Chapter 7: ADFA’s Structure and Staffing (Recommendations 11-15)

Key findings of Review

The Review found that:

• The high turnover of Commandants and military staff has had a significant negative impact on ADFA’s leadership stability, continuity and organisational memory.
• The COMDT has limited influence over which staff are posted to ADFA and has limited engagement with ADF Service Chiefs. ADFA is not considered a prestigious posting for staff. This has an impact on staff commitment to ADFA and on the quality of educators and trainers.
• The ADF’s three Services need to develop innovative strategies to attract and retain the best staff. Consideration should be given to separating rank and role to enable recruitment of a wider pool of quality educators and positive role models within ADFA. Induction training at ADFA does not provide staff with adequate tools to deal with the issues that may arise from managing young men and women.

In summary, the findings of the Audit indicate that:

• These recommendations are in the process of being implemented but further effort is required to realise their full intent.
• A formal, regular mechanism has been established to allow engagement between the COMDT and the ADF Service Chiefs.
• The Career Management Agencies (CMA) accept that posting the right staff to ADFA is critical, but that their job requires balancing competing priorities across all training environments and other operational requirements.
• The COMDT now has an enhanced role in the selection of staff at ADFA but this is not yet formalised and he is still not the decision maker. For the 2013 intake of staff the COMDT was able to interview new staff, but only after the posting decision had been made by the CMA.
• The COMDT and the CMA will actively try to change negative perceptions of a posting to ADFA through communications strategies and a ‘roadshow’ approach in 2013.
• The Services have not delegated authority to the COMDT to remove underperforming staff or undergraduates.
• The number of female military staff being posted to ADFA has increased over the last three years.
• There is no evidence that innovative strategies for gaining a wider pool of educators from within Defence have been employed for ADFA.
• There continues to be a perception of a disconnect between what the Services say in relation to a posting to ADFA and the actual impact of the posting at ADFA on one’s career/promotion.
• In 2012 there was still wide variability in the quality of staff posted at ADFA.
• The tenure of the COMDT AFDA is now 3 years which is a welcome development.
• Significant effort is being invested in incorporating the intent of the Review’s recommendations into staff induction and training.
• The performance review process has not changed however there are now more avenues of feedback which are being incorporated into performance appraisals.

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

 

Intent of Recommendation

As the institution that trains and educates the future leadership of the ADF, ADFA must be visible to the Service Chiefs. The Service Chiefs have a clear interest in the culture and outcomes of ADFA and a regular mechanism is required to ensure two way communication.

Implementation actions

The COMDT now has the opportunity to brief the Chiefs of Services Committee (COSC) every four months. The Audit has been provided with Agendum Papers for the COSC meetings for March 2012, July 2012 and December 2012 which update COSC on the implementation of actions emanating from the Review, identify any emerging issues and seeks COSC’s endorsement of the RIT’s current progress and proposed future directions. The sponsoring member is identified as the VCDF.

Audit findings

Reporting to COSC is a critical and powerful monitoring and accountability mechanism for the implementation of the recommendations and ensures that the CDF, VCDF and Service Chiefs are regularly briefed and can, when necessary, take corrective action. Prior to the Review this was not an avenue that was available to the COMDT. According to the COMDT this has opened up communication channels and enabled him to build stronger relationships with the CDF and Service Chiefs.¹

The outcomes of the COSC meetings confirm that the updates provided by the RIT have been noted and endorsed by COSC.²

 

Intent of Recommendation

Staff are critical to the culture and environment at ADFA. Staff have a direct and powerful impact on undergraduate experience and what outcomes they achieve. Staff who want to be at ADFA and have the right skills and attributes are fundamental to the success of ADFA and the welfare of undergraduates. The Review’s recommendations are designed to strengthen the quality and consistency of staff selected for posting to ADFA, to enhance the COMDT’s role in selecting the right staff and in removing them if required. Similarly, the COMDT must have an increased role in removing underperforming undergraduates where this is indicated. The Review also found that ADFA would benefit from an increased representation of female staff in order to broaden the potential role models for undergraduates.

Implementation actions

Responsibility for actioning this Recommendation was formally delegated by the VCDF to COMADC on 17 March 2012.³ In the relevant Minute the VCDF states that:

You are to enlist the support of the Deputy Chiefs of Service in managing this task; I expect that you will delegate this task to COMDT ADFA and the ADC Reviews Implementation Team (RIT), and I also expect that the Deputy Chiefs will task their senior personnel managers with supporting this activity.

The Audit has also sighted a subsequent Minute from Deputy Chief of Navy to the Director General Navy Personnel actioning this matter and requesting advice on Navy postings to ADFA. ADFA informs the Audit that a copy of a similar directive was not registered and could not be located for Army or Air Force.

ADFA and the Career Management Agencies

On 10 July 2012, COMDT wrote to the Directors General – Personnel for each Service to progress work on this Recommendation.

A meeting between the COMDT and the Directors General – Personnel or their representatives took place on 24 July. This was a valued meeting as one participant noted:

It was a constructive discussion because all three of us have different career management mechanisms feeding all of our training institutions.⁴

There were no minutes or notes of outcomes from this meeting⁵ however a member of the Audit team subsequently met with the Directors-General of Personnel of each Service to get some feedback on the nature and outcomes of this meeting and progress on the implementation of this Recommendation. At these meetings, held on 21 November 2012, each of the Directors-General independently referred to an agreement that the COMDT would forward selection criteria for positions at ADFA for the career managers to assess potential candidates against. However, as at 21 November, each stated that they had not seen anything come back to them from ADFA. This was followed up by the Audit team with the RIT. On 30 November the RIT confirmed that they were currently reviewing the selection criteria and duty statements. The RIT also stated that they had requested that ‘each of the Services provide us with the documents that they rely on when selecting potential staff for posting to ADFA’.⁶

On 12 February 2013 the Audit received a copy of the Duty Statement and Selection Criteria for an ADFA Divisional Officer noting that pending final ADFA clearance it would then be sent to the Career Management Agencies to assist in their selection of ADFA staff for 2014.⁷ The Audit notes that it has taken considerable time to get to this point, however, the revised duty statement which clearly reflects the capabilities, values, behaviours and leadership attributes required of Divisional Officers at ADFA is a positive development.

