To Lead, To Excel: Twentieth Anniversary of the Australian Defence Force Academy

Abstract

This article is based on the author’s oration on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Australian Defence Force Academy. He examines the history of the Academy and compares it to the early years of the Royal Military College Duntroon. He then suggests ways to enhance ADFA’s reputation and utility to the wider community.

To Lead, To Excel: this motto guards the entrance to the Australian Defence Force Academy¹ (ADFA) which, in 2006, marked twenty years since the first graduates were commissioned into the Australian Navy, Army, and Air Force.² At the moment of this twentieth anniversary, it is appropriate to ask two questions: firstly, do Academy graduates live by their motto—To Lead, To Excel—and, secondly, is the Defence Academy relevant in twenty-first century Australia?

To Lead, To Excel

If asked whether Academy graduates live by their motto, the short answer is yes; the longer, more important answer is that we have yet to see the full impact that Academy graduates will have on the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and Australian society. To place the 2006 version of the Academy in context, it is useful to compare the history of Australia’s senior military institution, the Royal Military College, Duntroon (RMC), with the two decade-old Academy.

RMC was established in 1911, with the first graduates serving in the First World War. However, as Staff Corps Officers, these graduates were excluded from command and, following the end of the Great War, were prevented from retaining any temporary rank earned during that conflict: ‘It was reportedly common knowledge with the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) that a ban had been imposed on graduates being promoted beyond the rank of major, this restriction having been promulgated in confidential instructions issued in 1917.’³ Further, ‘there was still an uncertainty in many minds whether [the First World War] had actually shown Duntroon to be an essential national institution ... [especially given that] Australia’s citizen soldiery had emerged preeminent from the war.’⁴

In 1931, at the twentieth anniversary of the first intake, RMC was located in Sydney as ‘Duntroon Wing, Victoria Barracks’ and consisted of thirty-one Cadets representing only three cadet classes; there was not a cadet intake for 1931.⁵ Even on the occasion of the RMC’s twenty-eighth anniversary, on the eve of the Second World War, the senior RMC graduate remained a Lieutenant Colonel. In 1939, twenty-four graduates had been promoted to lieutenant-colonel, although only ten of these were substantive in the rank on the outbreak of the war. By 1945, however, graduates were commanding corps and divisions and had been filling these posts for some years; three were temporary lieutenant-generals, seventeen were major-generals, and some fifty had reached brigadier. For the RAAF, in August 1939, the highest ranking RMC graduate was wing commander,

By May 1945, RAAF RMC graduates accounted for nine group captains and five air commodores.⁶ Clearly, by 1939, the efficacy of RMC could still be questioned by the Australian military, government, and people.

By the end of the Second World War, and for the remainder of the twentieth century, these doubts were swept away as RMC graduates, both Army—including the New Zealand Army—and, for a time, Air Force officers, rose to dominate their Services in both peace and war.⁷ This dominance remains to this day: Duntroon graduates were appointed as Army’s Chief of the General Staff, without a break, from 1950 to 1997. Four Duntroon graduates were appointed, in succession, as Chief of the Air Staff from 1954 to 1969.⁸

The Defence Academy has, like RMC, had a troubled birth. In 2006, the senior Academy graduates served at the Colonel (Equivalent) level.⁹ The nascency of Academy graduates means that the Defence Academy lacks a strong voice in Defence decision-making circles and so seems to be continuously under attack with regards to legitimacy, cost-benefit, and the appropriateness of an institution that purely trains military officers at the tertiary level.

Yet, just as 1939 heralded the changing of the guard in Australia’s military leadership between the militia officer and the professional officer, 2006 heralded another changing of the guard. Academy graduates are slowly making their mark. For example, to date, five Battle Groups (and their equivalent) in Iraq and Timor Leste have been commanded by Academy graduates.¹⁰

These are small steps, but the tide of contribution from Academy graduates will now swell and gain momentum as more are appointed to command Battle Groups, and above, in a busy and operationally focussed Defence Force that is to be involved in regional and wider international operations for the foreseeable future. If a wider view is taken of Academy graduates in Australian society, it is significant that an increasing number of graduates are making their mark leading and excelling in the non-military world in Australia and overseas.

From these graduates has developed the Academy Graduates Association (AGA)—a unique institution in Australian military circles, having the bulk of current members under the age of forty. It is the only association for ADF officers that is based on youth, vigorously independent thought and an optimistic vision for the future. The AGA includes strong links with the civil community, including some of Australia’s most impressive private enterprise and academic institutions.¹¹

The AGA, with a dynamic and vibrant vision for graduates both in and out of Defence and a membership of almost 1700 graduates (and rising), is arguably the most relevant Defence Association in our nation. It is almost the only Defence Association that has broken the nexus between military associations concentrating on past glories, medals, and badges, vice supporting the intellectual and professional future for the ADF and Australia.¹² An exception may be the Australia Defence Association (ADA), which was founded in Perth in 1975 by a retired Air Force Chief, a leading trade unionist and the director of a business peak body. The ADA has long been Australia’s only truly independent, non-partisan and community-based public interest guardian organisation and ‘think-tank’ on defence and wider national security issues.

