Speech to the Australian Army
5th Combat Support Battalion - Officer Training Session
by Commissioner
Pru Goward, 5th Combat Services Support Battalion, Banksmeadow, Sydney
NSW, 16 October 2001.
- I am delighted
to have been invited to address you tonight, thank you so much Lieutenant
Colonel Miller for inviting me. Delighted not just because the Defence
sector still struggles with many aspects of sex discrimination and it
was therefore a great chance to work with you, but also because, as
officers, you are the future leaders of the Defence Force and the key
to resolving many of the issues we will talk about tonight lies with
you.
- Before we go
to the issues however, you might find it useful for me to briefly describe
my Act and my responsibilities as Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
- As Commissioner
my task is to promote greater equality between women and men; part of
this means ensuring all members of the community are provided with equal
opportunities to reach their full potential.
- As Commissioner
I am responsible for the administration of the Sex Discrimination Act,
although I am not responsible for handling complaints under this Act.
That is the role of the President. My advocacy role requires me to be
distant from this process.
- I am responsible
for any Commission intervention in any court cases involving human rights
and my Act. Recently you may recall, the Commission decided to intervene
in the IVF case before the High Court and I was responsible for managing
the case.
- A new and growing
representational role for the three Commissioners is the role of Amicus
Curiae, or Friend of the Court. This Amicus role enables me, and therefore
the Commission, to assist the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court
when the orders may significantly affect the human rights of others
who are not party to the proceedings, or when the proceedings have significance
for the administration of the relevant act. Special circumstances and
public interest may also be a reason for seeking to become Amicus.
- So let's get
to the Act itself: The Sex Discrimination Act makes discrimination on
the basis of sex, marital status, pregnancy and potential pregnancy
against the law. It also prohibits sexual harassment and dismissal on
the basis of family responsibilities.
- The Act covers
the areas of employment, accommodation, education, the provision of
goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities
of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.
- Unfortunately,
despite what some people may say, the 'problem of sex discrimination'
has not been fixed. Women still experience discrimination and intimidation,
a significant proportion of it in the workplace. 84% of complaints received
by HREOC come from the employment area. Employment and earnings statistics
bear out this inequality. There is a long way to go before women get
over the first hurdle, let alone the finishing line, and this includes
their position in the Defence Forces, and the Army in particular.
- But that's not
to say that progress is not occurring, of course it is. Recent decades
have seen women make deep inroads into areas of public life that were
previously off limits, from parliaments to police forces. It would be
nice for the Sex Discrimination Act to be able to claim responsibility
for this seismic shift, but in fact the changing role of women in Australian
society began well before the Act was introduced and is the consequence
of technical, medical and cultural change, backed up by legislation
and public policy. The Act however, has certainly played its part and
its educative and enforcement roles cannot be underestimated.
- Industry sectors
with low numbers of women stubbornly remain however; law enforcement
and defence are among those sectors.
- Although times
are beginning to change even in these sectors it is still very new,
so new in fact that pioneering women are continuing to emerge who are,
even now in the 21st century, the first women to take up certain tasks
in their professions, ranging from jobs in shearing sheds to construction
sites. We are waiting for the first female Chief of the Defence Forces.
She might be here tonight.
- Though most Australians'
attitudes towards women at home and in the workplace have transformed
considerably since the Sex Discrimination Act came into operation
in 1984, there is still much work to be done for women to achieve complete
acceptance and unbegrudging respect in the workplace.
- You would all
agree the Australian Defence Force is no exception.
- It would come
as no surprise to any one in this room to know that the ADF has greater
difficulties with these issues than most organizations, and we will
look at those difficulties in a moment, but first I want to make, again,
the case for change.
- The case is based
on three arguments- the case for women, the case for leaders and the
national interest of Australia.
- For women the
case is obvious- it is about ensuring women who join the Defence Force
have equality of opportunity with men, have the capacity to fully contribute
and avail themselves of professional opportunity, the chance to take
their place at the head of an army or a fleet of aircraft. The chance
for choice. This argument is so self evident it scarcely requires further
development.