The Audit is unaware of similar developments in relation to other staff posted to ADFA.

Audit findings

There were a number of changes addressing this Recommendation that occurred in 2012. These are examined below.

Variability of staff

One of the key intentions of the Review’s Recommendation was to address the wide variability of staff and to move towards an environment where the staff that were posted to ADFA wanted to be there and had the right skills and attributes. There is still some way to go in achieving this outcome. The revised duty statement for Divisional Officers, noted above, will assist in recruiting those who are the best fit for ADFA from 2014. However, interviews and focus groups at ADFA indicated that in 2012 there was still wide variability in the staff at ADFA.

Many staff at ADFA are excellent and are clearly having a positive impact, as noted by staff and undergraduates:

The staff here this year are definitely better, whether it’s by chance or whether it’s by good planning I’m not sure. Most of them seem to want to be here.⁸

I think our Division is very lucky. We have very active staff, they are really good. In that aspect it makes our lives easier. If you ask a question, you get a quick reply. They’re on top of it. They’re active. They’re just really good.⁹

However, such high regard is not unanimous. Both undergraduates and staff have also suggested that variability is still present:

The staff haven’t changed...There are some that are still happy to be here, but there are ones that would still admit, yes, I’m here for the next 18 months and two days and then I’m going back.¹⁰

Our DO last year didn’t want to be here and he made it plainly obvious. He didn’t help people; he did nothing. The difference between him and the DO we have this year who actually requested this posting has been amazing.¹¹

Staff selection

Selecting the right staff is critical. Notably, and for the first time, most of the incoming staff for 2013 came to meet the COMDT, Director ADFA Undergraduates, XO Undergraduates and Chief Instructor as part of a staff selection process.¹² This enables senior ADFA staff to inform incoming staff of their responsibilities because:

they need to understand where our concentration is in improving, particularly in regards to equity and diversity, inclusiveness, sexual ethics, and other ethics, those behavioural things which are really the essence of the Report.¹³

The Career Management Agencies noted that some changes that had taken place in the approach to selecting staff for 2012:

The Audit was informed that in Army:

[The COMDT] came back as I understand it and said look I’m held to account for mine and other’s performance here and staff are critically important to that. I’d like to be engaged more on this in the future and I’d like to interview them...So we provided the names of those selected and they were going to be flown down for him to interview. I’m not sure whether that’s occurred yet.¹⁴

In Navy, DO positions are now advertised and nominations are sought. Career Managers provide an initial order of merit based on selection criteria and the nominations of suitable applicants are then forwarded to respective training establishments for their endorsement prior to taking a posting action.¹⁵

We’ve brought in a process of panelling and rating people and actually calling for volunteers...that’s probably the biggest step to get people that want to be there.¹⁶

However, in Air Force:

[ADFA] wanted to look at the possibility of the Commandant taking a more active role in the selection process. We didn’t actually get to deal with that issue [but]...there is an intention to move for a more structured methodology for selection and we would need a definition statement of requirement from ADFA as to exactly what would be the nature of the skill set.¹⁷

Interviews with the COMDT or ADFA leadership before posting are still not the norm. The cost of conducting the interviews and any associated travel funding must currently be met by ADFA. The Audit cannot comment on the extent to which this may be a factor in the decision making as to whether to hold such interviews or not, but would urge Defence and the COMDT to prioritise this activity and ensure that funding is available.

The COMDT has noted that the timing of ADFA’s action in 2012 has meant that not as much progress has been made in this area as he would have liked:

Now unfortunately we’d sat on our hands to a degree with respect to that particular recommendation. I would’ve liked earlier in the year to have gone out and done the same thing, to enable ADFA to inject into that selection process before the Services actually post their people...They post their people in about June/July, so that people have adequate notice of their removals and everything else. So this year [2012] we’re behind the curve because people have already been posted. But what I did say to all the Directors-General and they agreed, when we talk to somebody if we just have this really uncomfortable feeling that this person isn’t right then we’ll go back. We can’t veto, but we can say look, we’re not really happy with this, can you look at an alternative person? Whereas where we’d like to get to is the interview occurs before they’ve physically posted.¹⁸

The Audit agrees that this would be a desirable outcome.

The Audit acknowledges that there are competing pressures across all training institutions and that Career Management Agencies need to balance supply and demand in a very dynamic environment. The Career Management perspective is that:

we’re not in a position to say the best guys fill up all those posts...it’s not a case of ADFA first and everybody else second...we have similar meetings with all these different organisations, who say ‘we’re really important, we need the first eleven’.¹⁹

We have a centralised career management model system which means that many parts of the Defence Force and particularly the Army get what they’re given...We’ve recognised that our level of consultation with ADFA needs to be earlier and more comprehensive than probably any other part of Army. So we’re now building into our cycle how we do that and how we do it best.²⁰

All of the Services indicated that they have a close relationship with the COMDT and if there is a problem with particular individuals they would respond and try to manage the issue, however, with the possible exception of Navy in some cases,²¹ ADFA is put in a position where it needs to be reactive, rather than proactive, in these instances:

If the Commandant interviews a person we select and he’s not comfortable and he rings me, we’ll do something about it.²²

If they believe we’ve missed something and they want to deselect then we’ll deselect.²³

A dialogue has opened up between ADFA and the Career Management Agencies and the Audit welcomes these changes. However, changes in the selection process need to be embedded in the systems and cycles of the Career Management Agencies and not rest on the relationships between particular career managers and the COMDT. The Audit strongly advocates that the COMDT should have the right to veto in staff selections. However, if the authority for decision making regarding staff selection is to remain unchanged, it is vital that consultation and selection interviews occur before posting decisions are made.

