EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

Defence and the indefensible 

WOMEN in our defence forces are entitled to proper respect.

The Australian Defence Force Academy proudly espouses four institutional values: Do your best; Be honest; Respect others; Give everyone a fair go. It seems clear the final three values have been shredded in the so-called Skype-sex scandal. And as for the first, if this is ADFA's best handling of such a matter, then doing its best is clearly not good enough.

Putting aside all the institutional rules and legal technicalities of the matter, the incident as reported involved a reprehensible breach of faith between a young woman and a man. The male cadet who secretly turned a camera on his lover and broadcast their intimate moments to his mates has shown a flawed character that surely precludes him from aspiring to be an officer or a gentleman. If the facts are confirmed, he must be dismissed.

Likewise, any others who willingly joined in this betrayal of the young woman -- their fellow cadet -- have no place in our armed forces. Any other breaches of rules involving fraternising on campus, drinking or absence, pale into insignificance compared with this insensitive, disrespectful and intimidatory behaviour.

For the authorities at ADFA to force the victim to explain herself on other disciplinary matters while this terrible episode played out displayed amazing insensitivity and lack of awareness about the gravity of the transgression against her. Defence Minister Stephen Smith was right to make that clear, promptly and forcefully, and demand the defence forces improve their processes. This is no way to treat any young woman, let alone one who is in training to serve as a military officer for her country.

Sadly, young men and women will always find ways to put themselves in perilous situations. Those with character will find a way out and avoid trouble. Others will do the wrong thing, harm other people and damage their own prospects in life. Our defence forces, no matter their lofty aims and strict selection processes, cannot be quarantined from these vagaries. They must, however, learn to deal correctly with inappropriate behaviour.

If there are wider problems relating to entrenched cultures of abuse or intimidation, the answer is simple. Disrespectful behaviour should never be tolerated and the punishment should fit the crime. The Australian would hope that the first place we could expect that sort of discipline would be in our armed forces.

Smokescreen or deterrent? 

MS Roxon should deliver plain talking, not plain packaging.

Smoking rates in Australia have been falling for decades, without Health Minister Nicola Roxon's latest proposal for even more hideous cigarette packaging. In 1945, almost three-quarters of Australian men smoked. At the last count, the proportion of Australians aged 14 and over who smoked had fallen from 30.5 per cent in 1988 to 16.6 per cent.

The links between smoking, cancer, heart disease and other serious health problems are beyond dispute. Four out of five smokers say they would like to stop and the images on cigarette packets are already gruesome. So it is debatable, to say the least, whether ugly, olive-green packaging, uniform typeface for brand names, larger health warnings and more graphic photographs will deter hardcore nicotine addicts, most of whom spend more than $150 a week on their habit and put up with the inconvenience of not being allowed to smoke in most public and many private places. After all, the absence of attractive packaging has sadly done nothing to reduce consumer demand for heroin, marijuana, amphetamines and other illegal drugs.

The responsibility for personal behaviour, be it drug taking, snacking on junk food, couch-warming, drinking into a stupor or driving like a maniac rests with individuals.

Ms Roxon, who seems to enjoy the role of Nanny McPhee, should recognise the limits of self-righteous moral posturing. After the 70 per cent tax hike on alcopops in 2009, a cynical revenue-grab dressed up as a measure to deter binge drinking, sales of vodka, bourbon and other spirits soared as young women sought cheaper and stronger alternatives.

If government policy on smoking is driven purely by the need for Australians to give up a harmful habit, why aren't cigarettes, like many other drugs, made illegal or priced out of reach? Paying even more than $15 for a standard packet of 30 might deter more smokers than different packaging, although further hikes in excise would disproportionately hurt poorer families among whom smoking is more prevalent. Australia's 3.5 million regular cigarette smokers would be wise to seek help to kick the habit. But in a free society, if the people's representatives deem cigarettes should be legal, producers should be allowed to package and market them.