Chapter 9: Accommodation and Supervision (Recommendations 19-21)

Key findings of Review

• High profile incidents that occurred in the residential accommodation made accommodation and supervision an area of particular concern to the Review.
• Well supervised residential settings can significantly minimise the risk of unacceptable behaviour.
• The residential setting at ADFA is a complex place, encompassing home, place of study and place of work for undergraduates.
• Inadequate supervision of cadets had given rise to situations where policies and processes aimed at fostering gender equality and respectful relationships were disregarded.
• The 2011 Unacceptable Behaviour (UB) survey found that a high percentage of undergraduates (74% of women, 30% of men) had experienced behaviour they found unacceptable in the previous year.¹ The 2011 survey did not ask about where the behaviour occurred, however anecdotal evidence and incident reports suggest that much occurred at ADFA.
• The Review made three recommendations about accommodation and supervision, including conducting an OH&S risk assessment of the live-in accommodation, establishing a residential advisors scheme, and investigating options for greater interaction and safety precautions in the accommodation.

In summary, the findings of the Audit indicate that:

• The broad crime assessment of the ADFA grounds conducted in response to the Review, while not without merit, does not in isolation address the intent of Recommendation 19.
• The establishment of a Residential Support Officers (RSO) scheme has been a success, however issues of attraction and resources have threatened the scheme’s continued existence.
• More live-in accommodation for staff on the ADFA/RMC Duntroon grounds is not possible at this time.
• A set of principles ‘addressing women’s security and safety and promoting the better engagement between staff and cadets in the residential setting’ (as per Recommendation 21 c)) has not been developed. Not engaging in this area is particularly concerning given that the 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey shows that more unacceptable behaviour was experienced in the residential domain than any other, and that 45.3% of women and 19.8% of men had experienced unacceptable behaviour in the residential domain in the last 12 months.²

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

 

Intent of Recommendation

There is a need for further and better assessment of the risks which arise within ADFA’s residential setting, particularly for young women. There is also a need to develop and implement appropriate risk management strategies.³

Implementation actions

ADFA organised for the AFP to conduct a risk and crime assessment of the ADFA grounds. The tool that the AFP used was called the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategy.⁴

The CPTED is described as:

a situational crime prevention strategy that focuses on the design, planning and structure of cities and neighbourhoods. It aims to reduce opportunities for crime by employing design and place management principles that minimise the likelihood of essential crime ingredients from intersecting in time and space.⁵

This strategy employs a pro-forma checklist that examines 100 areas within seven groupings (surveillance, lighting/technical supervision, territorial reinforcement, environmental maintenance, activity and space management, access control, and design, definition and designation of space) and assesses each as good or bad, then interprets the results through a risk matrix to arrive at a rating.⁶

The report rated ADFA as a low-moderate crime risk, and its recommendations included the installation of additional lighting and CCTV, and more engagement with police, security and maintenance workers.⁷ Similar recommendations were made by the Base Security Improvement Project, and work is being done on implementing these.⁸

Audit findings

Recommendation 19 sought an examination of the ‘residential accommodation, including bathrooms, to identify the existence and level of risk to cadets arising from mixed gender living arrangements’. What was provided by the AFP was a broad crime risk assessment of the entire ADFA grounds, namely the external environment. The assessment completed is not without merit, but it does not address the intent of Recommendation 19.

The CPTED provides for a broad community and crime assessment, rather than the more localised OHS/WHS assessment of the residential accommodation the Review envisaged and the particular risks of a mixed gender environment for a cohort of this age. The report contains some interesting observations about aspects of community at ADFA (e.g. noting that people who feel connected to and responsible for an area or place will be effective guardians of it), but contained only one brief mention of ‘shared amenities’ and did not provide any further examination of risks or recommendations in this area. The focus of the assessment is on external threats, not threats from within. The report does not acknowledge possible gender differences in experiences of living inside the accommodation blocks (i.e. the lines).

