Chapter 5: Principle 2: Diversity of leadership increases capability

Key findings of ADF Review

The ADF Review stated that harnessing all available leadership talent, and employing a diversity of thought and experience, was critical to increasing capability, and to more effective problem solving. It noted that the ADF was an organisation largely comprised of white Australian men, which lacked the perspectives and experiences of women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and those of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The ADF Review found that the traditional linear career model was a constraint on the ADF’s ability to manage its workforce flexibly. Traditional models were not delivering the diversity of leadership that high performing organisations require. The ADF Review specifically found a significant under-representation of women at decision making levels – women comprising about two percent of generalist star ranked officers in Navy and Air Force, and about six percent in Army.¹ The ADF Review concluded that targeted interventions were needed for the ADF to increase the representation of women and build pathways for women into leadership.

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

 

Intent of Recommendation 5

The intention of Recommendation 5 was to promote diversity in leadership and to help the ADF to address the lack of women among its senior leadership group. The recommendation was not intended to undermine the principle of merit, but rather to allow the ADF to consider a broader range of meritorious candidates for promotion in order to be best placed to meet future leadership and operational imperatives.

Implementation actions

The ADF Performance Framework for Gender Inclusion in the Australian Defence Force (Performance Framework) lists two relevant action items:

1. Increase women’s representation in strategic leadership positions across the ADF
2. Every promotion board/selection panel for senior ranking positions...is to include at least one woman and one member who is ‘external to Service’.²

The sub-actions assigned to these items include examining the requirements of senior leaders’ positions and investigating options for flexibility in accessing critical training gateways, and in the responsibilities assigned to various offices and personnel.

COSC has agreed that every promotion board or selection panel for senior ranking positions (defined as Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent and above, and Warrant Officer Class 2 or equivalent and above) should include a minimum of one woman, and one person ‘external to Service’.³ It is notable that ‘external to Service’ was defined so as to ‘include ex-Defence or Defence Public Servants’.

The Directorate of Senior Officer Management (DSOM) has undertaken a review of all star-rank positions, and identified a number that were previously quarantined for those with a ‘combat/operator/pilot’ background, which have been opened up to generalists.⁴ DSOM approximates that this process has reduced the number of quarantined positions from 97 to 51. This is a very positive development.

Other departments (including International Policy and Capability Development Group) have been independently pursuing their own small scale diversity initiatives. The first Assistant Secretary of International Policy is seeking to increase the number of women in overseas representative roles,⁵ and the Commander Capability Development Group is also seeking to diversify the Capability Development Group workforce.⁶

Navy

Navy’s action has focussed on integrating gender representatives and external representatives onto promotions boards.

Since 2012, Navy has had a ‘gender representative’ on officer promotion and command/charge selection boards. The representative was generally a female, but for categories where there was majority female participation (eg nursing) it was a male.⁷ Navy also had at least one woman on its 2013 warrant officer promotions boards.⁸

Navy had an ‘external to Service’ representative on all senior promotion boards in 2013. The external to Service appointment was a former senior ranking Navy member with decades of service, who has recently moved to a civilian agency.⁹ This representative participated in senior officer promotion and Command selection boards. External to Service members are also appointed to promotions boards for CMDR and WO rank.¹⁰

The Chief of Navy’s promotion board guidance for 2013 made mention of several issues that the Audit believes are important for increasing gender diversity in higher ranks, such as ensuring that Part Time Leave Without Pay and flexible working arrangements were not negative discriminators in consideration.¹¹

Army

Army’s actions in response to this principle are underpinned by its ECM models.12 The ECM models (for officers and soldiers) require changes to the career management systems with the goal of better managing a contemporary workforce, and acknowledging the changing workforce demographics, and providing rewarding experiences that will help attract and retain workers.

In 2012, Army had external observers/members on Promotion Advisory Committees (PAC) for the Australian Command and Staff Course, and found that this ‘enhance[d] PAC outcomes’.¹³ The use of external observers has continued for promotions to senior officer and senior other rank PACs.¹⁴ The formal policy regarding PAC observers remains under development.

Various PAC deliberation guidance documents also noted the ECM and career pathway strategies.¹⁵

Air Force

Air Force has mandated the presence of women and external to Service members on all senior promotions boards, and is progressing towards realising this.¹⁶

In 2013, Air Force had a female representative on over 90% of promotion and command boards.¹⁷

Air Force is also working on several initiatives for 2014, including ‘investigating opportunities’ to have external human resource specialists sit on promotion boards in 2014, updating Chief of Air Force’s promotion board guidance, and assessing promotion board processes and tools.¹⁸

Audit findings

Overall very good progress has been made on Recommendation 5. COSC and each Service have implemented initiatives that should begin to address a lack of diversity in the senior ranks of the ADF. A number of plans and initiatives, such as the redesign of senior leaders’ position requirements, may require complementary work or ongoing monitoring in order to achieve the desired outcomes. Other initiatives, such as policies and practices that ensure female and external representation on promotion boards, will immediately encourage the consideration of a diversity of views.

This section will first examine the work done by the ADF and each Service, then provide an analysis of the representation of women in senior ranks in 2013, which acts as an update of the analysis conducted by the ADF Review in 2012.

The Performance Framework gives responsibility to:

• the Service Chiefs and DSOM for undertaking the review of star rank positions
• the CDF and Service Chiefs for mandating the inclusion of ‘at least’ one woman and one external member on promotion boards, and
• Commanders and directors, who are responsible for ensuring that ‘women have fair and equitable access to career development opportunities that might position them for future progression in the ADF.’¹⁹

This division of responsibilities provides a good foundation to address Recommendation 5, and will create the conditions that may allow greater diversity in leadership to exist. Further clear and positive direction, however, may better help the ADF achieve the goals it is aiming to achieve.

Certainly, it should be a given that leadership positions are filled after an assessment of merit, competence, performance and ability. In addition, however, filling the most senior leadership positions also requires a consideration of less tangible qualities, such as mutual trust and respect. These considerations are often opaque and consequently hard to define or enshrine in policy. The Audit is mindful that this can be a ‘black art’ and is encouraged by discussions in which senior leadership have indicated a desire to open these matters to more transparency.

