Yuku free message boards

Jim, you are way off base if you are trying to compare whats in that link with the situation at ADFA. Your link is relevant to a civilian employer disciplining an employee. That has very little relevance to the military. The female officer cadet was charged under the auspices of the DFDA - the Defence Force Discipline Act. As the name suggests, the DFDA is an act of parliament. It is Commonwealth Law. The various possible offences, the proofs and maximum punishments are spelled out in detail. Punishments can include up to 25 years in jail. You used to be able to be hanged under military law. Find me a civilian employer that has that power.

Again, Jim, you are showing you don't have a full grasp of the facts. ADFA is not part of the Royal Military College. That is over the hill at Duntroon and answers to a different boss. Kafer is not in charge of the University College of the University of New South Wales - the Rector is. While the civilian academic staff may have to abide by any 'rules' of the UNSW, none of the military staff do. While Commonwealth law applies at ADFA and to 'Kate' as it does to all Australian citizens in Australia, the fact that she was a university student is irrelevant when discussing how the DFDA applies to the situation. 

You make good points NewGolconda, but I think you are very unfair in stating that the ADF doesn't reflect community values. The fact is, by pretty much every metric, the ADF exceeds the standards of the Australian community as a whole (as it should be of course). The problems the ADF faces are the same as those faced in civilian society. The only real difference is the ADF is such an easy target, and that every mistake is front page news.

If a civilian gets drunk and punches someone, it would barely be reported. If an ADF member does the same, it is front page news, with every man and his dog getting on his soap box to talk about the drinking problem in the ADF.

If a facebook page that says nasty things about minorities etc only has civilian contributers, it wouldn't be newsworthy. If a single ADF member contributes its first page news, and once again every man and his dog dusts off the soapbox for another sermon.

Now, I am in full agreement that the ADF should be held to a higher standard than the civilian community. But expecting the ADF to be completely free of the same problems faced in society is naive. As you stated, the ADF is made up of members of the wider community after all.

It is worth considering what would have happened if 'Kate' had been a civilian instead of a member of the ADF. Do you think she would have been front page news? Do you think a cabinet member would have got involved? Do you think there would be a six million dollar inquiry into the matter?

When ADFIS reported the incident to the Federal Police, initially they weren't interested. If Kate had been a civilian, that would have been the end of it. There probably would have been no charges laid at all. The fact that Kate was an ADF member meant that the ADFA chain of command could go back to the feds and demand action, not to mention all the other support that was given Kate by the military system that would be unavailable to a civilian.

The fact is Kate was far better supported after the incident because she was a member of the ADF than she would be if she were a civilian. The ADF exceeds community standards in that regard. But that isn't reflected in the news. It should be.

It seems the only issue that looks evern slightly controversial is the summary proceedings going ahead as scheduled. The fact that this decision was made because it was in the best interests of Kate isn't mentioned.

Now, while I wasn't in the room while the decision was made, I will bet my left testical that it went like this:

Kate was charged with AWOL and failing to comply with a lawful order due to drinking. The fact that she was guilty would never be in doubt - it never is with military law. The punishment for such offences would be minor, and usually involve some combination of stoppage of leave, restriction of priveleges and a fine (for the record she was punished with five days stoppage of leave and a fine of one day's pay, which is actually quite a soft punishment). The summary proceedings (ie the hearing) was already scheduled before the Skype incident occurred.

All this would have been known to the chain of command. The chain of command would also have known that, due to the media covereage, Kate was a virtual prisoner - she wouldn't be going on leave, drinking or any of that anyway. What better time to serve your sentence of stoppage of leave? If the summary proceedings continued as scheduled, Kate would essentially receive no punishment. If it was postponed, she would have to serve her sentence at some future point, with far more of an impact than actually occurred.

If the decision was made for this reason, and when the full Kirkham inquiry is inevetably leaked I bet you'll find it was, the decision was made because it was in the best interests of Kate. Now, you might still argue that it was a poor decision. For the record, in the circumstances I imagine I would postpone the proceedings. However, the decision was not to 'punish' Kate, but to make her life easier. It certainly was never, ever, going to be 'wrong'.

That is the issue that people in the military have with outsiders criticising what goes on. If you don't understand the nuances of the matter, how can you so openly criticise a decision by an experienced, highly regarded and highly decorated officer that was fully in line with established policy?

there will be some code of conduct somewhere that he is in breach of.

Jim, if that were the case, don't you think that the recent inquiry, conducted over 8 months by team of lawyers headed by a QC and that was reviewed by another team of lawyers over 3 months, would have discovered said code of conduct?