The items listed in the pro-forma suggest that this exercise would be a better fit for a larger suburb or neighbourhood, rather than a study of a residential accommodation. Further, the AFP confirmed that the CPTED is generally applied to ‘business areas where we look at crime activities that occur and how we can eradicate those’ rather than something like the ADFA accommodation.⁹

The Audit found little awareness among staff and undergraduates of the fact that the AFP had conducted a situational assessment of ADFA, and there was some degree of hostility when OH&S/WH&S was mentioned. One staff member felt that staff were ‘so busy complying with all the ludicrous governance and OH&S crap’ that important tasks became secondary.¹⁰ An undergraduate noted that:

OH&S wise, our Divisions are fairly regularly inspected by the staff so if you don’t have it up to the standard expected, you get into trouble for that – especially cleanliness and hygiene.¹¹

The opinion of many undergraduates is that the living accommodation is generally a safe place, but others expressed concern when specific incidents or personal experiences were discussed. For example, one undergraduate told the Audit that they feel a need to ‘escape’ from their living spaces whenever possible, as they do not feel comfortable there.¹² Another told the Audit that ‘if I had lived in the Div or in that section [where a particular incident had occurred] I would have been a bit more jumpy after that [incident],’¹³ while others mentioned the ongoing existence of practices like ‘dully hunting’ as an issue for young female undergraduates.¹⁴ In addition, the 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey confirmed that more undergraduates experienced unacceptable behaviour in the residential domain than anywhere else, and this included half of all women, and one-in-five men.¹⁵ These responses indicate that there is still the need to conduct the sort of safety assessment envisaged by the Review.

 

Intent of Recommendation

A well supervised residential setting can significantly minimise the risk of unacceptable behaviour. Properly selected, inducted, trained, and supported residential advisers could provide valuable guidance and support to undergraduates.

Implementation actions

In late 2011, ADFA called for nominations for the role of Residential Support Officer (RSO), and on 7 December 2011, the COMDT accepted the nomination of eleven applicants.¹⁶ This was an insufficient cohort to staff the RSO scheme as designed (one male and one female officer per Division) however, ADFA was wary of compelling RSOs, as it believed that ‘pressed men and women will not be positive role models’.¹⁷ The RSOs were all ‘postgraduate students and/or Advanced Students completing undergraduate engineering degrees or honour students’.¹⁸

A duty statement was drafted, and it was decided a small level of remuneration would be offered to serving RSOs, however there were difficulties with securing funding throughout 2012.¹⁹ Intervention by senior Defence personnel was required to settle the matter and organise payment from March 2013.²⁰

The 2012 Duty Statement document outlined the roles and responsibilities for RSOs.²¹ Duties included:

• giving support to undergraduates in residence
• aiding in the resolution of minor issues between cadets
• providing moral support and response to short term emergencies
• being a presence in the accommodation
• making notes of conversations on sensitive or significant issues
• meeting DOs and DSNCOs weekly to update them on any non-emergency issues.
• being on duty four nights per week if they were the sole RSO in a division, or all seven nights (combined) when they were one half of a pair.²²

The RSOs were given training on the role of an RSO, ‘safer communities’ and mental health first aid, among other areas.²³

When the RSOs took up their roles in March 2012 there was some disquiet about the initial scope of the duties – particularly the requirements to be on duty most nights – which contrasted with what they believed was expected when they accepted their roles.²⁴ This disquiet was compounded the fact that the payment that RSOs were expecting was not forthcoming, as ADFA grappled with the policy implications of paying RSOs.

In late 2012, ADFA conducted an internal review of the RSO scheme.²⁵ That review did not find evidence of concerning systemic issues, but it did view the scheme as one with ‘significant potential to improve in its second year of implementation.’ To this end, it recommended:

• developing and extending the training given to RSOs
• reviewing duty statements to clarify issues such as after-hours contact requirements
• placing more emphasis on RSOs roles as mentors, and allowing them to be proactive with welfare rather than reacting to incidents
• having regular RSO meetings to discuss concerns, share experiences and increase learning
• giving RSOs a second room for storage, and to be used as a meeting place for discussions with undergraduates.

The review was circulated among ADFA’s senior leadership and commended by the COMDT. The recommended review of duty statements has been completed, and other recommendations remain under consideration. In 2013 RSOs are expected to be on duty three nights per week where they are the sole RSO in a division, and five nights per week combined, when they are part of a duo.²⁶

A call for volunteers for the 2013 RSO scheme was made in October 2012, and 15 applications were received. All were appointed as RSOs for 2013.

Audit findings

ADFA has established an RSO scheme, and is working to address outstanding deficiencies that it identified in the first year of the scheme’s operation.

The speed with which ADFA established the scheme, and the ongoing efforts it has made at improving it, has been impressive. The RSO scheme is one of the most obvious and visible changes made at ADFA in the last year as a result of the Review, and in general it has been well received by undergraduates and staff.

However, two major issues threatened the viability of the scheme in its infancy: funding and attraction.