The Audit has also been told that some individual decisions about leadership positions are being made in keeping with the spirit and intent of Recommendation 5. While this is welcome and may be well intentioned, an individualistic and personalised approach may not be sustainable as current leadership personnel move on.

Instead, it is important to take a more systemic approach – one that challenges the traditions, assumptions and customs across the organisation that have seen the most senior strategic positions drawn from a narrow range of work backgrounds.

To this end, in April 2012, COSC stated that ‘every promotion board/selection panel for senior ranking positions...will include at least one woman and one member who is ‘external to Service’.²⁰ This is a pragmatic decision, which the Audit agrees is likely to be necessary in the early stages of promotion board reform. However, this approach could compromise the independence of perspectives being brought to the discussion. The inclusion of external to Service board members who are not ex-Defence or Defence Public Service members has more potential to encourage a diversity of views and to deliver robust outcomes.

Each Service will therefore need to balance resource requirements and necessary levels of organisational knowledge with the potential gains that the incorporation of expert external perspectives could bring. Air Force’s investigation of the potential involvement of an external Human Resources specialist could deliver great benefits.²¹

The degree to which the Services have implemented COSC’s directive to date is varied.

Navy

Navy has had women on officer promotions boards since 2012, and women on warrant officer promotions boards since 2013, as well as a representative from an external branch or Primary Qualification (PQ), and an ex-Defence external representative on the most senior boards.²² It is unclear whether this has been formalised in policy.²³

The Chief of Navy’s promotion board guidance for 2013 addressed several areas that the Audit believes are important for increasing gender diversity in higher ranks. For example, the guidance noted that ‘Part Time Leave Without Pay and flexible working arrangements are not to be used as an adverse discriminator for promotion’ and that ‘mere time in ranks is not an indication of talent or experience’.²⁴ This aligns with arguments made in the ADF Review that the ADF would be well served by building more flexibility into its traditional career models and the Audit therefore welcomes these developments.²⁵

Army

Army has focussed efforts on ‘inclusion of external observers/members from Australian Public Service, other services and the private sector’, which it has had at the ACSC PAC in 2012, and senior officer and other rank PACs in 2013.²⁶

Information provided about Army PACs lists female attendees, but again it is unclear whether the requirement for gender diversity on boards has been formalised yet.

Air Force had a female representative on over 90% of promotion and command boards in 2013,²⁷ and has mandated the inclusion of at least one woman and an external to Service member on all senior officer and other rank boards in 2014.²⁸

However, the Audit heard that, unfortunately, there has been an unintended consequence of this requirement:

We have this year been told that we need to have a female on the board or a female as a career advisor in the room. And unfortunately there are only [a few] female career advisors, which means that our workload has tripled.²⁹

The Services should therefore be alert to and be prepared to combat any adverse impact of this requirement.

Army’s new Enhanced Career Management (ECM) models for both officers and other ranks are blueprints for a redesign of its career management systems to better align them with the realities – and diversity – of the current Australian workforce.

These are commendable models which will leave Army well-placed to develop and capitalise on the best of its talent as each is implemented.

The officer ECM notes that, while the current system is continuing to deliver ‘sufficiently talented officers’, it was:

fundamentally designed for, and is optimised to support, an overwhelmingly masculine workforce. While this may have reflected societal norms and served our purposes in the past, if Army is to remain a respected, robust and capable land force we must attract and retain more women.³⁰

It contains a number of initiatives, including:

• reformed PAC training and conduct and career management functions, developed mentoring and networking programs
• relaxed time in rank requirements ‘at more senior levels’
• ‘a greater level of interaction between the officer and the CMA’
• ‘FWA with no detriment to the officer’s career progression’, and
• alternate Command and Staff College experiences including distance programs.³¹

Army aims to have a ‘mature ECM model’ by December 2013, then to conduct a final review of ECM implementation in June 2014.³² A successful implementation of ECM initiatives will give Army a robust framework from which to modernise its career management.

The soldier ECM uses ‘the framework of the officer ECM, leveraging initiatives which can be equally applied to soldiers.’³³ This model allows for greater flexibility in a number of areas and ‘lays the foundation for the effective implementation of PLAN SUAKIN’. The soldier ECM work is not as advanced as its officer counterpart, and Army should seek to leverage successful officer initiatives into its soldier stream where possible.

There appears to be a good awareness of the ECM models among those driving promotions and careers processes.³⁴ In addition, the 2013 Army PAC deliberation guidance, given to all PAC members, refers to the new ECM models and their aims, as well as giving an explanation of some aspects and the reasoning behind them.

Air Force

Air Force has similarly been working on developing policy responses to Recommendation 5. The Directorate of Personnel – Air Force (DP-AF) has circulated a statement of intent requiring changes to the promotions board processes for 2014.³⁵ These included:

• Creating materials emphasising the benefits of non-traditional career paths for trial at 2014 boards
• Ensuring members with a break in service were presented in a positive manner
• Identifying a talent management framework
• Exploring ways to make board members aware of conscious and unconscious bias.

Air Force also provided the Audit with copies of an annual analysis of promotions by gender, completed by its senior officer for Gender Initiatives in 2012 and 2013.³⁶ The analysis for 2013 is constructively critical, and notes that while:

There is more work to be done to improve the progression of women in Air Force, [however] at promotion and selection boards, women are exceeding overall participation ratios in terms of achieving higher rank and command selection.³⁷

It also notes two areas of concern, being a relative under-representation of women in senior promotions in some larger feminised categories, and an under-representation of women in promotions in non-traditional roles. The analysis presents spread sheets of data to back up these findings, and suggests reasons for their occurrence.

Women’s representation

The ADF Review contained a section illustrating women’s representation in each part of all the Services, as at the end of financial year 2010-2011, and over time from 2004-2005 to 2010-2011. It presented a series of figures, for officers and other ranks of each Service, illustrating women as a proportion of each rank over time, the breakdowns of women and men as a proportion of each rank, and the number and proportion of women at senior ranks.³⁸

An update of this exercise is presented below, along with a brief comparison between the 2013 and 2011 data. The 2013 data is taken from the 2012/2013 ‘Women in the ADF’ Report,³⁹ and the 2011 data was provided by the Workforce Planning Branch.⁴⁰

It should be noted that the figures below use the same templates used in the ADF Review report, though the figures provided for a small number of Army other ranks were provided in different groupings for 2013 compared to 2011. The Audit does not believe that this affects any of the comparisons conducted below in any substantial way.⁴¹

 

Navy, other ranks (OR)

The overall representation of women among Navy ORs in 2013 is about the same as it was in 2011 (18% in 2013, compared to 17.9% in 2011). There has been a slight improvement in the representation of women at CPO, but representation remains about the same at the ranks of PO and WO.