- When it comes
to Australia's national interest, and in particular Australia's security
interests, the ADF is no different to any other large organization.
In workplaces where discrimination and harassment in workplaces have
been eliminated, you find loyal, productive and involved staff. That
is directly reflected in the company's profitability- or in your case,
the achievements of the ADF. The business case is strong.
- When organizations
set about removing impediments to the meritorious development of employees,
by reforming human resource management practices such as recruitment
and advancement, and introduce proper behaviour codes dealing with sexual
harrassment for example , then that organization is doing so because
it wants to attract and retain the best people.
- Sure, they might
also have a commitment to human rights, but self- interest is the most
reliable horse in the race and the self- interest in this case is overwhelming.
It is, as they say, a win-win situation…for the army and the individual.
- What Army officers
need to ask yourselves, regardless of rank, is how the Army can be made
attractive to more and better people. A higher class of talent. A larger
pool that will include qualified and talented women -who may not at
this stage believe that the ADF is such an attractive career proposition.
- The fact is-
that if marketers ignored 50% of their potential markets, they would
be out of work. And with fifty percent of graduates in most fields now
female, not to recruit women is limiting your organization to only half
the available field. Not smart recruitment for a people organization.
- The fact is-
that failing to draw on the whole population robs industries, whatever
their complexion, of the full range of talent available to them.
- Share market
research shows that organizations with strong codes of conduct to deal
with issues like harassment, transparent and meritorious recruitment
and advancement policies, are likely to outperform companies not so
classified. According to some recent AMP data, socially responsible
companies, so called, outperform the Dow Jones index by 20%- they are
twenty percent above the average share price. In other words good human
resource management practice is part of good management and contributes
to a company's competitive advantage. It is not a sop to pressure groups
and it is not a cost but a saving to the bottom line.
- Where you get
good Human resource management practice, you get good management in
other ways. Discipline and professionalism will occur throughout a high-performing
enterprise, not in selective bits of it.
- Surely every
officer in the Army wants to be able to claim the same; that your organization
is out performing others. Frankly, with the state of security around
the world, the country needs you to be the best you can be and bring
out the best in those you command.
- So why aren't
women joining up- it has to be about more than the uniforms?
- Speaking in general
terms, one of the main reasons women tend to give for either not entering
or for leaving male dominated professions is their belief that they
will suffer or have suffered discrimination, harassment and vilification.
For organizations the conclusion is obvious; if you want to improve
your recruitment from the talent pool, then these issues have to be
addressed. I will return to this later.
- Another reason
given by many women with career paths in mind, is their perception of
their chances of advancement in that organization. If there's no chance,
there's no her. Not every woman wants a career, just as not every man
does, but an increasing number with qualifications in which they have
invested considerable time and money, want to capitalise on that investment
just like their brother officers do.
- In May 2001,
women made up 6507 or 12.8% of the ADF; 2554 in the army; 2121 in the
Air Force and 1832 in the Navy.
- A breakdown of
figures shows the Army trails the Air Force and Navy, which have about
15% and 13% women personnel respectively. The Army's share of women
personnel is 10%.
- As Lieutenant-General
Peter Cosgrove recently acknowledged, 10% isn't high enough. The Army
needs to more significantly exploit the gifts of 51% of the population.
- The Lieutenant-General
has stated that one of his priorities is to change the Army's male-dominated
image and to show that the Army is a developing workforce.
- It is encouraging
to hear he wants more women trained in the high technology areas. A
broadening of career opportunities for women can only benefit an organization
that has been concerned about dwindling numbers of regulars and reservists
in recent times.
- Defence has stated
that 20% of its recruits are women, however, after a decade of opening
up ever more employment opportunities for women, the proportion of women
in the ADF has grown from 11.5% to just 12.8% of the total. 1.3% in
a decade. Wow!
- The fact that
women have only been allowed to serve in the regular army with men since
1984, shows that in 17 years, some progress has occurred- so that during
the deployment of the Interfet force in East Timor, women made up 15%
of the Australian troops and took part in virtually every role except
frontline operations.