ADFA spent much of 2012 trying to secure an acceptable (from a Defence policy point of view) source of funding to pay RSOs. It was required to organise an interim solution for 2012. In March 2013, the Head of People Capability intervened to organise a policy solution.²⁷ This resolution will address what was becoming a major issue in the eyes of many undergraduates.

The second major issue facing the RSO scheme is attraction. ADFA has been unable to attract the required number of applicants to staff the RSO scheme (let alone be selective about applicants) in 2012 and 2013. In 2012 there were 11 initial applicants (seven male, four female) all of whom were given RSO roles. During the year, one male RSO was removed from his post on account of difficulties in balancing other commitments with RSO responsibilities.²⁸ For 2013 there were 15 RSO applicants (11 male, four female) all of whom have been accepted.²⁹ Although this is an improvement on 2012, it remains below the requirement of 16 RSOs (and eight women) as outlined in the Recommendation. However the Audit agrees that the quality of people taking on the RSO role is more important than artificially meeting the number required.

Given funding constraints and what is expected of RSOs, ADFA believes that the role could only be filled by fourth year, honours or postgraduate students. The Review was not prescriptive in this matter. This is a relatively shallow pool from which to draw applicants, and has contributed to the inability to adequately staff the scheme in its first two years. While this shallow pool may be an ongoing issue, there are areas that ADFA could address to improve the profile and attractiveness of the scheme. For example, many current undergraduates believe that the 2012 RSOs had been treated unfairly on account of issues surrounding pay and responsibilities, and the scheme was subsequently held in low regard.³⁰ The resolution of issues surrounding remuneration and responsibilities, along with a greater understanding of the scheme’s aims and outcomes may help to address this.

Related to the issue of attraction is the small number of female RSO applicants in both 2012 and 2013 (four per year). ADFA’s internal review of the RSO scheme suggested that a single RSO may meet the intent of the Recommendation. While the RSO scheme was envisaged as support for all undergraduates, it was also intended to provide a female point of contact and mentor for the minority population of women at ADFA. Having a single RSO will mean that many women will miss out on this, and the scheme will be poorer for it. Retaining two RSOs (one male, one female) per Division should remain the goal, notwithstanding the fact that this could be an ongoing challenge, particularly if continuing to draw from the pool of honours or postgraduate students.

Recommendation 20 also suggested that RSOs should have a direct line to the COMDT in case of serious issues, however no RSO made contact with the COMDT in 2012.³¹ The Audit is aware that a number of serious incidents did occur throughout the year. Consideration should be given as to why no contact was made, whether this is a problem with the scheme’s functioning, and whether developing the links between the COMDT and RSOs would improve outcomes and make the scheme more attractive to prospective future applicants.

Current staff and undergraduates provided the Audit with a range of opinions about the RSO scheme and how it had been functioning.

Many staff were of the belief that the RSO scheme helped first year students acclimatise to life at ADFA. One staff member saw RSOs as providing ‘a bit of stability and a support network [which is] almost on call,’³² while another said they were a ‘safe person to express concerns, ideas, or to ask advice from, that will have a better understanding of the system than they themselves have.’³³ No staff were opposed to the concept, although some seemed to question its value: ‘If you don’t [get the right person] it’s not that they do anything bad, they just don’t do anything at all.’³⁴

Undergraduates had a similar range of opinions about the scheme. One first year said that RSOs were ‘pretty much the first person we speak to if there are any issues regarding academics or things related to ADFA, life in general’³⁵ while a senior undergraduate, who was not an RSO said that ‘they’ve been a big support to the first years and I think that’s great’.³⁶ The 2013 YOFT Trainee Review contained the comment that:

The Residential Support Officer scheme is awesome! Our RSO [name removed] was like a big brother to our division. His tips and knowledge were always helpful and he provides a really good support system outside of the chain of command.³⁷

However, a 2012 Year One student had a different opinion, saying that their RSO was ‘awesome but I don’t understand what the point is of him being there.’³⁸ Such differences, suggested one undergraduate, are sometimes on account of gender:

‘you get two perspectives. The first one is generally from the guys and it’s yes, he’s a guy that lives here, that’s cool, I don’t see much of him, I have nothing to do with him. But some of the others, like a girl that I know, has actually used hers to report and she’s massively supportive of the whole idea. So most people, they’re not intrusive, you don’t know they’re there. Most people just ignore them. But it is good that they are there.’³⁹

In the Audit’s focus groups and interviews, ambivalent responses to the RSO scheme were more likely to come from male undergraduates, however positive feedback about RSOs came from both women and men.