Figure 1: Proportional representation of women, Navy other ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 2: Women and men as a proportion of each Navy other rank, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 3: Navy women senior non-commissioned officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Rank	2010/2011 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank		2012/2013 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank
PO	162 (men 1110)	12.7%	172 (men 1202)	12.5%
CPO	74 (men 848)	8.0%	87 (men 842)	9.4%
WO + WO-N	11 (men 167)	6.2%	13 (men 190)	6.4%

 

Navy, officers

The overall representation of women among Navy officers has fallen slightly since 2011 (19.9% in 2013, compared to 20.3% in 2011). Representation at the more senior ranks has improved, with the most senior woman wearing the rank of Rear Admiral.

Figure 4: Proportional representation of women, Navy officer ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 5: Women and men as a proportion of each Navy officer rank, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 6: Navy women senior officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Rank	2010/2011 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank		2012/2013 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank
LCDR	124 (men 587)	17.4%	136 (men 593)	18.7%
CMDR	38 (men 313)	10.8%	45 (men 337)	11.8%
CAPT	11 (men 102)	9.7%	16 (men 101)	13.7%
CDRE	2 (men 35)	5.4%	1 (men 38)	2.6%
RADM	0 (12 men)	0%	1 (men 14)	6.7%

 

Army, other ranks

The overall representation of women in Army ORs remains relatively low but it has improved since 2011 (9.8% in 2013, compared to 8.7% in 2011). The progression of women through Army ORs remains relatively equitable, with women making up 9.6% of WO1 and 9.3% of WO2.

Figure 7: Proportional representation of women, Army other ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 8: Proportion of women and men, Army other ranks, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 9: Army women senior non-commissioned officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Rank	2010/2011 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank		2012/2013 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank
SGT + [SSGT, 2011]	293 (men 2512)	10.4%	299 (men 2367)	11.2%
WO2 + [SSGT, 2013]	169 (men 1822)	8.5%	181 (men 1758)	9.3%
WO1 + RSM-A	56 (men 629)	8.2%	64 (men 606)	9.6%

 

Army, officers

The overall representation of women among Army officers has improved since 2011 (15.2% in 2013, compared to 14.5% in 2011).43 Representation at the more senior ranks (COL and BRIG) has also improved, and the Audit is aware that one woman was promoted to MAJGEN in financial year 2013/2014, the first female general service officer to reach that rank.44

Figure 10: Proportional representation of women, Army officer ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 11: Women and men as a proportion of each Army officer rank, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 12: Army women senior officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Rank	2010/2011 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank		2012/2013 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank
MAJ	228 (men 1385)	14.1%	244 (men 1439)	14.5%
LTCOL	62 (men 527)	10.5%	68 (men 549)	11%
COL	7 (men 152)	4.4%	16 (men 159)	9.1%
BRIG	4 (men 48)	7.7%	6 (men 49)	10.9%

 

Air Force, other ranks

The overall representation of women among Air Force ORs in 2013 is slightly higher than it was in 2011 (16.3% in 2013, compared to 16% in 2011). There has been a slight improvement in the representation of women at FSGT, but representation remains about the same at the ranks of SGT and WOFF.

Figure 13: Proportional representation of women, Air Force other ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 14: Women and men as a proportion of each Air Force other rank, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 15: Air Force women senior non-commissioned officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Rank	2010/2011 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank		2012/2013 Number and proportion of total women (and men) / rank
SGT	283 (men 1482)	15.9%	259 (men 1375)	15.9%
FSGT	102 (men 624)	12.7%	107 (men 617)	14.8%
WOFF + WOFF-AF	44 (men 527)	7.7%	41 (men 504)	7.5%

 

Air Force, officers

The overall representation of women among Air Force officers has risen since 2011 (19.8% in 2013, compared to 19.3% in 2011). Representation at the more senior ranks has improved between the ranks of SQNLDR and AIRCDRE, however there is no woman at the rank of AVM in 2013.

Figure 16: Proportional representation of women, Air Force officer ranks, financial years 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Figure 17: Women and men as a proportion of each Air Force officer rank, financial year 2012/2013

Figure 18: Air Force women senior officers, 2010/2011 and 2012/2013

Recommendation 6

In order to broaden the talent pool from which leadership is drawn, each Service Chief should identify and implement a target aimed at broadening the work background of people available to enter into leadership positions. The Service Chiefs should:

For Officers:

• Identify all promotional gateways across the Services, including, and commensurate with, Australian Command and Staff College and Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies.
• Establish a target in Australian Command and Staff College and Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies (or commensurate promotional gateways) for people who are drawn from non-warfare corps codes (with an initial focus on categories which have a higher representation of women including Supply, Logistics, Administrative or Health Service roles).

For Other Ranks:

• Identify promotional gateways and career development opportunities that position individuals for selection to rank of Sergeant (or equivalent) and establish a target for women.

The Service Chiefs should report annually against these targets in the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report.

 

Intent of Recommendation 6

The intention of Recommendation 6 was to clarify the existence and role of key career gateways, as well as to examine the profile of the cohort that successfully navigates these gateways, so as to help the Services to identify where workforce pipeline blockages exist. The creation of targets for a broad range of candidates, including women, at these gateways was recommended to help the Services develop a broad and inclusive senior leadership group.

Implementation actions

The Performance Framework requires each Service to:

Ensure women’s representation on ACSC [Australian Command and Staff College], CDSS [Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies], in command positions and other career/training opportunities is proportionate to their overall representation in the competitive pool from which candidates are drawn.⁴⁵

It gives responsibilities to:

• Service Chiefs to mandate the requirement, and provide targeted guidance to selection panels
• Personnel Directors General to issue a directive to personnel staff and ensure implementation
• Commanders/Directors to ensure that women have fair and proportionate access to career development/training opportunities.⁴⁶

COSC also agreed that Services set a gender target for ACSC, CDSS and other gateways.47

Navy

Navy has provided data and input to the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report to track its progress against COSC requirements. It has also provided data to the Audit which shows it meeting these requirements in the majority of areas identified, including women’s representation at Australian Command and Staff College (ACSC), Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies (CDSS) and command appointments overall.48 It is falling slightly below its target for the leading seaman and petty officer promotions courses.

