E&D Principles’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  9. Department of Defence, ‘Workplace Behaviour, Management of Workplace Conflicts and Disputes and Unacceptable Behaviour’, Version 3 (2012). At http://www.defence.gov.au/fr/publications/WorkplaceBehaviour_2803web_.pdf (viewed 13 March 2013).
  10. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller on 28 September 2012.
  11. ADFA, ‘Training Overview – Equity and Diversity: CLO 17: Apply E&D Principles’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  12. As noted in Implementation actions, the presentations all include complaint information. For example the names of the presentation are as follows:
    • Understand Types of Unacceptable Behaviour (as part of YOFT)
    • Understand Sexual Offences & Sexual Offence Support Network (as part of YOFT)
    • Dispute Resolution Options – Self Resolution
    • Understand the Equity Adviser Network.
  13. ADFA, ‘ADFA Instructor Lesson Guide’ to presentation ‘Understand the Strategic Focus of Equity in Defence’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  14. Department of Defence, Defence Instruction DI(G) PERS 35-3: ‘Management and reporting on unacceptable behaviour’, 28 June, 2009.
  15. Focus group S11, Mixed Service E&D staff male and female, 18 October 2012.
  16. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female only, 17 October 2012.
  17. Focus group U1, Mixed Service 2nd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
  18. Audit advised by A Fullick at Mandatory Training, 21 January 2013.
  19. Department of Defence, ‘Workplace Behaviour, Management of Workplace Conflicts and Disputes and Unacceptable Behaviour’, Version 3 (2012). At http://www.defence.gov.au/fr/publications/WorkplaceBehaviour_2803web_.pdf (viewed 13 March 2013).
  20. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), pp 55-60, 69-71. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  21. ADFA, ‘Administrative Instruction 261/12: ADFA Leadership Challenge One – 26 Oct 12’, Department of Defence, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012.
  22. ADFA, ‘Administrative Instruction 003/12: Exercise Leadership Challenge II – 01 Dec 12’, Department of Defence, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 November 2012.
  23. ADFA, ‘Administrative Instruction 002/12: Exercise Leadership Challenge III – 06-18 May 12’, Department of Defence, Annex K, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 18 March 2013.
  24. ADFA, ‘ADFA Citizenship Package’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  25. Department of Defence, Defence Instructions (General) PERS 35-3, ‘Management and reporting of unacceptable behaviour’, 28 June 2009.
  26. Department of Defence, ‘Workplace Behaviour, Management of Workplace Conflicts and Disputes and Unacceptable Behaviour’, Version 3 (2012). At http://www.defence.gov.au/fr/publications/WorkplaceBehaviour_2803web_.pdf (viewed 13 March 2013).
  27. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller on 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Brief on the Revised Equity and Diversity Network and Training Continuum within ADFA’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  28. ADFA, ‘Brief on the Revised Equity and Diversity Network and Training Continuum within ADFA’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Equity Adviser Network 2012 Poster’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  29. RIT, RFI 3.10 response, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 28 September 2012.
  30. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller on 28 September 2012.
  31. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p.18. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
  32. Department of Defence, Defence Instructions (General) PERS 35-7 ‘Defence Equity Adviser Network’, 9 May 2003.
  33. Interview 36, Army undergraduate female, 16 October 2012.
  34. Focus group U14, Mixed Service 1st year undergraduate male and female, 16 October 2012.
  35. Focus group U14, Mixed Service 1st year undergraduate male and female, 16 October 2012.
  36. For example the Audit heard that in some instances the E&D network was being used for issues not relevant to E&D, like disappointment with academic results, or where E&D was being used for an undergraduate ‘to get what they want’. Focus group U16, Mixed Service undergraduate male, 18 October 2012; Focus group U10, Air Force undergraduate male and female, 18 October 2012; Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 10 October 2012.
  37. Department of Defence, COMDT Directive 7/2012 ‘Establishment of the ADFA Precinct Sexual Offence Support Person Network’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  38. Department of Defence, COMDT Directive 7/2012 ‘Establishment of the ADFA Precinct Sexual Offence Support Person Network’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  39. Australian Defence Force Academy, ‘Sexual Offence Support Person (SOSP) Network Code of Practice’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  40. Department of Defence, ‘SOSP Network Client Handout’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; Department of Defence, ‘SOSP Sexual Offence Quick Assessment Checklist’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
  41. Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Male Champions of Change’. At http://humanrights.gov.au/sex_discrimination/male-champions/index.html (viewed 1 March 2013).
  42. Defence, ‘Women in the Australian Defence Force’. At http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/women/ (viewed 5 March 2013).