Careers and Promotions Boards

The Review observed that:

There was a wide recognition from junior staff, senior ADFA leadership, and Career Management Agency staff that ADFA is not a prized posting. In particular, time at ADFA is not seen to contribute positively to career development. There is a perception that ADFA could lead to ‘degradation’ in the technical skills required for career progression, particularly in the Navy and Air Force.²⁴

The Review argued that this perception needs to change in order to attract staff with ‘skills in dealing with young people, assessing risks to their safety and assisting in their development as the next generation of ADF officers’.²⁵

There is some evidence that there are changes in this area:

In our promotion boards now, one of the areas looked at is have you had a training role posting. We’ve got to make sure that that’s reflected in the promotions and subsequent postings and that it doesn’t count against you.²⁶

provision of high quality staff to ADFA is a high priority for Army and we are providing high quality staff...we will forcibly post if we need to. It’s a positive career step.²⁷

If you go to the Air Force Promotion Board Guidance the Chief actually puts an emphasis on people who’ve been in educational training environment.²⁸

In addition to perceptions, each Service has different career models and structural issues with regards to posting staff to ADFA:

Most of our young [Navy] officers are on seagoing paths early on and the posting guys actually call it the gap year.²⁹ They look for people after you’ve got your primary qualification one or two years at sea and then a year out of the seagoing environment to be a Flag Lieutenant for an Admiral or a DO at the college or these sort of positions. Then they flow on to the next level of time at sea. In most of our cases, it’s the PWO (Principle Warfare Officer) course which comes with a pay rise now. So we’re finding a lot of them go ‘Well, I don’t want that year out, I want to go straight on the PWO course because that gives me my pay rise and I’ll crack on’.³⁰

We [Air Force] don’t see it as a place to put the best fighter pilot, the best shooter. We would rather put in a more mature educator, someone with background in a training environment. That has been our focus for a long time. We tend to load more admin logistics and leadership and management experience folk into there rather than operators.³¹

The Army career models for officers and soldiers neatly fits time posted into a training institution. So for Divisional Officers at Captain level, they will spend six years as Captain...Either a three or a two year slot is normally reserved for an instructional posting, whether that be a corp school, the Royal Military College, a recruit training centre or indeed ADFA...The benefit we have is that the Officer Commanding positions at Major level and the Chief Instructor position are accredited as sub unit command or unit command as important career goals for Army Officers.³²

The tri-Service environment itself can pose a challenge:

I think it’s part of the cultural thing for us. Most Service folk don’t want to step out of the parent Service. It’s just a part of it.³³

The Review was aware of these different Service models and structural incentives and disincentives. As a consequence the Review framed its recommendations around the selection process and the skills, qualities and knowledge required of staff in a work, residential and academic environment with young people. This should be achievable without necessarily challenging the structural context.

The Audit noted the messages presented to staff and undergraduates at the 2013 staff induction sessions³⁴ and YOFT,³⁵ that the staff were ‘handpicked’ and specifically chosen to be selected for ADFA because of their skills, qualities and attributes. This sends a very positive message to staff and undergraduates and the Audit encourages efforts to build pride and value in an ADFA posting.

However, it is also clear that there is still work to be done in actively changing perceptions about a posting to ADFA. Staff told the Audit that:

This is just the weirdest, strangest posting I’ve ever had! You’re an orphan here. There is nothing to do with the ADF here...It’s bordering on a punishment draft to come here.³⁶

There’s a few who are probably here for punishment and there’s probably even more who are here to get ticks in the boxes in terms of you know doing courses and getting promoted and getting a good write up.³⁷

There is a big lack of pride in anything here. A lot of people that I speak to when asked what they do they’re like yes, I’m an officer in the military. That’s really cool, where are you stationed? And they are ashamed to say they’re here... it needs to come down from on high that this place isn’t just a dumping ground for officers.³⁸

The Audit welcomes the efforts by the COMDT and the Career Management Agencies to begin to change perceptions by taking the message out to members:

Early next year [2013] we have to go on a roadshow within the career management agencies, reinforcing to them the importance, and we have to do it every year...It’s a perk posting for Army to go to Duntroon, it has to be a perk posting to come to ADFA.³⁹

The Audit also understands that ADFA will be developing a communications campaign to promote ADFA as a desirable posting and plans to generate articles for Service Newspapers featuring current staff promoting experiences. This is to be progressed ahead of the recruiting timeline for 2014 and the Audit welcomes this approach.⁴⁰

Representation of women

Examination of the gender breakdown of ADFA military staff over the last three years indicates that there has been an increase in the number of military female staff at ADFA in 2012/13 to 20.7%, from 18.5% in 2011/12 and 14.2% in 2010/11.⁴¹ Over this three year period each Service has also posted a higher proportion of women to ADFA.⁴² While this is in keeping with the intent of the Recommendation the Audit was unable to locate evidence that this outcome has been achieved through a deliberate strategy.

The ADFA Report’s review of international literature from comparable international military educational and training establishments found that:

the greater the presence of women, both in terms of the breadth of the roles they occupy, as well as their presence in leadership positions, the more likely women will be viewed as equal participants.⁴³

The Audit also found that female undergraduates at ADFA derived great value from having female staff around:

Most of the females have a completely different story about their career, which means that the female undergraduates know there’s a lot of different options for them.⁴⁴

I found that earlier in the year too that the trainees, particularly the first years that we had come through, were really inquisitive and wanted to know about the female staff and what they’d gone through.⁴⁵

At an interpersonal level the Audit had the opportunity to observe the connection that was made between new female undergraduates and female staff during the YOFT Gender briefings.⁴⁶ The female staff who presented these sessions were powerful and positive role models for the new undergraduates who were able to provide information in a sensitive, informed and genuine manner. They offered their wisdom and experience and also shared with the undergraduates some of their personal stories about being a woman in the ADF. They also encouraged undergraduates to approach them and other female staff as mentors and guides.