Navy has also undertaken work to standardise and improve access to career development opportunities and requirements by:

• reforming the Navy Leadership Development Workshops, and making them a mandatory requirement for promotion⁴⁹
• approving a limited number of education arrangements for personnel to support remote or family flexible arrangements
• procuring two intensive delivery modules at UNSW Canberra to support career development.⁵⁰

Army

Army has provided data which shows it meeting the COSC requirements in most areas identified, including women’s representation at ACSC, CDSS and command appointments overall.⁵¹ In addition, Army has presented the Audit with a longer term analysis that indicates positive trends in female representation among unit commanders.⁵² It has fallen slightly below its target for Sergeant promotion course.

Army is also building flexibility into its career progression model through ECM initiatives, including offering career support to those who have travelled less traditional career paths, and recognising professional development outside Army.

Air Force

Air Force has provided data which indicates that it met its ACSC target in 2013, and it has ‘agreed to meet the gender targets for 2014, particularly for ACSC, noting there must be a balanced approach to ensure all Air Force capability needs are considered.’⁵³ It has not provided data for CDSS.⁵⁴

Air Force has also developed a policy directive noting that:

• from 2015, female representation at ACSC and CDSS should be representative of the proportion of women available for selection
• initial focus would be on specialisations with high representation of females, but this should be broadened over time
• promotion boards should be aware of a range of career pathways and how these may strengthen Air Force.⁵⁵

Air Force is making its Professional Military Education and Training (PMET) more flexible by offering distance learning options, and by waiving the residential requirement for members unable to attend for ‘legitimate reasons’ such as being on maternity leave.⁵⁶ In addition, PMET education course learning outcomes are being assessed to ensure that they are aligned with ADF Review recommendations.⁵⁷

Audit findings

All Services have made progress in addressing the intent of this Recommendation, particularly in meeting the headline targets set by COSC for representation at ACSC and notable gateways. This is a positive development. More could be done to identify other key gateways and conducting analyses of how these affect career pipelines. Information provided by Navy and Air Force makes the point that ACSC and CDSS are less important career milestones in their Services compared to Army.

The Performance Framework and COSC have provided targets for women’s representation at ACSC, CDSS and equivalent gateways for each Service. The Audit urges that the use of the word ‘proportionate’ in these cases does not act as a ceiling, but as a minimum floor, on women’s overall representation.

The Directorate of Senior Officer Management (DSOM) review and reclassification of dozens of star-rank positions (noted at Recommendation 5) may also assist in giving a diverse range of candidates more opportunity to navigate key career gates.

All Services have been examining aspects of their workforce pipelines as they relate to women and career progression for some time. Navy notes that it:

Has been tracking and monitoring female distribution, recruitment and retention and a myriad of other indicators for many years.⁵⁸

Army has provided data indicating that female representation at unit commander level has been tracked and analysed for some years,⁵⁹ and Air Force notes that:

Since the development of the Air Force Personnel Strategy in 2002, Air Force has been actively removing unnecessary barriers to promotion...[leaving only] the completion of Professional Military Education and Training and minimum seniority.⁶⁰

These sorts of efforts provide good data and baseline information. Notwithstanding the work done, women remain vastly under-represented in senior leadership positions. Several initiatives recently put in place (or updated) will help clarify key requirements for promotion, and provide for alternative pathways to the more traditional career gateways.

Navy is doing this through the Navy Leadership Development Workshops (NLDW), Army through the ECM, and Air Force through PMET. Chief of Navy has recently made the completion of NLDW ‘a mandatory prerequisite for promotion from 01 Jan 2013’ for all personnel at the rank of captain, commander, lieutenant-commander, warrant officer and chief petty officer.⁶¹ The Audit did not receive the curriculum for these courses and workshops but Navy notes that they are ‘a crucial part of the leadership and ethics pillar of the NGN strategy’⁶² and improvements in the representation of women at some of Navy’s more senior ranks may be partially attributed to the changes in NLDW policy. Certainly, having a broad based requirement open to (and required by) all personnel offers the opportunity to build strong peer networks that will assist in career development.

Army’s officer ECM will seek to provide alternate opportunities for personnel to meet key career milestones, including Command and Staff College alternatives. It will also acknowledge ‘commensurate professional/academic experience outside Army’ and apply the ‘traditional career sequence...in a more flexible manner’.⁶³ These initiatives will be implemented and reviewed throughout 2014.⁶⁴

The soldier ECM proposes similar reforms to the soldier career model, focussing on changes to time in rank and talent management, and the creation of a Flexible Work Cell.⁶⁵ These reforms will address access and equity issues reported by some personnel, particularly those with family responsibilities. The Audit does not, as yet, have information about the exact form these alternatives will take, but the work planned should provide options, and widen what had been seen by some personnel as a relatively rigid career continuum.

Air Force has released a schedule of all PMET requirements to be met by other ranks before being eligible for promotion.⁶⁶ It has also announced a new policy directive that outlines various changes to officer career management, including ensuring selection panels are cognisant that:

Alternative career paths, breaks in service, civilian employment and equivalent experiences through alternate means [may be valuable assets].⁶⁷

In addition to these initiatives, the Services have also provided gender disaggregated data about representation specifically at the gates mentioned in the recommendation – ACSC, CDSS command and sergeant equivalents.

