Review into the treatment of women at the Australian Defence Force ...

The intent of this Recommendation was that a broader pool of military staff could be considered for aposting to ADFA based on their skills, attributes and preferences rather than the decision being drivenby a linear career path which dictates certain postings at certain times in one’s career. The provision ofa wider pool of external providers does not meet the intent of this Recommendation and there is littleinformation available on how it is to be progressed.Underperforming staffThe Review found that ADFA’s tri-Service nature makes it difficult to remove undergraduates and staffwho have underperformed or displayed unacceptable behaviour which has failed to be rectified withina reasonable timeframe. 51The Review was mindful of workplace employment processes and issues of procedural fairness 52however, it noted that:ADFA’s military staff have responsibility for training, supervising and, in some cases, mentoringyoung people. Underperforming staff can therefore negatively impact on the treatment of womenat ADFA by failing to deal appropriately with incidents of sex discrimination, sexual harassment orabuse, as well as by actively participating in such behaviour themselves. 53The Review therefore recommended that the process for removing underperforming staff andundergraduates be simplified.The Audit was aware that in relation to the removal of underperforming staff that the COMDT makes arecommendation to the respective Service Career Management Agency, a member of staff considers therecommendation and a decision is made. Further clarity was sought on who specifically has delegatedauthority to approve/disapprove this Recommendation. Feedback received stated that ‘the decisionmaker would depend on the situation and rank of the individual involved. The decision to post themember from ADFA would ultimately rest within the Service of [the] member involved (usually the CareerManagement Agency). As at 28 February 2013 the process was still described as ‘complicated’ and‘worthy of discussion’. 54It appears there has been some consultation with the Directors-General of the Career ManagementAgencies on this issue but there have been no moves on the part of the Services to delegate authority tothe 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 [theCOMDT] wasn’t getting any satisfaction through the posters. 55I don’t see that he [COMDT] would ever have the authority to remove someone from thisorganisation because it presents a whole lot of administrative issues, admin law, whereas I cantake all that on. 56[COMDT] did push us on [that] and [said] could I have that delegation? Could I have thatauthority? Again we’re hesitant to delegate that authority any further for cadets but not for staff atall. 57There has been no change to the process or authority of the COMDT to discharge an underperformingstaff member. The Audit strongly advocates that each Service delegate the decision making authorityfor the removal of underperforming staff to the COMDT. This matter must be vigorously and definitivelyaddressed as underperforming staff continue to pose significant risks to ADFA.Audit Report: Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy • 2013 • 55