Gender, governance and the defence of the realm: Globalising reforms in the Australian defence force

Introduction Senior leaders of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) concede that it has historically been, and remains in some aspects, a ‘hyper-masculinist’ institution, as the Chief of Army recently informed the United Nations. A number of public reviews have documented evidence of serious gender-based discrimination, as well as incidents of gender-based violence against women and men within the ADF. Since 2011, the ADF has been under intense pressure to reform this aspect of its governance as both a capability issue and as a personal conduct issue. A capability issue to the ADF means anything that can affect adversely its effectiveness in operations, including limiting the number of talented female recruits through reputational damage. A conduct issue means behaviour that is deemed not to be in compliance with service codes or the profession of arms, the ideal ‘warrior’. A number of egregious incidents have come to the attention of the media, and the internal responses have been heavily criticised. In this respect, Australia is not alone: other Western military organisations have also faced this kind of pressure. In both its international operations and its internal organisation, the ADF could be a rich site for integrating the gender-equal developments in international law and comparative public law. In the domestic arena, there exists an interplay between military justice and criminal, constitutional and administrative law. Other ‘cosmopolitan’ militaries have shown a willingness to accept the norms and standards of international law and due process and incorporate them into their own governance framework in relation to ending discrimination and sexual and other forms of gender-based violence. Sometimes this process has been imposed on the military by parliaments or courts, such as the UK Service Complaint Commissioner, discussed further later in this chapter. The Australian military carries a special constitutional role and receives many exemptions from the legal responsibilities of ordinary citizens. These exemptions are necessary for the ADF being able to perform its constitutional function to protect the state - the state allows the military to bear arms on the state’s behalf and rewards the soldier for being willing, if necessary, to die in defence of the national interest. The Australian military thus exists in a state of exceptionalism in relation to ‘ordinary’ law, but is still bound through the Constitution by the rule of law and civilian control.