As previously noted, ACSC and CDSS are more prominent parts of the Army career model when compared with both Navy and Air Force. Army advises that:

ACSC is a pre requisite for promotion to LTCOL on the Command and Leadership Pathway...[and] CDSS is normally a pre requisite for promotion to BRIG on the Command and Leadership Pathway.⁶⁸

In Navy:

Neither the Centre for Defence Strategic Studies (CDSS) nor Command, are promotion gateways for Captain (O6) to Commodore (O7) in Navy...[and] Australian Command and Staff College (ACSC) is not a gateway to promotion to CMDR (O5).⁶⁹

Similarly, Air Force notes that:

Attendance at certain courses such as Australian Command and Staff [College] and the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies may certainly be a competitiveness factor, and may be a prerequisite for certain positions, [but are] not an eligibility factor for promotion.⁷⁰

With this context, it is understandable that Army is looking at more options than the other Services in developing alternatives to gateways at these career points. As indicated above, however, Navy and Air Force have not nominated the equivalent gateways for their Services. The Audit encourages them to identify and examine these gateways in order to achieve the intent of the recommendation.

The Army officer ECM acknowledges the stresses of residential courses on ‘broader family considerations’ and the fact that ‘many attending [ACSC] already have tertiary qualifications commensurate or in excess of what ACSC may provide’.⁷¹ It notes that Australian Defence College (ADC), Headquarters Forces Command (HQ FORCOMD) and career management agencies were working on developing distance study programs through ADC and a number of Australian universities.

As indicated, there has been good overall progress made in relation to Recommendation 6. Each Service has worked towards the targets set by COSC in this area, and in many cases has met them, as outlined below. In summary:

Navy

• Navy has exceeded the targets set by COSC for female representation at ACSC, CDSS and command appointments in 2012/2013.
• Navy advised that promotional gateways that are ‘commensurate with ACSC or CDSS’ are those associated with professional mastery relevant to employment workgroup.  Additionally, Navy recognises the Capability and Technology Management Program (CMTP) as an equivalent alternate course to ACSC, in augmenting professional expertise to prepare officers for future promotion.⁷²
• Women are generally well represented in the board recommendations for Navy command and charge positions in 2014/2015 made to date. The one exception is in the category of minor war vessel sea command, where women comprise only nine percent of those recommended. Overall representation of women in command and charge appointments for 2014/2015 is 19%.
• Women are under-represented at the leading seamen and petty officer promotion courses, and over-represented at the chief petty officer promotion course.

Army

• Army has exceeded its targets for female representation at ACSC, CDSS and command appointments in 2012/2013.
• Army has seen large increases in numbers of women in command positions, particularly over the previous two years.
• Women’s representation on Subject 1 for SGT (the promotion course that is a prerequisite for promotion to SGT for all Army trades) is slightly below the target.

Air Force

• Air Force is exceeding its target for female representation at ACSC in 2013 and 2014.
• Based on information published in the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report, Air Force is exceeding its target for female representation at CDSS.
• Air Force also notes that, of 83 current O5 command appointments, 72 are male (86%) and 11 are female (14%).⁷³

All Services have contributed information about their achievements in this area to the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report and, as set out in the Performance Framework, will be required to continue to do so through COSC.

Figure 19: Navy officer gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

Figure 20: Navy officer command and charge board recommendations for 2014/2015

 

Figure 21: Navy other rank gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

Figure 22: Army officer gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

Figure 23: Army other rank gateways, women’s representation

 

Figure 24: Army other rank gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

Figure 25: Air Force officer gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

Figure 26: Air Force other ranks gateways, women’s representation 2012/2013

 

 

Intent of Recommendation 7

The intent of Recommendation 7 was to help the ADF to build flexibility into career models, with the aim of developing more balanced and rewarding careers for personnel, as well as enabling the ADF to make the most of its workforce talent.

Implementation actions

The Performance Framework includes three action items with partial relevance to this Recommendation:

1. Implement/monitor programs for networking, sponsorship, talent management, mentoring, and support
2. Deliver negotiated ‘support to posting’ plans for all members who require them, as part of routine career/posting planning processes
3. Increase the level of workplace flexibility across the ADF.

These items are dealt with more directly as part of Principle 4 (‘Greater flexibility will strengthen the ADF’) but some accountabilities and responsibilities have relevance to Recommendation 7 as they relate to longer term careers.

Navy

Navy has referred the Audit to work recommended and completed as part of NGN Culture Project 12 – Manage Career More Flexibly (further examined later in the Report), as well as future planned work as evidence of action against Recommendation 7. Some aspects of the work noted below are new elements that can be considered partial responses, while others have been provided by Navy as support of ongoing initiatives in the area.

Navy has noted that each of its categories have discrete career continuums, suggesting that different approaches will be needed in different categories. It has provided details of work done by the submarine community to reform its career continuum and allow concentrated sea phases and onshore development.

Navy has also completed work in the following areas, with the aim of building flexibility into career models:

• Education – Navy has provided the Audit with the names of eight personnel who are flexibly accessing higher education to ‘support remote or family flexible arrangements’. It has also procured flexible delivery education units through UNSW Canberra in July 2012 for career development and professional currency.
• Communication – the ‘keep in touch’ program is aimed at keeping in touch with members of the Maritime Warfare Officer (MWO) community while on periods of extended leave with a view to retaining their services at the completion of this leave.
• Remote access work – the ‘MWO sponsor program’ matches projects and tasks with members interested in remote location work. Navy has also distributed 1,650 remote network access tokens so that members can access projects off base.

Army

Army’s current and future action in this area is underpinned by its ECM models. The officer ECM seeks:

Flexible career management initiatives such as consideration of commensurate experiences for career milestones, broadening Promotional Advisory Committee consideration to include non-traditional career pathways, consideration of career breaks, outplacements or secondments, greater posting flexibility to primary caregivers, extending the duration of a member’s posting duration, enhanced networking and mentoring and talent management initiatives.⁷⁴

Army has also provided individual examples of where these policies have been enacted. Examples include Army’s professional acknowledgement of the experience of three officers who were promoted to new positions on account of their external qualifications; and the external secondments to large and innovative civilian organisations of a number of high-achievers in order to broaden the knowledge base that they will bring back to Army.

The soldier ECM is a more recent document and, though less has been done for other ranks, it has:

Proposed changes to minimum time in rank, talent management and the creation of a flexible work cell...[and] reduc[ing] portfolio size and ratios and allow[ing] DSCM-A to be able to provide tailored career guidance.⁷⁵

Army has also redesigned its annual reporting documents, and circulated a DVD to Commanding Officers to explain how the new process works.