The Audit welcomes the trend of an increasing number of military women being posted to ADFA and trusts that the Services will continue to pay particular regard to the representation of high performing women at ADFA. Implementation of a deliberate strategy to ensure steady representation of women should be considered.

Wider pool of good educators

It has been difficult to assess progress on the implementation of this part of the Recommendation as very little information has been received. The Audit notes that on the Communications Plan this item is marked at ‘Not Applicable’ and that it receives no attention on the RIT’s Progress Matrix.⁴⁷ The only reference to the consideration of innovative solutions to sourcing a wider pool of good educators was in one discussion:

I noticed there was some rank-ranging options talked about. Air Force is more inclined to do that than the other two anyway. Navy is pretty flexible like that too, probably more flexible than Army...For me, it’s not a rank issue because it’s all AFS [Average Funded Strength] so as long as it’s a position that Air Force owns that I’m filling, I can rank-range a bit.⁴⁸

But elsewhere, it was suggested that identifying specific skills for educators was not something that was a key concern in selecting educators, as ‘all officers are expected to be able to instruct’ as a key part of their duties, and ‘people aren’t differentiated’ according to their abilities as educators.⁴⁹

The RIT states that:

The wider pool of good educators and positive role models for cadets is being met by external providers (both military and civilian) who are selected on the basis of skills and not rank.⁵⁰

The intent of this Recommendation was that a broader pool of military staff could be considered for a posting to ADFA based on their skills, attributes and preferences rather than the decision being driven by a linear career path which dictates certain postings at certain times in one’s career. The provision of a wider pool of external providers does not meet the intent of this Recommendation and there is little information available on how it is to be progressed.

Underperforming staff

The Review found that ADFA’s tri-Service nature makes it difficult to remove undergraduates and staff who have underperformed or displayed unacceptable behaviour which has failed to be rectified within a reasonable timeframe.⁵¹

The Review was mindful of workplace employment processes and issues of procedural fairness⁵² however, it noted that:

ADFA’s military staff have responsibility for training, supervising and, in some cases, mentoring young people. Underperforming staff can therefore negatively impact on the treatment of women at ADFA by failing to deal appropriately with incidents of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or abuse, as well as by actively participating in such behaviour themselves.⁵³

The Review therefore recommended that the process for removing underperforming staff and undergraduates be simplified.

The Audit was aware that in relation to the removal of underperforming staff that the COMDT makes a recommendation to the respective Service Career Management Agency, a member of staff considers the recommendation and a decision is made. Further clarity was sought on who specifically has delegated authority to approve/disapprove this Recommendation. Feedback received stated that ‘the decision maker would depend on the situation and rank of the individual involved. The decision to post the member from ADFA would ultimately rest within the Service of [the] member involved (usually the Career Management Agency). As at 28 February 2013 the process was still described as ‘complicated’ and ‘worthy of discussion’.⁵⁴

It appears there has been some consultation with the Directors-General of the Career Management Agencies on this issue but there have been no moves on the part of the Services to delegate authority to the COMDT or to make it simpler:

I would be surprised if they had concerns about Navy staff there and my understanding is, certainly, that there would be mechanisms to represent that worst case through me if [the COMDT] wasn’t getting any satisfaction through the posters.⁵⁵

I don’t see that he [COMDT] would ever have the authority to remove someone from this organisation because it presents a whole lot of administrative issues, admin law, whereas I can take all that on.⁵⁶

[COMDT] did push us on [that] and [said] could I have that delegation? Could I have that authority? Again we’re hesitant to delegate that authority any further for cadets but not for staff at all.⁵⁷

There has been no change to the process or authority of the COMDT to discharge an underperforming staff member. The Audit strongly advocates that each Service delegate the decision making authority for the removal of underperforming staff to the COMDT. This matter must be vigorously and definitively addressed as underperforming staff continue to pose significant risks to ADFA.

Underperforming undergraduates

With regard to undergraduates the Review heard that in several cases, staff appeared to resent what they feel is a situation in which it is difficult to remove underperforming undergraduates unless they are failing academically.⁵⁸ The Audit is aware that the COMDT has taken steps in order to have this authority delegated to him by the Services. According to the Career Management Agencies:

We did examine potentially passing PERS Regulations to the COMDT ADFA to terminate cadet service...We don’t think it’s been a happy experience for us because the legal nuances of termination and redress, formal warnings, censures impact upon it and specialised knowledge is required.⁵⁹

Now cadets, this is one place I am happy to have more of a conversation with more discretion from the Commandant, [but] it’s often better to let the parent Service manage the end stage of a complex case.⁶⁰

The issue of removing underperforming undergraduates remains alive within ADFA. In interviews and focus groups the Audit was told that:

Cadets and midshipmen progress through here [but] if they were at other training institutions [they] would not.⁶¹

There needs to be more punishment and more discharge. If someone is found by a legitimate process to be actually a problem, a problem drinker, you know, frequent sexual harassment claims – whatever – then you need to be able to kick them out or at least punish them, give them serious punishment.⁶²

I think the issue is it’s too hard to get kicked out of this place. So you can get away with a lot. The discharge system works the same for someone who’s been in for 20 years, it is just as hard to discharge.⁶³

Despite discussion, the process for removing undergraduates appears to be unchanged. The COMDT must make a recommendation to the respective Service headquarters, a member of the personnel staff considers the recommendation and the Service makes the decision.

The Audit acknowledges that there will always be an element of negotiation given each Service’s prerogative to consider their numbers, strengths and requirements, but it also notes the frustration and effect on morale that an inability to deal decisively and expeditiously with underperforming undergraduates can have. As for staff, the Audit strongly advocates that each Service delegate the decision making authority for the removal of underperforming undergraduates to the COMDT.

In summary, there is some progress on the implementation of Recommendation 12, however it is patchy. Substantive and systemic changes need to be built into career management processes in order to achieve the intent of this Recommendation.

