If you'd written this Bruce, without the little tirade of hate to PM John Howard, it would have been a reasonable article.

you cheapen your own work by always reaching back to your unrequited hatred.

You didn't even need to mention PM Howard, there as no need to setup the ADF that way.

There's 3 minutes I'll never get back.

Bruce you say: “the AFP would find that laws had not been broken, which is exactly what happened until the Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, and public opinion expressed substantial outrage. At that point the AFP had a rethink but it does not matter, the military always had the power to act.”

It does not seem to have occurred to you that the purpose of the ADF is defence and that its purpose is and should be to train and maintain an effective defence force. It is a shame that it has to cater for clowns like Stephen Smith, but that is only to be expected if turncoat Independents thwart the electorate and put Labor in power.

It should not cater for the nonsense of political correctness, which is what you advocate.

It is difficult to raise any interest in what you think should be done, because, fortunately, even with Smith as the Minister, your suggestions will have no traction, and your pomposity, in putting them, is only mildly amusing

how can you compare a civvy uni to ADFA? go and have a walk around UC and see most of the long haired hippies sitting around stoned out of their tiny minds. visit the student bar at night to see deebauchery from all

I agree with a lot of your article Bruce. What really alarms me about all this is the view that the military ought not be subject to the control of civilian government. Like, Quentin Bryce has some sort of role? Neil James' organisation, the Australian Defence Association, has as one of its ten principles, 'the Department off Defence exists to serve the ADF'. It's making me nervous. Who's the ADF serving then?

The DOD has been a 'rogue' department for too long with many senior officers acting as if they are a law unto themselves and not only in terms of cultural practice but in the area of procurement.

If many in Defence believe they are not answerable to government in the same way as other portfolios due to the special nature of their work, who do they represent? The oath might be to the GG rather than the government of the day but the GG is only a figurehead with little more than symbolic significance in real world matters.

Nobody voted for Defence Force officials, the public votes for representation and there is an expectation that all elements of government and public service are accountable? People respect the work of the forces, the people who serve and put their lives at risk, but senior ADF personnel do not operate in a vacuum, they are not Gods.

Good on Stephen Smith for having the courage to set the tone but will he have what it takes to see it through? The backlash will be strong and it will take a master of diplomacy, personal strength and conviction for change to occur.

I am somewhat alarmed and surprised at both the article and some of the comments.

Who among you can say categorically state the courses that were open to the Commandant of ADFA in this matter? He works on military law and legal rules and if there has been some transgression, then he has allowable penalties. The timing was unfortunate with the press baying for blood in a quiet news period, so it developed its own media-driven motivation.

Then everyone became an expert as is always the case.

We have perhaps the very best military in the world, regarded that way by many, They are the products of places like ADFA. These cadets were not experienced adults, they were 18 y.o. kids. That is not in any way condoning their behaviour but they should have been given the opportunity to be dealt with accordingly and would have been, given time. Too late now.
It's now a media and political circus with Ringmaster Smith pushing his agenda for some form of glory. Respect? Too late Minister, you've blown that one.

As for the accountability of service chiefs to the feckless political masters that currently populate our government. We have a Chief who has more than paid his dues to this country, 41 years as an officer and with a great record. How many civilians can say the same? How many politicians can hold their heads up high...Gillard, Arbib, Swan, Abbott, Hockey........the comparison is laughable. They are there, holding their comfortable positions based on an archaic system of selection where quality, experience, management skills, knowledge, decency and maturity are not required characteristics. So we have parliaments populated by fools.

No better example than 2011 where we see a Prime Minister that the voters can’t get rid of quickly enough, an opposition leader who no one would trust running anything larger than the local Catholic Youth Club and if they are the best, God or someone else best help this country, soon, very soon.

Climbing on Smith's "bash-the-military" campaign does you no credit.