Air Force

Air Force has updated a number of policies and processes, and is developing others that will address Recommendation 7. It has developed a new promotion board guidance that stresses the importance of acknowledging ‘alternative career paths, breaks in service, civilian employment and equivalent experiences’.⁷⁶

Air Force is also drafting position profiles for all Air Force roles, which will provide data to ‘augment the emergence of a personal career management system and tools to aid individual career planning’.⁷⁷ It has new directives clarifying policies for working remotely and flexible working arrangements (effective from 2013) and an older directive outlining expected work-life balance guidelines (2008).⁷⁸

Air Force also notes that a new Performance Appraisal Form is under development.

Audit findings

It is difficult to assess how well the Services are addressing Recommendation 7. Of all the ADF Review’s recommendations, building the flexibility needed to provide rewarding careers and equitable opportunities for personnel, as well as to improve retention rates, is a project that will need to be monitored over a number of years to evaluate its success.

Nevertheless, all Services have made a promising start on flexible work practice and should be able to build on this. Navy should expand on the narrow, but defined, career continuum reforms in the submariner area and apply the relevant lessons more broadly. Conversely, Army and Air Force should ensure that overarching policies – such as the ECM and position profiles – are embedded and reflected in the day to day realities for personnel ‘on the ground’.

As one senior officer told the Audit about changes in career management:

That’s where the rubber hits the road. If we weren’t experiencing friction in the career management space, then we wouldn’t be doing our job.⁷⁹

Navy

Navy has directed the Audit to work completed in response to Recommendation 13 and 14 as its response to this Recommendation. These recommendations deal with flexible working arrangements, and elements of the initiatives undertaken in these areas have relevance to building flexibility into longer term career models.

Navy has also drawn attention to the fact that it has been attempting for some time to balance its seagoing requirements with an acknowledged need to provide greater flexibility.⁸⁰ Navy argues that the seagoing responsibilities of personnel make a blanket agreement to flexibility unachievable.⁸¹ The Audit acknowledges that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that there may need to be diversity in the arrangements that are possible.

Navy has also noted that:

Each Primary Qualification/Category has a discrete career continuum... [and] these continuums are linear in nature and require adaptation to further support flexibility and increased female participation.⁸²

Navy engaged the assistance of an external consulting firm to undertake a review of workplace flexibility options. The report ‘Enhancing Capability through Flexibility’ delivered recommendations on work and job design, development and career pathways, performance and promotion, posting alignment and strategic workforce planning.⁸³

Further the current Workforce Management Continuous Improvement Project is implementing a range of initiatives within Navy People Branch to more effectively manage the Navy workforce, including: category design and category management; personnel information management and Personnel Branch skill augmentation.⁸⁴

Reform at an individual primary qualification level has been completed by the submariner community. The MWO submariner career continuum has been reorganised so that members can complete their seagoing requirements in discrete blocks, and plan to have more flexible working arrangements, or career breaks, outside of these blocks. Other Navy categories should look to the example set by the submariner community, and examine whether their career continuums could be similarly redesigned in ways that reflect the reality of members’ responsibilities.

Army

Army has similarly noted the need to build flexibility into its career model at strategic points on the career continuum. Army’s officer ECM:

Focusses on the 7-8 year window between senior CAPT and Unit Command when key career milestones are traditionally achieved, which is also the window when most Australian women have their first child.⁸⁵

The evidence provided by Army is impressive, and includes an overarching policy in the form of the ECM, as well as individual examples of work completed. The work includes the outplacement of a number of members to external opportunities, and the acknowledgement of externally acquired skills.

The soldier ECM has identified a number of areas in which flexibility gains are possible. The reorganisation of soldier career management so that a number of pre-corporal ranks are managed at a local level will give greater capacity to career managers to develop bespoke approaches.

Air Force

Air Force’s new directives will clarify key policies, and the Enhanced Position Profiles data will be a powerful tool enabling greater interaction between individuals and prospective careers.

Recommendation 7 also made specific suggestions about areas in which action might be taken to increase flexibility in the career model. These included developing longer term career plans; developing joint career plans; allowing personnel to access career development while on leave; and reforming time in rank requirements. Some of the work done in response to these suggestions has been encouraging, but in many cases there is scope for further development and expansion.

The main tool used by all Services as a baseline for longer term career planning is the ADF Employment Preferences and Restrictions (EPAR) form.⁸⁶ It is mandatory for all personnel except RAN Officers, for whom it is optional. This form is not a new invention, but has been supplied as evidence that the Services are meeting the goal of offering longer term career plans.

Throughout the process of the ADF Review and Audit, the research team heard mixed views about the efficacy of the EPAR. If this is to remain the long term career planning tool used by the ADF, there may be value in increasing its prominence and use through training which stresses the importance of an up to date and comprehensive EPAR.

All Services have a relatively large number of serving couples (Air Force also supplied data noting that it was currently managing 2106 members married to serving members)⁸⁷ and have a desire to manage careers in a way that balances work and family responsibilities.⁸⁸ Despite this, joint career plans happen largely on an ad hoc basis. Further work to formalise processes for serving couples, and to assist them to access joint career plans, would help the ADF to promote family friendly practices.

All Services have undertaken work to allow those on leave to access training or professional development opportunities. The initiatives include:

• Navy’s flexible delivery modules at UNSW at ADFA, and its examples of individuals who have been able to access individual programs and education opportunities to support remote family postings
• Army’s development of outplacements for high performers, and its acknowledgement of the value of education gained external to Army, including alternatives to ACSC
• Air Force allowing members to access certain learning opportunities by distance education while on leave.

A more proactive development of similar initiatives could offer members more scope to creatively manage and invigorate their careers, while offering to bring new skills to the ADF. Each Service should look to the initiatives being pursued by the other Services to identify initiatives that could be leveraged for their own benefit.

There appears to have been little substantial work completed with regards to time-in-rank reform. Navy notes that sailors are already able to access accelerated promotion 12 months before achieving minimum time in rank, and they are giving consideration to implementing something similar for officers.⁸⁹ Army will remove some ‘filters,’ particularly at the more senior officer ranks, but indicates that, at junior ranks, the current arrangements will remain.⁹⁰ For soldiers, minimum time in rank requirements will be increased, after a review found that there was ‘an unrealistic expectation of quick promotion, which...can reduce career longevity.’⁹¹

Meanwhile, Air Force reformed its time in rank regulations some years ago so that there is a minimum of two years required at each rank.⁹² The Audit was informed that a desire to balance expectations and ensure that the requisite level of experience was gained before promotion, underpinned the decision to maintain the majority of the time in rank requirements.