Some undergraduates spoke positively of the scheme in general, while stating that getting volunteers would continue to be difficult on account of an ‘ADFA fatigue’. One undergraduate suggested that after spending three years in divisional accommodation, most undergraduates would be ready to move on:

‘Why would you be an RSO when you could have your own house and kitchen and drinks while you study?’⁴⁰

Another common belief was that further work was needed in order to achieve what the scheme intended. One staff member said that ‘I don’t think it’s fully there yet. Some of the problems they had are because it’s a volunteer system, so you may not always be getting the best individuals to do it.’⁴¹ A current undergraduate said that ‘for it to work as a system it needs to be a lot more clearly laid out, on what their roles are, and to prove they are within the Academy.’⁴² Another undergraduate spoke of the need for greater understanding of the role the RSOs occupied, noting that ‘it took a long while for the first years to be comfortable to talk to her, just because of the rank.’⁴³

Staff confirmed that there have been challenges organising payments and meeting expectations, and the 2012 RSOs admitted shock about duty statements, and issues with pay, entitlements, and their relationships with some staff.⁴⁴ However, the RSOs also believed that ADFA’s leadership dealt with their concerns in good faith, and unanimously reported that they would recommend the scheme to others. The Audit is also aware of a number of incidents where RSOs provided important front line advice and support to undergraduates.

 

Intent of Recommendation

The Review suggested that in order to develop its potential as a residential setting in which consistently high standards of behaviour are developed, encouraged and reinforced, ADFA should reform the residential setting to enhance staff ‘after hours’ engagement and supervision. This Recommendation aimed to do this through investigating options for greater presence of Divisional staff in the precinct and accommodation, and developing principles to underpin a healthy and safe culture in the residences.

Implementation actions

ADFA has made varying degrees of progress in addressing the three parts of this Recommendation.

ADFA has examined options for more residential accommodation for staff, however it appears that little can be done in this area in the short term. A major overhaul of the residential accommodation is planned for some time in the next decade, and it is expected that more accommodation for Divisional staff, and more spaces for interaction will be considered when this rebuild occurs.⁴⁵ Additionally, the COMDT personally pursued the possibility of extra housing for ADFA staff at Duntroon over a number of months without success.⁴⁶

A set of principles addressing women’s security and safety and promoting the better engagement between staff and undergraduates in the residential setting has not been developed.

ADFA has suggested the work done for other recommendations (eg. RSO scheme, sexual ethics training) partially satisfies the intent of this Recommendation 21.⁴⁷ This is discussed further below.

Audit findings

ADFA has examined options for the accommodation of Divisional staff within the ADFA precinct, and concluded that more accommodation options are not available at this time. The current Redevelopment Project Coordinator notes that:

The next generation of accommodation blocks will consider all the matters raised by [the] Broderick [Review] but the time has passed for major new scope items to be introduced [into current plans].⁴⁸

In the more immediate future, ADFA concedes that there is ‘virtually no likelihood’ of it obtaining more accommodation in married quarters, as RMC Duntroon staff have higher priority than ADFA staff.⁴⁹

Turning to issues of better interaction, ADFA advises that the establishment of the RSO scheme has ‘enhanced interaction between staff [i.e. the RSOs] and officer cadets in the residential setting’. It remains to be seen whether a healthy and functioning RSO scheme will foster greater links and interaction between ‘cadets and academic, medical, support and Divisional staff’ (as per the Recommendation) but in the absence of a reorganised residential space, the presence of RSOs is a positive development. Consideration should be given to whether RSOs need specific training in order to enhance their role as a linkage between various parties (undergraduates, COMDT, staff, supports) at ADFA.

Part c) of this Recommendation has not been addressed at all, and the response given to the Audit suggests a potentially dangerous blind spot may exist in the organisation. When asked about the development of a set of principles addressing women’s safety and security in the residential accommodation, the Redevelopment Project Coordinator said that he ‘was unaware of a set of principles specific to women’s security [and] personal safety is important to all cadets and staff’.⁵¹ He noted that general security upgrades, such as the installation of ‘crim safe’ mesh and extra lighting, had occurred.