- Today, approximately
95% of positions are open to women.
- But under an
exemption for defence in the SD Act they are not allowed to assume full
combat roles.
- Section 43 (1)
states that it is not unlawful for a person to discriminate against
a woman on the ground of her sex in connection with employment, engagement
or appointment in the Defence Force in a position involving the performance
of combat duties; or in prescribed circumstances in relation to combat
duties.
- In 1995, The
Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 1995 amended S.43 of the SD Act by
removing the restriction on women's involvement in 'combat-related duties'.
- The Explanatory
Memo of this Bill stated that the amendments were intended to take into
account policy changes made by the Australian Defence Forces. The amendment
was in direct response to the loosening of strict gender segregation
in some tasks and duties assigned to defence personnel.
- The omission
of 'combat-related duties' was recognition that those areas should be
open to women. A further opening up of Defence Force positions has been
the subject of recent consideration, within the Defence Forces, by government
and the public.
- In theory it
would be possible for a woman to be chief of the defence Force or chief
of any of the three armed services.
- In practice,
it is difficult to see a woman being promoted to the most senior ranks
without any of that direct experience. It is that simple, no doubt minor
exclusion in the eyes of many, that just might be sending the message
to women that in the end, they aren't really suitable.
- If the exemption
was removed, the defence force could surely ensure a high standard of
personnel were delegated combat duties on the basis of merit, skill,
expertise and strength, without the necessary exclusion of all women.
Exclude if you must on the grounds of fitness or strength, but not of
sex.
- The executive
director of the Australian Defence Association, Michael O'Connor, has
argued that any move to include women in frontline positions would probably
make no difference to the numbers of women joining the defence forces.
- However, if working
in frontline positions is key to achieving senior defence position,
women will not achieve those positions in any numbers while the ban
remains in place. While they ever do not represent a significant proportion
of leadership of the defence forces, young women will lack the role
models that will attract them to the forces. I believe removing the
ban may well eventually attract greater numbers of suitable women to
the forces.
- (it would be
nice to know how many Defence Force chiefs have not had frontline experience).
- For so long as
women remain excluded from some roles or there remains any hint of a
discriminatory or harassing culture, it will contribute to the number
of women who will not join the armed forces in significant numbers.
- Some critics
argue that having women engaged in hand-to-hand combat will also bring
out the protective instincts of their male comrades. But for years policewomen
have worked alongside male officers in life-threatening crises.
- RSL National
President Rusty Priest has said that most of the League's members did
not want women in combat positions because of the difficult conditions
they could face. Queensland RSL president Ray De Vere stated that "I
don't believe our society is ready to have our daughters blown apart
on the battlefield.' Even Veterans' Affairs Minister Bruce Scott has
opined that 'when you put women in to these areas that they're not allowed
into now, you put them in harm's way'.
- The anxiety evident
in these opinions seems to suggest that the age-old belief in women
as the 'fairer sex', the sex to be protected, still holds true to many
in our society. Isn't it the case that all those performing combat duties
are at risk? Nothing can be more evident and obvious than that statement.
Why is it more palatable to have men 'blown apart on the battlefield'
to borrow Mr De Vere's description, compared to men and women? Why is
it ok to have women in the line of fire as police officers, emergency
service workers, security guards and any number of other positions where
they may encounter life-threatening risk, and not have women in the
front-line of battle?
- Why is the question
of women experiencing 'harm' so troubling? Why is their physical resilience
and endurance constantly questioned and used as a reason for exclusion
when traditional notions of frontline warfare are rapidly changing in
the modern landscape of conflict anyway?
- In response to
some of these claims, Lieutenant-General Cosgrove has maintained a voice
of reason. He has stated that the issue is not whether women are capable
of tasks that would put them in danger, but whether the community, including
the ADF community, accepted them playing this role. He has rightly emphasised
that this issue raises ethical, philosophical and moral issues. Is it
a question of whether our imagination and sensibilities are capable
of envisaging women in combat roles?
