EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

Coming to the defence of women in forces

An illustration by Peter Nicholson. Source: The Australian

WHAT began as one reprehensible incident at the Australian Defence Force Academy is now a passionate debate about defence force culture.

The abhorrent betrayal of a young woman's trust by fellow cadets always warranted a thorough investigation, but this incident has uncovered deep-seated and widespread concerns about sexism in the defence forces, triggering a range of reviews, actions and inquiries.

Given what is already on the public record, The Australian considers the debate timely and the reviews warranted, so long as they lead to practical improvements. Defence Minister Stephen Smith deserves praise for his strong leadership but even he concedes such reviews are hardly new. Mr Smith's challenge is to turn the talk of cultural change into the reality of a defence forces workplace that is welcoming, safe, rewarding and respectful for women.

As we pointed out last week, ADFA failed to live up to its own value of respecting others in its handling of the so-called Skype-sex scandal. Mr Smith rightly maintains Commander Bruce Kafer seriously erred in judgment by pursuing separate disciplinary action against the young female victim of the sex broadcast, while she was attempting to deal with its repercussions. Against some resistance, Mr Smith has imposed his will on the uniformed hierarchy and the commander, described as a "good officer and good bloke", has been advised to take leave while the issue is properly investigated.

The power struggle between defence ministers and the uniformed leaders often creates tension, yet Mr Smith has judged public expectations well and convinced the military to respond to those standards. Inquiries will now examine ADFA's handling of the Skype-sex case, its treatment of women, conditions for women across the forces, cross-overs between military and civilian law, assessment of more allegations flushed out by the controversy and behavioural issues around alcohol and social media.

If a culture of sexist intimidation exists, it needs to be confronted and eradicated once and for all. Defence faces a challenge recruiting the large numbers of young people it needs and if it cannot provide an attractive career path for women, it will seriously handicap itself. So it is timely that the minister and the defence force chiefs have taken this opportunity to fast-track the movement of women into combat roles, declaring that only physical and intellectual capacity, and not gender, will be assessed in allocating roles in the future. This will help remove any sense of women being the lesser of equals in the forces, but much work needs to be done on the practicalities of implementation.

At what seems like a momentous time for Australia's defence forces, it is appropriate to issue a word of caution. There is a great risk that the numerous reviews, policies and inquiries unveiled yesterday will become bogged down in process. In the end, it is not reviews and processes that will improve defence culture but rather a willingness and expectation that any sexually offensive or intimidatory behaviour will not be tolerated, and will always attract prompt investigation and appropriate penalties, including dismissal. As a priority, any alleged victims must be treated with care and sensitivity.

A director of classic films

FROM his impressive debut directing Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men in 1957, Sidney Lumet was responsible for some of the best films of the following 50 years.

Lumet, who died at home in Manhattan on Saturday aged 86, consistently drew the best from many of the world's finest screen actors, including Sean Connery in The Hill, William Holden, Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway in Network and Paul Newman in The Verdict. From the harsh British military camp of the Libyan desert in World War II, setting for The Hill, to the glamorous, sinister ambience of Murder on the Orient Express, Lumet's forte was thought-provoking films with strong storylines.

After working as a child actor, Lumet's first directing jobs were in off-Broadway theatre productions and he continued to prefer the gritty streets of New York to Hollywood. He favoured films that went "one step further" than entertainment by setting "the mental juices flowing" and compelling audiences "to examine one facet or another" of their consciences. Lumet was nominated four times for Academy awards for directing, including for his first film, but missed out each time. A social realist, his comment after receiving an Academy Award for lifetime achievement in 2005 was: "I wanted one, damn it, and I felt I deserved one." Damn right.

Protecting scientific expertise

AUSTRALIANS have reason to feel proud of the nation's leading scientific and medical researchers, whose discoveries have saved lives and improved quality of life for generations around the world.

If the standards set by immunologist Frank Macfarlane Burnet, cervical cancer vaccine developer Ian Frazer and 2005 Nobel laureates Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who discovered the bacteria that causes peptic ulcers, are to be maintained, research must not be short-changed. The prospect of cuts to the National Health and Medical Research Council budget of up to $400 million over three years has alarmed scientists, as has Health Minister Nicola Roxon's prim retort that she has a "difficult message" for them in the budget.

No area of government expenditure should be immune from scrutiny and taxpayers are entitled to expect value for money. The federal deficit must be cut, but the task is all the more difficult because of the billions wasted on poor value stimulus projects. The political problem is that given a choice between pink batts and cancer research, voters would not have to think twice. The government should look for savings in areas other than the NHMRC, which already subjects funding applications to rigorous scrutiny and peer review.

In their quest for the next breakthrough in the fight against cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, Alzheimers or asthma, institutions run on tight budgets, pay relatively low wages and compete for a limited pool of public and philanthropic funding. Globally, duplication is avoided by scientists working in tandem with their international colleagues on such long-term projects as pinpointing the genes that cause and protect individuals from diseases, including breast cancer. Team leaders at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the QIMR, the Murdoch Children's Research Institute and other centres and universities know that a substantial cut to the NHMRC's $800m annual funding will drive some of the best researchers and some of our most promising projects overseas, leaving other nations to reap the economic returns of new therapies, vaccines, diagnostic tools and drugs.

Most Australians, whether touched by serious illness or not, would be reluctant to see the research budget cut. For instance, a $400m cutback over three years to the National Broadband Network, which construction companies fear will blow out to $44 billion to build, would have a minimal impact compared with a similar cut to the NHMRC. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, including independent MP Tony Windsor, the NBN, in its Rolls-Royce form, is not essential for isolated Australians to stay in closer contact with their doctors through e-medicine, which was developing years before the NBN was mooted.

For all the high-profile breakthroughs that change lives including Fiona Wood's spray-on skin, Susan Beal's discovery that cot death would be vastly reduced if babies were not wrapped too warmly or allowed to sleep on their tummies and Victor Chang's heart transplant program, many scientific achievements take decades of painstaking work.

Once such expertise is lost, it would take years for Australia to regain its standing in a field where the nation performs well above its weight. Curtailing life-saving projects when other spending cuts are available would be unconscionable.