Recent history at ADFA, and currently available data, indicates that women do encounter specific security and safety issues at ADFA. Acknowledging this reality does not detract from the fact that safety is an issue for all personnel, but it is a necessary first step towards addressing the issues that do exist for women. A series of unacceptable behaviour surveys have shown that proportionately, women are more likely than men to experience unacceptable behaviour at ADFA, and the 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey has indicated that women (45.3%) were more than twice as likely as men (19.8%) to experience unacceptable behaviour in the residential accommodation.⁵² The 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey also indicated the person-related harassment, bullying, discrimination, and crude behaviour were notable issues in the residential accommodation.⁵³ ADFA could use these results as a useful tool for developing a set of principles addressing women’s security and safety in the residential accommodation.

Conclusion

ADFA has made an attempt to address Recommendation 19 by commissioning a CPTED, but the CPTED was not designed to conduct the type of assessment envisaged in the Recommendation. The CPTED does not adequately address possible threats from within ADFA (for example, in the accommodation) and is essentially a gender blind instrument. The Audit therefore restates the Review’s Recommendation to conduct a risk assessment of the residential accommodation, including bathrooms (Recommendation 19).

The Audit also suggests that the views and ideas of the undergraduates be engaged, perhaps at the Divisional level, to identify risks and develop strategies to address these. This could be done by building on some of the work already undertaken in YOFT and AMET regarding values, ethical leadership, equity and diversity and unacceptable behaviour.⁵⁴

The RSO scheme has been one of the most obvious and visible aspects of change at ADFA over the past year. It has been a net positive, and generally well received by both staff and undergraduates. Funding and attraction are two issues which threatened the ongoing viability of the scheme, and ADFA must continue to work towards addressing these. For example, positive performance assessment reviews or developmental opportunities on account of the RSO experience could help make the scheme more attractive.

There have been mixed results in the way that Recommendation 21 has been approached.

ADFA has investigated options for more accommodation for Divisional staff, and opportunities for greater interaction between undergraduates and staff in the residential accommodation. While a reorganisation was not possible, and no more facilities are available in the short term, ADFA has pointed to the RSO scheme as a conduit for greater interaction between undergraduates and staff. ADFA should explore how RSOs might best achieve this outcome, and allocate resources or training accordingly.

A set of principles addressing women’s security and safety and promoting the better engagement between staff and undergraduates in the residential setting has not been drafted. There appears to be a belief that such a document should be drafted closer to the time of the next rebuild. Such a document is worthy in its own right now, and should be drafted with the input and engagement of undergraduates and circulated as soon as possible. The Audit therefore restates the Review’s Recommendation to develop a set of principles addressing women’s security and safety (Recommendation 21 c)).