- The opening up
of opportunities to women have always provided protests about the 'fairer
sex' lacking the emotional or physical toughness required by employers
or professional guilds. Once women reporters, for example, only covered
the social pages. Courts were considered too shocking. Literature written
by female authors wasn't taught at Oxford. At its most extreme, the
earliest women doctors were considered to be witches and actresses prostitutes.
In every instance these characterisations were merely convenient excuses
for keeping out competition and in all cases the naysayers have been
proved wrong.
- As a rule of
thumb, and without knowing anything about the Army, with recruitment
figures like yours the Army would need to take a close look at all its
human resource management practices to ensure that no individual man
or woman faces unnecessary impediments to their progress.
- This issue of
the removal of all restrictions on the employment of women in the Defence
Forces never fails to engender intense debate. Arguments are still being
put that female combat personnel will only provoke sexual tensions or
harassment problems in the ranks.
- It should be
pointed out that the presence of harassment problems and programmes
to eliminate it in the defence forces should not act as an impediment
to removing discrimination, even though currently lawful, against women
in the area of participating in combat duties.
- If the existence
of sexual harassment is a reason for exclusion, that in itself is discriminatory.
That men may be tempted to assault and abuse their own female colleagues
cannot be used as an excuse for excluding women. Surely the circumstances,
attitudes and behaviours that encourage or enable such behaviours need
to be addressed instead.
- This brings me
to the second and broader issue of sexual harassment as a disincentive
to joining up or staying in.
- Again this is
about the need for the Defence Forces to ensure the retention and cultivation
of the best possible people through the stringent application of anti-sexual
harassment policies.
- HREOC in its
February 1998 submission to the Defence Equity Organisation's Review
of Policy and Procedures to deal with Sexual Harassment and Sexual Offences
at the Australian Defence Force Academy made a number of recommendations
that you would find useful.
- The ADF has begun
addressing issues of equity and harassment in recent years, and just
as well.
- The moves to
identify and confront sexual harassment are encouraging, though they
follow many years of silence, fear and denial about sexual harassment.
- One third of
complaints received by the Commission in the 1999-2000 year are about
sexual harassment and it is old news that the number of complaints received
far under-represents the actual prevalence of sexual harassment in the
workplace.
- In addition,
it is not the case that blatant discrimination and sexual harassment
has all but disappeared and that recent complaints made to anti-discrimination
agencies detail the more subtle incidences of discrimination and sexual
harassment.
- In the 2000-2001
financial year 342 complaints were made under the SDA. 11 complaints
were received under the SDA against the Australia Defence Forces/Department
of Defence. Of these complaints
- six alleged
sex discrimination in employment,
- four alleged
sexual harassment and
- one alleged
discrimination on the basis of marital status
- Five complaints
relate to employment with the Army, three with the Air force and two
with the Navy. One complaint was made by a civilian employee.
- All the complaints
were made by women, although men in the ADF, as Commonwealth employees,
are entitled to bring complaints. Remember, your organization is not
exempt from the Act in any way.
- For a single
organization, this is quite an over- representation. It is unfortunate
for an organization to be so familiar to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner!
- Allegations contained
in the complaints include the following:
- being invited
to view pornography on the internet
- standing infront
of a co-worker with his pants open
- being touched
in an unwelcome manner
- asking to
touch a co-worker's breasts
- making comments
of a sexual nature about a person's appearance, underwear or sexual
relationships
- making obscene
telephone calls
- requesting
oral sex
- harassing
a female officer on the basis of her sex
- being treated
less favourably in an internal complaint that had been made against
her because of her sex
- being retired
because of her sex
- not being
given next of kin travel entitlements because she is single
- I'm sure you are
aware of a number of high-profile cases of sexual harassment in the
defence forces. The cases invariably detail a litany of unlawful acts-
some constitute assault- on the part of defence force personnel of any
ranking, followed by inappropriate and on going inappropriate responses
from commanders.