Conclusion – Principle 2

The ADF and each Service has reformed a number of areas of their career management systems in ways that will help strengthen and diversify leadership ranks, offer members more rewarding and stable career paths, and better utilise their workforces. Reforms include broad policy documents (for example Army’s ECM model blueprints), individual work category career reorganisations (for example the Navy MWO submariner reforms), and Service specific career management innovations (for example Air Force’s enhanced position profile database). Many of these reforms are innovative, and could be applied more widely to have an impact on more personnel. Each Service should look to the work completed by the other Services to see what they can apply in their own contexts.

A number of tri-Service reforms will challenge some of the norms and traditions that have delivered a senior leadership from a narrow range of backgrounds. These reforms include the review of star-rank positions that has opened dozens of roles previously quarantined for those from combat/pilot/operator backgrounds; the targets for women’s representation at key promotional gateways; and the mandating of female and external members on promotions boards.

Finally, further efforts can be made to formalise the management of longer term career planning and joint career plans, while more could be done by Navy and Air Force to identify and analyse key career gates other than ACSC and CDSS.

The ADF and Services should be commended on their engagement in this area. There is no doubt that women continue to remain vastly under-represented in senior leadership in all three Services. With the reforms initiated, however, it is reasonable to expect positive developments in the coming years.

________________________________________________________________

Chapter 5: Endnotes
1 The Review found that:

In Navy, of the 52 generalist star ranked officers, there is only one woman (1.9%), despite women representing 20% of officers in Navy. Additionally, out of three specialist star ranked officers, there are currently two women from the Health Services category.

In Army, of the 71 generalist star ranked officers, there are currently only four women (5.6%), despite women representing 14.5% of officers in Army. Additionally, out of the three specialist star ranked officers there is currently one woman from the Legal category.

In Air Force, of the 53 generalist star ranked officers, there is currently only one women (1.9%), despite women representing 18.9% of officers in Air Force. Additionally, out of the two specialist star ranked officers, there is currently one woman from the Health Services category.

From Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (2012), p 26.