Given the late start to the implementation of this Recommendation the opportunity to impact the staff selection process was largely lost for 2013. The Audit looks forward to the changes to be effected for the 2014 intake.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review found that since February 2006 there have been six Commandants (including two acting Commandants) at ADFA and that ‘the level of turnover within ADFA’s senior office hinders strategic direction and sustainable reform’.⁶⁴ Leadership stability has a positive influence on institutional outcomes.

Implementation actions

On 20 January 2012, MAJGEN Craig Orme, Commander of the Australian Defence College wrote to the VCDF endorsing this Recommendation:

as it will go some way to addressing the current deficiencies in ADFA’s corporate memory, leadership, training and policy development.⁶⁵

On 7 March 2012 the VCDF wrote to the Directorate of Senior Officer Management (through CDF) endorsing this Recommendation. Further he requested that:

To enable close out of this Broderick recommendation I request confirmation of the implementation of these protocols and processes by 13 Apr 2012.⁶⁶

Audit findings

The Audit is aware that the current COMDT’s tenure has been extended for its third year.⁶⁷ However in order to satisfy the intent of this Recommendation confirmation was required that this tenure will also apply to future ADFA Commandants.

On 6 November, 2012 the Audit sought a copy of the confirmation of the implementation of the protocols and processes requested by the VCDF. The RIT followed up this request on 4 December 2012. The RIT was advised in early January that:

the Director of Senior Officer Management (DSOM) advised that she cannot find a formal response back to us re the 3-year tenure however noted that decision was made to extend the current incumbent at the mid-year Star Planning Meeting (SPM) but this in itself does not ensure this will occur into the future. She will take the following action:

1. DSOM Admin notes on SPM will reflect the 3 year tenure requirement – to be ratified at Dec 17 SPM.
2. DSOM will speak to HR and have PMKEYS notes for the position changed to reflect 3 year tenure
3. DSOM will confirm when these are complete.

On 19 February the Audit was advised that the Position Manager Notes in PMKeyS now state the following:

Rotational BRIG(E) Position. Tri Service Position. Position tenure is to be no less than 36 mths IAW Broderick Ph1 Recommendation 13.

This is a welcome development.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review recognised that some staff arriving at ADFA have limited experience in a training and education environment with young people and indeed some have little, if any, experience working with women. This Recommendation attempts to redress this issue and allow an opportunity to build skills and awareness.

Implementation actions

The RIT states that this Recommendation is partially implemented and that:

ADFA staff have been provided with appropriate induction, education and training on gender equity and the supervision of mixed gender environments, including pastoral, disciplinary and education practices relevant to the supervision and care of 17-23 year olds in a residential setting. Staff learning groups have largely focused around common functions and how each group can build on success in their areas of responsibility.

A comprehensive survey of each cadet’s assessment of all AMET training courses occurs at the end of a session of training. This survey provides feedback that each staff learning group uses as a basis for the priorities for continuous improvement.⁶⁸

Audit findings

Staff induction and training

The Joining Instructions for new staff in 2013 incorporate much of the intent of the Review’s recommendations and are a significant improvement on the 2012 Joining Instructions.⁶⁹ The 2013 Joining Instructions now include:

• The Mission and Charter of ADFA
• An expanded section on Staff training which includes:
  • reference to the ‘opportunity for staff to learn about adolescent instructional technique’
  • a requirement to participate in 360 degree feedback Leadership Development Workshop and scenario based seminars.
• Expectations that staff are familiar with DI(G) PERS 35-3 – Management and Reporting of Unacceptable Behaviour
• Expectations that staff are familiar with the newly developed Instructor’s Code of Conduct (attached as an enclosure)
• A strong statement about ADFA’s commitment to equity and diversity, encouragement to join the equity and diversity and SOSP networks and the contact name and number of the senior equity and diversity adviser.

These are all consistent with the intent of the Review’s recommendations and the Audit commends ADFA on these improvements.

The newly developed Instructor’s Code of Conduct reinforces ADFA’s values and expectations and acknowledges the significant influence instructors have. This is a powerful and well-articulated document which was reinforced at many of the staff induction sessions attended by the Audit. The Instructor’s Code is complemented by an ADFA Undergraduate Trainee Code of Conduct which is also linked to the ADFA values and outlines the behavioural expectation of trainees. Both these Codes emphasise the value of diversity and inclusiveness. The Audit is of the view that they are a welcome reference for the ADFA learning environment.

However, with respect to supplementing initial staff induction with the creation of staff learning groups, the RIT notes that key actions in support of this Recommendation are to ‘gain the services of an expert AI (Appreciative Inquiry) facilitator in partnership with ADFA’ and ‘create staff learning (continuous improvement) groups to apply Appreciative Inquiry to AMET training.⁷⁰ These items are ticked as having been achieved, however, the Audit did not receive evidence to support this conclusion.

The Audit team also had the opportunity to attend parts of the 2013 Academy Staff Induction and Training (ASIT) and Instructor Preparation Courses (IPC).⁷¹ The Audit also conducted a detailed comparison of the Staff Induction and Instructor Preparation Course schedules for 2012 and 2013.

The constraints noted in the ADFA Report are still present, i.e. an expectation that staff will be able to absorb a large amount of information in a short time, timing and delivery constraints.⁷²

Nevertheless, the Audit recognises that significant effort is being invested in incorporating the intent of the Review’s recommendations into staff induction and training. There is an increased focus on drugs and alcohol, residential support, social media and reputation management, disciplinary processes and the management of international cadets.⁷³ There are more opportunities for workshops and interactive sessions in 2013⁷⁴ and more time devoted to building training skills.⁷⁵ There are genuine attempts to make sessions more relevant to ADFA, more interactive and scenario based, and where relevant, to highlight gender differences.

There is also evidence of applying adolescent training principles into an overall Adolescent Training Strategy at ADFA.⁷⁶ More emphasis is being placed on understanding young adults and working with minors and young adults.⁷⁷

These are all positive developments and the Audit commends ADFA on its significant efforts. While there are still areas for improvement, particularly as new presentations are developed and honed,⁷⁸ the Audit is confident that within the constraints of timetabling and Defence’s mandatory training requirements, enhancements will continue to be made.