- The complainants
in these cases often suffer psychological, emotional and financial damage
that may persist for years as a result of the unlawful acts.
- The negative
impact on the morale in a workplace cannot be underestimated. The poor
discipline it exemplifies should send a shudder down the spine of every
commanding officer. Heaven help you in the trenches when things are
really tough.
- And surely one
clear lesson is the human and financial cost if a commanding officer
turns the other cheek, condones or encourages certain unlawful behaviours.
- A recent Inquiry
Commissioner has highlighted the poor discipline meted out to the offenders
after a 'so-called in-house investigation' was conducted, rather than
a formal investigation either within or outside the service.
- Other cases have
highlighted the lack of seriousness with which such matters have been
dealt with in the past. A lack of appropriate follow up tells other
potential offenders that sexual harassment and bullying are not serious
offences.
- In these cases
the lack of seriousness with which incidents have been dealt with is
also a major factor in the extent of damage suffered by complainants
years later.
- The fact of the
offenders not being dealt with has weighed heavily against the employer,
being the various arms of the Defence Forces.
- The lessons that
come from the cases is that a better procedure in all cases would be
to remove the complainant from a threatening situation and to investigate
her (or his) complaint with appropriate formality. If warranted by the
investigation, to take such proceedings, within or outside the service,
as may have been appropriate; and to provide the complainant with comfort
and rehabilitative support. It is very likely that actions of this or
a similar kind will mitigate the effects of the sexual harassment.
- Most importantly,
the complainant would feel that she (or he) is a valued member of the
defence forces, instead of a person of little significance.
- It is encouraging
to see that in light of some very serious cases of harassment and abuse
in the defence forces, the ADF now appears to be taking the issue seriously.
- Don't misunderstand
me, though -we all know Rome wasn't renovated in a day. It is well understood
that blokey culture has been part of the Defence Force for a very long
time. It formed part of the training and acculturation of every recruit
and it underpinned the bonds of mateship between soldiers. In fact it
was so excluding of women that British soldiers like my grandfather
even knitted their own socks. He did that until he died, although the
socks would never have won a design award. To consider addressing and
changing this culture now is a major step. Small advances are major
achievements and deserve to be congratulated. Ten or 20 years ago, it
would have been unthinkable to invite the Sex Discrimination Commissioner
to discuss these issues.
- The two- hour
stand-down for all Australian military personnel for training on the
ADF's prohibition on any sexual or other forms of harassment is a shining
light.
- Lieutenant-General
Cosgrove's "Fair Go" Initiative is a great start and I commend
it to you. This represents a set of rules and practical guidelines,
which would assist all members of the Army to self-monitor their own
professional behaviour, and to assess that of others in the same workplace,
against a reasonable and understandable baseline.
- Those rules were
crafted to be all embracing, to be applicable to all ranks and to be
clear and enduring in nature. In the end though, they all come down
to one rule- when you are at work, don't get personal. If you can't
tell what's personal and what's professional, don't take a chance. Ask
yourself how you would feel about your daughter, wife, sister or mother
experiencing any of the behaviours I've just described. If you don't
think she would like it, don't do it, don't condone it and don't ignore
it.
- The Chief of
the Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie has said, "Our Defence
Force must always act as a force for good in our community. This means
that we have a high regard for the rule of the law, whatever impact
that rule of law may have on our own personal beliefs, or behaviours.'
- And this brings
me to the third and final reason why fixing this issue is so important-
it is important for you. Each of you, as I said, is part of the future
leadership of the ADF. Each of you is leading now. You would know already
that you are only as good as those you command. That your leadership
inspires their enthusiasm and professionalism, capacity and commitment.
That the discipline and professionalism you extract will be the measure
of your own leadership and therefore of your own future.
- So those of you
with ambition will have no difficulty in pursuing and upholding the
values of gender equality and equal opportunity; not only do they demonstrate
your own leadership but because ultimately the reputation and excellence
of the ADF will only be as good as your leadership. The safety and security
of us all may one day depend upon it.
Last
updated 1 December 2001