1. Defence People Group, Performance Framework for Gender Inclusion in the Australian Defence Force, October 2013, p 10, provided to the Audit by ODU, 29 October 2013.
2. Chiefs of Service Committee, Agendum 50 of 13 – Strategies for implementing recommendations from the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force – (Broderick) Phase 2 Report, 2012, 18 April 2013.
3. Directorate of Senior Officer Management, Brief for CDF (through HPC): Implementation of Broderick Report Phase 2, Recommendation 5, DSOM/OUT/2012/AB11054522, 22 January 2013.
4. Email correspondence between Directorate of Senior Officer Management and Defence International Policy, April 2013.
5. Capability Development Group, Increasing Numbers of Service Women in Capability Development Group, 26 March 2013.
6. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 11.
7. Warrant Officer Promotion Boards, 28 March 2013, provided to the Audit on 30 August 2013.
8. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 11.
9. Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013.
10. Chief of Navy, QBB and CAB Members, 2013 Promotion Board Guidance, CN/OUT/2013/203/.
11. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012; Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee, Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee Submission: Enhanced Career Management – Army (Soldiers), June 2013.
12. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 3 [18].
13. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 3 [19].
14. For example, Directorate of Soldier Career Management – Army, Administrative Instruction 2013 Annual Promotion Personnel Advisory Committee Series for Target Rank SGT-WO1, 8 August 2013; Director General Career Management Army, 2013 Major to Lieutenant Colonel Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) Deliberation Guidance, 28 March 2013; Office of the Chief of Army, 2013 Star PAC Deliberations Guidance 23 January 2013.
15. Director General Personnel – Air Force, DGPERS-AF Policy Directive 03/2013: Diversity on Promotion Boards, 15 June 2013. Air Force advises that it has had female representatives on boards since 2003, but in 2013 added an external member to the board and formalised this as under a Directive (Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013).
16. Royal Australian Air Force, Extract/summaries taken from DGPERS-AF brief for CAF for April 2013 COSC.
17. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 5, 2013.
18. Defence People Group, Performance Framework for Gender Inclusion in the Australian Defence Force, October 2013, p 10, provided to the Audit by ODU, 29 October 2013.
19. Chiefs of Service Committee, Agendum 50 of 13 – Strategies for implementing recommendations from the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force – (Broderick) Phase 2 Report, 2012, 18 April 2013.
20. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 5, 2013; Tailored HR Solutions, Proposal: To Participate in Air Force Promotions Board 2014.
21. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 11.
22. Materials provided to the Audit did not include any policy or directive to this effect, however a senior member of Navy said that the career management manual did contain this information (Meeting 9).
23. Chief of Navy, CN/OUT/2013/203, QBB and CAB Members, 2013 Promotion Board Guidance at [6].
24. See Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force: Phase 2 Report (2012), p 144.
25. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 3.
26. Royal Australian Air Force, Extract/summaries taken from DGPERS-AF brief for CAF for April 2013 COSC.
27. Director General Personnel – Air Force, DGPERS-AF Policy Directive 03/2013: Diversity on Promotion Boards, 15 June 2013.
28. Meeting 17.
29. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012.
30. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012.
31. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012, Annex A, ECM Implementation Task Matrix.
32. Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee, Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee Submission: Enhanced Career Management – Army (Soldiers), June 2013.
33. Meeting 16.
34. Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, DGPERS-AF/OUT/AB15061674 Statement of Intent – Promotion Boards, 20 August 2013.
35. Email correspondence to DGPERS-AF et al, Analysis of Promotions by Gender; Promotion Analysis 2013.xls and attachments,15 March 2013, provided to the Audit on 26 August 2013.
36. Royal Australian Air Force, Senate Estimates Brief: Employment of Women in the RAAF.
37. Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force: Phase 2 Report (2012), pp 93-107.
38. Department of Defence, Defence Annual Report 2012-13, Chapter 6: ‘Women in the ADF’ Report, 2013. At http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports/12-13/default.asp (viewed 26 November 2013).
39. Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (2012), p 92 citing ADO_PERSONNEL by Sex and Rank FY0405 to FY1011 v2 provided to the Review by the Workforce Planning Branch, 15 November 2011.
40. The Review was provided with figures that disaggregated LCPL (an Army only rank) and CPL. The ‘Women in the ADF’ Report combines the two. This is understandable, as LCPL is a rank that not all personnel move through on their way to CPL, and contains smaller numbers of personnel. The Audit uses the combined figure provided in the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report for both LCPL and CPL individually. The Review also combined SSGT (an Army only rank) with SGT. The ‘Women in the ADF’ Report combined SSGT with WO2. The numbers of SSGT are so small (11 in 2011, 15 in 2010) as to have little overall effect on the rank that they are added to.
41. Women make up 8.3% of the Warrant Officer 1 or equivalent rank (E09 and E10). If Warrant Officer 2/Staff Sergeant or equivalents (E07 and E08) ranks are included, the proportion of women is 9.8% (Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013 citing Department of Defence, Defence Annual Report 2012-13, Chapter 6: ‘Women in the ADF’ Report, 2013. At http://www.defence.gov.au/AnnualReports/12-13/default.asp). The Audit notes that this differentiation has been made to ensure comparability with the 2011 data, as provided in the text above.
42. The first female promoted to MAJGEN was MAJGEN Cosson in November 2007 (Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013).
43. S Smith MP, Gender in Defence and Security Leadership Conference, Minister for Defence, 13 March 2013. http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/03/13/minister-for-defence-speech-gender-in-defence-and-security-leadership-conference/ (viewed 27 November 2013).
44. Defence People Group, Performance Framework for Gender Inclusion in the Australian Defence Force, October 2013, p 11, provided to the Audit by ODU, 29 October 2013.
45. Defence People Group, Performance Framework for Gender Inclusion in the Australian Defence Force, October 2013, p 11, provided to the Audit by ODU, 29 October 2013.
46. Chiefs of Service Committee, Agendum 50 of 13 – Strategies for implementing recommendations from The Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force – (Broderick) Phase 2 Report, 2012, 18 April 2013.
47. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 14.
48. Chief of Navy, Navy Leadership Development Workshops, R060544Z, March 2013.
49. Email correspondence, 17 July 2013, provided to the Audit on 30 August 2013.
50. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013.
51. Australian Army, ARA UNIT COMD TRENDS.
52. Royal Australian Air Force, Extract/summaries taken from DGPERS-AF brief for CAF for April 2013 COSC.
53. The Audit notes that there was Air Force CDSS data published to the ‘Women in the ADF’ Report and Air Force later advised that this data be used to ensure comparability with the other Services (Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013).
54. Air Force Headquarters, DGPERS-AF Policy Directive 02/2013 – Diversity of Leadership – Staff College and Command Selections for Women, 15 June 2013.
55. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 6 – Supplementary Information, 2013.
56. Air Force Headquarters, DGPERS-AF AB14058360: Values and Ethics CLOs Based on Broderick Recommendations, 11 June 2013.
57. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 5. Note that Navy’s response to Recommendation 6 refers to Recommendation 3.
58. Australian Army, ARA UNIT COMD TRENDS.
59. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 6, 2013.
60. Chief of Navy, Navy Leadership Development Workshops, R060544Z, March 2013.
61. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 15.
62. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 4 [26].
63. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012.
64. Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee, Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee Submission: Enhanced Career Management – Army (Soldiers), June 2013.
65. Acting Chief of Air Force, Defence Act 1903, Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002: Determination of Promotion for Enlisted Members – Air Force, 17 January 2013.
66. Air Force Headquarters, DGPERS-AF Policy Directive 02/2013 – Diversity of Leadership – Staff College and Command Selections for Women, 15 June 2013.
67. Australian Army, Recommendation 6: ADF Officers – Women’s participation in key promotional gateways and Command positions.
68. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, pp 14-15.
69. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 6, 2013.
70. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012 at [15].
71. Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013.
72. Royal Australian Air Force, Extract/summaries taken from DGPERS-AF brief for CAF for April 2013 COSC.
73. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 5.
74. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 5.
75. Director General Personnel – Air Force, DGPERS-AF Policy Directive 03/2013: Diversity on Promotion Boards 15 June 2013.
76. Director General Personnel – Air Force, Brief for CAF: Air Force position profiles, 7 April 2013.
77. Director General Personnel – Air Force, Policy Guidance No 14/2013: Working remotely, 22 January 2013; Director General Personnel – Air Force, Policy Guidance No 22/2013: Flexible working arrangements, 22 January 2013; Office of the Chief of Air Force, Directive by the Chief of Air Force to all Air Force Members: Work-Life Balance in the Royal Australian Air Force, 15 December 2008.
78. Meeting 9.
79. For example, Scoping Navy Positions Suitable for Flexible Work, January 2007; New Generation Navy Steering Group, Minutes of the New Generation Navy Steering Group held on 23 February 2012, 20 March 2012; Deloitte, New Generation Navy – Diversity & Flexibility Initiative Kick-off meeting, 5 June 2013.
80. New Generation Navy Steering Group, Minutes of the New Generation Navy Steering Group held on 23 February 2012, 20 March 2012, at [41].
81. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 16.
82. Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013.
83. Consolidated Draft AHRC Audit Report Comments by Service/Branch/Institution, provided to the Audit on 28 February 2013.
84. Australian Army, Response to 21 Recommendations of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force Phase 2 Report 2012, Executive Overview, 2013, p 5.
85. Department of Defence, AD 148, ADF Employment Preferences and Restrictions.
86. Royal Australian Air Force, Audit Evidence: Recommendation 7, 2013.
87. Meeting 14; Meeting 15; Meeting 16; Meeting 17; Meeting 18; Meeting 19; Meeting 20.
88. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Navy Audit Summary Report in Response to the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report) 2012, 30 August 2013, p 16.
89. Chief of Army, Army Officer Enhanced Career Management (ECM) model – Implementation, CA Directive 05/13, AB11730022, 19 December 2012.
90. Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee, Chief of Army’s Senior Advisory Committee Submission: Enhanced Career Management – Army (Soldiers), June 2013, p 35.
91. Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force: Phase 2 Report (2012), p 143.