Undergraduate induction and training

The Audit team had the opportunity to observe parts of the 2013 Year One Familiarisation Training (YOFT) and other training that related to specific Review recommendations.

• YOFT

With so many Divisions to accommodate and so much material to get through, YOFT is a scheduling challenge. This is a critical socialisation phase and undergraduates are exposed to many different elements of their military careers in a very short period of time.⁷⁹

The Audit team observed that the recurring theme throughout YOFT related to helping undergraduates succeed. Undergraduates were consistently told that they would be challenged at ADFA, but that staff were always available to support and assist. They were also told repeatedly about the supports that are available to them and were encouraged to seek support.

The Chief Instructor (CI) attended most of the YOFT sessions observed by the Audit team. During YOFT the CI conducted an interactive workshop with all staff presenting sessions to provide feedback, discuss any issues arising and to modify presentations where necessary. At the end of YOFT, undergraduates completed an evaluation of YOFT to provide feedback on their experience and suggestions for change.⁸⁰ The CI analysed and distributed these results and convened a forum with staff to discuss the feedback. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive but also suggested particular areas for improvement. Utilising this feedback provides very positive opportunities for continuous improvement.

One of the sessions of particular interest to the Audit was the ‘Gender Differences and the ADF’ briefings. The results of the YOFT evaluation indicated that significantly fewer undergraduates found this session as valuable as many of the other sessions, with 66% of attendees ‘strongly agreeing’ or ‘agreeing’ that it was beneficial, compared with around 90% for most other YOFT sessions.⁸¹ After examination of the qualitative responses the CI suggested that many ‘felt the subject material was “common sense” or “second nature” and accordingly, they derived no personal benefit from the presentation’.⁸² The Audit suggests that if these sessions are to continue, ADFA should seek feedback on how to refine and present this material so that it is meeting its learning objectives.

ADFA has actively incorporated adolescent learning principles into presentations (more interactive, less PowerPoint reliant, opportunities for small group discussion) and reworked some of the sessions so they are ADFA relevant. However many sessions were held in large formal lecture theatres, and there is still room for improvement in this area. Some sessions lend themselves readily to a more facilitative and discursive format (for example, ADFA Values, Workplace Behaviour, Security Awareness) and so perhaps more appropriate venues could be sourced for these sessions. While the Suicide Awareness session was an excellent example of delivering an interactive presentation within the constraints of a formal lecture theatre, this session may also benefit from a setting more conducive to smaller group discussion and interaction.

• Ongoing undergraduate training and feedback

The CI has initiated an online survey at the end of each session of training to receive undergraduate assessments of all AMET training courses and to gain feedback about how training can be improved. The CI analyses these surveys and provides feedback to staff.

The Audit received a copy of an email from the CI to all staff at ADFA providing feedback on the end of Session 1, 2012 surveys for each year group. In his feedback he notes that the results ‘are a massive upward trend from the same time last year’.⁸³ In response to a request for further information from the Audit regarding these results, the CI clarified that the upswing was in obtaining useable survey results compared to previously received results that were of little practical use.⁸⁴

The CI provided an analysis of the results to all ADFA staff and followed this up with an open forum on 4 July 2012 to discuss the issues and address concerns. He requested feedback on his approach to providing this information and asked whether staff may prefer to receive this information in another way. The CI also provided this feedback to each year group of undergraduates.

These are positive ways of incorporating feedback from undergraduates, ensuring the continuous improvement of course content and delivery, and in the ongoing professional development of staff. The Audit trusts these efforts will continue and commends ADFA for the ongoing use of undergraduate feedback.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review was aware that the capacity to implement equity and diversity is a mandatory requirement for staff. As part of their performance reviews, all staff are assessed against their participation in mandatory training and their application of what they have learnt.⁸⁵ However the Review observed that this can be a mechanistic, ‘tick the box’ exercise and the Review was keen to elevate the importance of real and constructive feedback in this area given the nature of the ADFA environment.

Implementation actions

ADFA has introduced a Life Styles Inventory/360 degree feedback process for all staff. This is a confidential process which provides feedback on strengths and developmental opportunities. The course is based on the Leadership and Ethics course convened in Navy as part of the New Generation Navy program. It examines ethical leadership and organisational culture, and develops the links between leadership and performance outcomes, and includes a 360 degree feedback session.⁸⁶ A member of the Audit team was invited to observe ADFA staff undertaking this course on 18 October 2012. Nine of the 15 participants in the course were posted to join ADFA in 2013.

ADFA also uses the PULSE (Profile of Unit Leadership Satisfaction and Effectiveness) climate survey to provide feedback to measure and receive feedback on personnel’s experiences and perceptions, and staff receive feedback from undergraduate assessments (via online surveys) at the end of each block of training.⁸⁷

Audit findings

A comparison of the 2011 and 2012 Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) documentation for each Service indicated that there has been no change in this area.

Despite a number of requests over a period of time the Audit did not receive any direct evidence about specific changes to the PAR process to incorporate the feedback noted in the Recommendation. The RIT stated that PARs are different for each Service, and are reviewed periodically to reflect changes in the ADF Pay and Conditions Manual and/or Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement and/or to incorporate other organisational requirements.⁸⁸ The Review was aware of this when it framed its Recommendation.

The RIT acknowledged that the point of the Recommendation is to change behaviour but suggested that:

This is already done, because desired behaviours are reported on if they are absent. At ADFA the threat of a poor performance report is less motivating than peer pressure and competition with high performing staff (who are the norm).

And that:

The degree of adherence is usually not an issue, because any lack of adherence is unacceptable.⁸⁹

The evidence gathered by the Review, however, indicated that this is not always the case, hence the Recommendation.