---

1. Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 33. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
2. Directorate of Strategic People Policy Research, Australian Defence Force Academy 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey Report, DSPPR Report 18/2012, Department of Defence, p 18.
3. Australian Human Rights Commission, Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy (2011), p 93. At http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/index.html (viewed 26 February 2013).
4. Correspondence between RIT and AFP representatives; ‘RFI 3.28, Arranging Inspection’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
5. NSW Police Force, ‘Safer By Design’. At http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_prevention/safer_by… (viewed 22 November 2012).
6. Interview 44, Senior Constable J Murray, 19 November 2012.
7. Australian Federal Police, ‘ADFA Student Accommodation Block Crime Prevention Assessment’, 30 August 2012; ‘RFI 3.28: Final Report’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
8. ‘Status of Implementation of Broderick Review Recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and Supervision at ADFA (RFIs 6064)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012.
9. Interview 44, Senior Constable J Murray, 19 November 2012.
10. Focus group 1, Staff male and female, 17 October 2012.
11. Interview 35, Navy undergraduate male, 16 October 2012.
12. Interview 21, Navy undergraduate female, 16 October 2012.
13. Interview 36, Army undergraduate female, 16 October 2012.
14. Interview 15, Navy undergraduate female, 15 October 2012; Interview 34, Air Force undergraduate female, 15 October 2012.
15. Directorate of Strategic People Policy Research, Australian Defence Force Academy 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey Report, DSPPR Report 18/2012, Department of Defence, p 18.
16. CDRE BJ Kafer, email to RSOs, 7 December 2011, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012; ADFA, ‘Shortlist – Residential Support Officers’, 9 December 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
17. MAJGEN C.W. Orme, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officers – Request for waiver for living in accommodation and meal charges’, Australian Defence College, 1 February 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
18. ADFA, ‘2012 Residential Support Officer (RSO) Scheme, Concept of Operations’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
19. MAJGEN C.W. Orme, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officers – Request for waiver for living in accommodation and meal charges’, Australian Defence College, 1 February 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
20. B Paul, ‘DPC Decision Paper RSO March 2013’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 27 February 2013; MAJGEN G Fogarty, email correspondence with various parties, 4 March 2013, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 7 March 2013.
21. COM ADC, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officer – Duty Statement’, Minute 12 April 2012, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler 13 December 2012.
22. COM ADC, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officer – Duty Statement’, Minute 12 April 2012, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler 13 December 2012.
23. COM ADC, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officer – Duty Statement’, Minute 12 April 2012, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler 13 December 2012.
24. Focus group U5, Mixed Service undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
25. MAJ L.T. Weston, ‘Feedback from ADFA Staff on RSO Scheme’, ADFA, 20 September 2012, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler 13 December 2012.
26. ADFA, ‘Revised ADFA RSO Duty Statement 2013 – 14 Dec 2012’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012.
27. B Paule, ‘ADFA Residential Support Officer Allowance’, Defence People Committee Discussion Paper, 10 December 2012, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012; MAJGEN G Fogarty, email correspondence with various parties, 4 March 2013, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller 7 March 2013.
28. MAJ L.T. Weston, ‘Feedback from ADFA Staff on RSO Scheme’, ADFA, 20 September 2012; Dr N Miller, email to the Audit, 1 March 2013.
29. ADFA, ‘Status of implementation of Broderick Review recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and supervision at ADFA (RFIs 60-64)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012; Dr N Miller, email to the Audit 20 February 2013.
30. Interview 24, Navy undergraduate, 16 October 2012; Interview 19, Army undergraduate female, 16 October 2012.
31. ADFA, ‘Status of Implementation of Broderick Review Recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and Supervision at ADFA (RFIs 60-64)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012.
32. Interview 32, Army staff male, 15 October 2012.
33. Interview 12, Army staff male, 15 October 2012.
34. Focus group S5, Mixed Service staff female, 16 October 2012.
35. Interview 13, Army undergraduate male, 15 October 2012.
36. Interview 25, Navy undergraduate, 16 October 2012.
37. LTCOL B Kilpatrick, summary of 2013 YOFT Trainee Review, 12 March 2013, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 14 March 2013.
38. Focus group U3, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
39. Focus group U1, Mixed Service 2nd year undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
40. Focus group U3, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
41. Interview 28, Army staff male, 15 October 2012.
42. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
43. Focus group U7, Mixed Service undergraduate female, 17 October 2012.
44. Interview 2, Dr N Miller, 12 September 2012; Interview 3, LCDR B Butler, 12 September 2012; Focus group U5, Mixed Service undergraduate male and female, 17 October 2012.
45. CDRE BJ Kafer, ‘Major capital facilities funding project funding request – ADFA cadet living in accommodation progressive rebuild’, 15 February 2010, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
46. CDRE BJ Kafer, email to BRIG D Luhrs, 24 November 2011; CDRE BJ Kafer, email to BRIG D Luhrs, 18 April 2012; CDRE BJ Kafer, email to Dr N Miller, 18 September 2012. Provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
47. ADFA, ‘Status of Implementation of Broderick Review Recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and Supervision at ADFA (RFIs 60-64)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012; RIT, ‘Broderick Ph1 Review Implementation Progress Spreadsheet’, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
48. LTCOL M Prunty, email to N Miller, 18 September 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
49. ADFA, ‘Status of Implementation of Broderick Review Recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and Supervision at ADFA (RFIs 60-64)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012.
50. ADFA, ‘Status of Implementation of Broderick Review Recommendations 19-21: Accommodation and Supervision at ADFA (RFIs 60-64)’, provided to the Audit by LCDR B Butler, 13 December 2012.
51. LTCOL M Prunty, email to Dr N Miller, 18 September 2012, provided to the Audit by Dr N Miller, 28 September 2012.
52. Directorate of Strategic People Policy Research, Australian Defence Force Academy 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey Report, DSPPR Report 18/2012, Department of Defence, p 18.
53. Directorate of Strategic People Policy Research, Australian Defence Force Academy 2012 Unacceptable Behaviour Survey Report, DSPPR Report 18/2012, Department of Defence, p 18.
54. For example at the YOFT session on Values observed by the Audit team on 27 January 2013, the Division was broken up into smaller groups. Each group was tasked with identifying the values they wished to see reflected in the behaviour of their Division. This was then collated and the DO requested that this be displayed prominently in the accommodation.