The Audit did not observe performance feedback being provided to staff. However the RIT has confirmed that this feedback is provided and that ‘poor application of equity and diversity’ is discussed.⁹⁰ The confidential nature of performance assessment and the generic nature of the PARs mean it is difficult to provide assurance or evidence to the Audit that these elements are now better incorporated into performance feedback.

The Audit acknowledges that the combination of the LSI/360 degree feedback program, strategic use of PULSE surveys and ongoing feedback from undergraduates and peers provides avenues for issues to be raised and incorporated into performance appraisals.

These are powerful and effective mechanisms for professional development and strategic organisational responses to issues and ADFA is to be commended on these initiatives.

Given that the Life Styles Inventory/360 degree program was developed for Navy, there is a requirement to amend some of the elements to make it more relevant in a tri-Service environment. The Audit also suggests that, as in Navy, the coaching component be offered to assist ADFA staff to apply the learning gained in their workshop to enhance their leadership effectiveness.⁹¹ The Audit trusts that the ADF will support ADFA in ensuring this program continues to be delivered and is customised as appropriate, and that course participants be offered coaching to continue their leadership development.

Conclusion

There has been initial progress on the recommendations relating to ADFA’s structure and staffing but there is inertia, particularly in relation to Recommendation 12. Change is slow and time has been lost. There is still a great deal of variability amongst the staff posted to ADFA and while there have been some positive moves to enhance the COMDT’s role in staff selection, this opportunity was largely lost for the 2013 intake as the COMDT was only able to meet with staff after the posting decision was made. There is resistance from the Services to delegate authority to the COMDT to enhance his role in removing underperforming cadets and even more resistance in relation to staff. There is no evidence that this process has been simplified.

The Audit strongly advocates that each Service delegate the decision making authority for staff selection and for the removal of underperforming undergraduates and staff to the COMDT ADFA.

There have been positive changes to staff induction and training to better prepare staff for the ADFA environment, but little evidence of ongoing staff learning groups. Avenues for performance feedback have been enhanced but there is no evidence of change to the generic Service performance appraisal documents to date.

---

1. Interview 1, CDRE B.J Kafer, 12 September 2012.
2. On 6 November 2012 the Audit requested any minutes or outcomes of the COSC meetings to identify what, if any decisions had been made. On 3 December 2012 an email was received that states that no minutes are kept in accordance with the Business Rules for COSC (Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 3 December 2012). According to these Business Rules, however, outcomes of the meeting will be distributed, that clearly stipulate decisions made during COSC (COSC Business Rules, Points 12, 13 and 15). A further email was sent on 13 December 2012 by the Audit requesting the outcomes of the COSC meetings. These were received on 12 February 2013 (Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 12 February 2013).
3. Office of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, ‘Minute VCDF/OUT/2012/79, Action Emanating from the Review into the Treatment of Women at ADFA (‘Broderick Review’ Phase One) – Recommendation 12’, 17 March 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
4. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
5. Dr N Miller, email to the Audit ‘RFI 48-COMDT ADFA-CMA Meeting’, 3 December 2012.
6. S Longbottom, email to the Audit, 30 November 2012.
7. ‘Revised ADFA Divisional Officer Duty Statement and Selection Criteria’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 12 February 2013; Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 12 February 2013.
8. Interview 32, Army staff male, 16 October 2012.
9. Focus group U1, Mixed Service 2nd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
10. Focus group U1, Mixed Service 2nd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012
11. Focus group U8, Mixed Service undergraduate women, 18 October 2012.
12. Interview 1, CDRE BJ Kafer, 12 September 2012.
13. Interview 1, CDRE BJ Kafer, 12 September 2012.
14. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
15. Royal Australian Navy, Navy People Career Management Agency, ‘Minute, Selection of Navy Divisional Officer Positions’, R11713852, 13 July 2012 stresses the importance of training establishment positions and that time there will be rewarded: “DOS in training establishments have an important role in the professional and personal development of our future officers and sailors. They need to be role models who will successfully embody and impart the discipline, decorum and values we seek in our men and women. Accordingly, HNPAR advocates the DO role as an important component of Navy junior officer development and as such, good performance will be rewarded. It is to be reserved for high calibre LEUTs who have demonstrated commitment to their own standards, as well as that of their subordinates.”
16. Interview 46, DG-Navy, P Leavy, 21 November 2012.
17. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
18. Interview 1, CDRE BJ Kafer, 12 September 2012.
19. Interview 46, DG-Navy, P Leavy, 21 November 2012. In further correspondence between the Audit and P Leavy on 10 May 2013, P Leavy commented that ‘there is certainly a high priority on ADFA and other training related postings.’
20. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
21. With the exception that RAN Minute R11713852 (Royal Australian Navy, Navy People Career Management Agency, ‘Minute, Selection of Navy Divisional Officer Positions’, R11713852, 13 July 2012) opens up the possibility of the Training Authority endorsing applicants prior to NPCMA taking posting action.
22. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
23. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
24. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 24. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
25. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 23. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
26. Interview 46, DG-Navy, P Leavy, 21 November 2012.
27. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
28. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
29. The term ‘Gap Year’ refers to time ashore in a training environment.
30. Interview 46, DG-Navy, P Leavy, 21 November 2012.
31. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
32. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
33. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
34. CDRE BJ Kafer, Academy Staff Induction and Training, 15 January 2013.
35. CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Commandant’s Opening Address’, Year One Familiarisation Training (YOFT), 28 January 2013.
36. Focus group S8, Mixed Service staff male, 16 October 2012.
37. Interview 37, Air Force undergraduate male, 16 October 2012.
38. Focus group U6, Mixed Service 3rd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
39. Interview 1, CDRE BJ Kafer, 12 September 2012.
40. RIT, ‘Communications Plan – Implementation of Broderick Phase One Recommendations’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
41. The Audit notes that this seems to be due in large part to a sharp rise in the representation of Air Force women from 12.5% in 2010/11 and 6.8% in 2011/12 to 23.5% in 2012/13. Air Force, however, has the smallest representation of staff at ADFA. The Audit also notes there is a fall in Navy women’s representation over the three years from 20% in 2010/11 and 15.6% in 2011/12 to 12% in 2012/13. ‘ADFA Gender Breakdown’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 11 February 2013.
42. Percentage of female staff posted to ADFA per Service: Navy; 14.8% in 2010-11, 18.3% in 2011-12, 19.2% in 2012-13, Army; 11.3% in 2010-11, 15.6% in 2011-12, 15.4% in 2012-13, RAAF; 17.8% in 2010-11, 23.5% in 2011-12, 30.8% in 2012-13, ‘ADFA Gender Breakdown’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 11 February 2013.
43. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p xxvi. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
44. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female, 16 October 2012.
45. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female, 16 October 2012.
46. ADFA, ‘Healthy Lifestyles Gender Briefing’ during YOFT, 8 February 2013.
47. RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
48. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
49. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012; In a further clarifying email to the Audit on 26 April, W Stothart commented that people are not differentiated according to their abilities as educators ‘unless it is specifically mentioned as a weak aspect of their performance in their reporting history’, in which case they would not be of sufficient quality to be posted to ADFA.
50. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
51. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 26. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
52. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
53. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 26. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
54. Email exchange between CDRE BJ Kafer and CMDR S Craig February 2013, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 1 March 2013.
55. Interview 46, DG-Navy, P Leavy, 21 November 2012.
56. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
57. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012.
58. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 26. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
59. Interview 48, A/DG CM-Army W Stothart, 21 November 2012; In a further clarifying email to the Audit on 26 April 2013, W Stothart explained that his comments were based on a previous experience where this authority was delegated to another training centre. This experience indicated to him that there is a need to have specially trained and experienced staff to address termination notices which may involve complex and sensitive issues, and that it would be safer for this authority to be centralised. He noted that the COMDT has been assured that any termination action for Army undergraduates would be given the highest priority to address the problem of undue delay.
60. Interview 47, DG P-AF, B Rodgers, 21 November 2012.
61. Focus group S8, Mixed Service staff male, 16 October 2012.
62. Focus group U16, Mixed Service undergraduate male, 18 October 2012.
63. Focus group U6, Mixed Service 3rd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
64. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 25. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
65. MAJGEN C.W. Orme, ‘Minute, ADC/OUT/2012/R10691362 – Formalisation of Three Year Tenure for ADFA Command’, 20 January 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
66. Office of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, ‘Minute, VCDF/OUT/2012/61 – Commandant ADFA -Three Year Tenure’, 7 March 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
67. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
68. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
69. ADFA, ‘Undergraduates Staff Joining Instructions 2013’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 19 February 2012; Joining Instruction, ADFA, ‘Joining Instruction, ADFA – 2012 Staff’, ADFA/OUT/2011/1268, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
70. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
71. On 15 January 2013, members of the Audit team attended the following sessions: Understanding Young Adults (Psych Theory); Working with Minors and Young Adults Policy; Privacy Practices; Drugs, Alcohol Physiology and ADFA policy; Use of the DFDA and DO at ADFA; Management of Foreign Cadets. On 16 January members of the Audit team attended the following sessions: Adolescent Learning Strategies; ADFA Instructor Evaluation, Mentoring and Management; Social Media and Reputation Management. On 21 January 2013, members of the Audit team attended the Mandatory Training Day which included sessions on Work Health and Safety, Equity and Diversity/Workplace Behaviour, Drugs and Alcohol, Ethics and Fraud, Suicided Awareness, Incident Response.
72. Australian Human Rights Commission, Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 24. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
73. ADFA, ‘Drug and Alcohol Physiology and ADFA’, presentation 15 January 2013; ADFA, ‘Residential Support Officers’, presentation 15 January 2013; ADFA, ‘Use of the DFDA at ADFA’, presentation 15 January 2013; ADFA, ‘Management of Foreign Cadets’, presentation 15 January 2013; AFP, ‘Social Media and Reputation Management’, presentation 16 January 2013.
74. For example, ADFA, ‘DO/SNCO workshop’, 16 January 2013; ADFA, ‘Section meetings’, 16 January 2013.
75. For example, Analysing, Designing and Developing, Conducting and Evaluating training programs, 17 and 18 January 2013.
76. RIT, ‘Cultural Change Management at Australian Defence Force Academy’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2013.
77. ADFA, ‘Understanding Young Adults (Psych Theory)’, presentation 15 January 2013; ADFA, ‘Working with Minors and Young Adults’, presentation 15 January 2013.
78. For example, the session on Social Media and Reputation Management presented by the Australian Federal Police was meant to cover privacy, relationships and reputation management however there was a clear focus on privacy. Issues of more relevance to cadets may include expectations of behaviour, doing harm, reputation, loss of control/use of information. The session on Security Awareness should contain more emphasis on what to do in the event of threat or harassment in the residential setting. This will be further elaborated in Chapter 9 on the Accommodation and Supervision requirements.
79. For example, Customs and Traditions, Drill/Ceremonial, Administration, Healthy Lifestyles, Mandatory Training, Military Law, Weapon Training, Physical Training, First Aid, Field Craft, Defence Environment, 2013 YOFT Program.
80. Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 14 March 2013.
81. Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 15 March 2013
82. Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 15 March 2013
83. Email correspondence between LTCOL B Kilpatrick and ADFA All Military Staff, ‘re: Session 1 AMET Summary’, 18 June 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 19 November 2012.
84. Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 12 February 2013.
85. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
86. ‘Input For Broderick Review RFIs 105/106, NGN Program Overview’, provided to the Review by CMDR A Westwood, 13 January 2012.
87. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
88. Dr Neil Miller, email to the Audit, 27 February, 2013.
89. Dr Neil Miller, email to the Audit, 27 February, 2013.
90. RIT, ‘Broderick Audit Summary Final 280912’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
91. ADF, ‘Navy Leadership Coaching Program’, 12 December, 2011, provided to the Review by CMDR A Westwood, 17 May 2012.