Of note, the AGA also offers graduates a job search program, which is an anathema to the stoic ADF view of a job for life; importantly, this reflects the generational view held by the majority of Academy graduates that leaving the ADF is a fact of life and should not be considered disloyalty to our Services. This is a view that must be harnessed in the ADF and reflects the US Marine Corps view of ‘once a Marine, always a Marine.’ The AGA is capturing this essentially pragmatic characteristic of the Australian military officer that has, for too long, been either officially ignored, or at the very least not effectively utilised.

In summary, do Defence Academy graduates live by their motto ‘To Lead, To Excel’? Yes, and we will see the natural progression of this thesis when the first Academy graduates:  

• Assume senior roles in business throughout Australia and overseas—already this is occurring;
   
• command ADFA;
   
• simultaneously command the Navy, Army, and Air Force; and
   
• assume key roles in support of or within governments throughout Australia.

Is the Defence Academy Relevant in Twenty-First Century Australia?

In a twenty-year history, the Academy has been externally reviewed on a number of occasions.¹³ This is appropriate in a vibrant democracy where the military is expected to be transparent and accountable while providing capability to Australia’s defence through the use of taxpayer’s dollars. The Defence Academy of 2006 did not, in terms of the Corps of Officer Cadets structure, look much like the Defence Academy of 1986. This change has occurred partly as a result of external reviews. Serving Defence personnel, with a traditionalists’ view of cadet life, may consider that a Defence Academy where cadets live in single-Service accommodation areas—as opposed to integrated tri-Service—is a poor use of an institution that seeks to provide future leaders for the ADF. This is especially the case for a Defence Academy that is tasked with graduating officers who are intuitively required to understand joint warfighting. However, traditional and nostalgic notions of cadet life maintained by many serving Defence personnel are not what the twenty-first century ADF requires.

What the ADF needs are officer graduates, as leaders in the ADF, who are connected throughout Australia’s tri-Service structure in order to reduce the friction caused when our three Services operate together. Tradition and nostalgia, such as the model for the Academy in 1986, should not burden current Academy leaders who are tasked with training and developing professional joint warfighting officers for Australia.

The need for outstanding proponents in joint warfighting remains an essential element of ADF capability requirements. It also needs to be emphasised that joint warfighting, in the current strategic environment facing our nation, is not enough. So, the first change I would recommend for the Defence Academy is that members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australian Federal Police (AFP), Australian Customs Service and other key government agencies attend the Defence Academy. The opportunity for all government agencies to attend the Academy would be designed to ensure that Australia moves from intuitively conducting joint warfighting, to intuitively conduct joint-interagency warfighting. Such interagency relations will continue to build on Australia’s outstanding ability to develop whole-of-government initiatives in advance of domestic events and in response to regional crises. Examples of Australia’s recent and successful whole-of-government operations include: the 2006 ADF-led, AFP-supported assistance to the Government of Timor Leste; the 2006 Victorian Police–led, ADF-supported Melbourne Commonwealth Games; the 2003 to present day DFAT-led, ADF- and AFP-supported Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands; and, the 2002 AFP-led, ADF-supported assistance to the Bali Bombing investigations.

The second change is linking the Defence Academy more effectively to the Australian community. This could be achieved through offering scholarships to people from top-fifty Australian companies. They could wear a uniform from one of the ADF’s three Services and comply with the Defence Academy military and academic requirements.¹⁴

These two ideas are roughly based on École Polytechnique, one of the most prestigious schools in France. The École Polytechnique was founded in 1794, originally to train military engineers. Although still affiliated with the Defense Ministry, its role has gradually changed over the years: present-day ‘Polytechniciens’ become researchers, top-ranking civil servants, highly qualified engineers and company directors.

Defence Academy scholarships to the future leaders of Australian business and other government agencies would achieve two significant outcomes for Australia and the ADF. Firstly, the Defence Academy would become more competitive in the development of Australia’s collective future leadership, as future business and government agency leaders vied for excellence with future military leaders. Secondly, cohorts of business and government agency leaders would graduate from the Defence Academy with a sound knowledge of ADF culture, capabilities and requirements, and could act as champions of the ADF in their businesses and departments in Australia and throughout the world. This type of intimate understanding of the ADF is essential if the Defence Academy, and indeed the ADF, are to effectively continue to deliver Defence capability.

The third change suggested is reviewing the Defence Academy’s academic program. If people from other government agencies and top-fifty companies were to attend the Defence Academy, the academic program at the Defence Academy would probably need to be modified in order to reflect the needs of business, but this should not be too onerous as the Defence Academy already offers a Master of Business program. More importantly, the three or four year academic program probably needs to change.

In this time of high operational tempo, the ADF needs more officers leading our Defence personnel, and we need them now. The Defence Academy program, based on a Bachelors degree of three years, followed by an Honours year, results in a return of service obligation of five years, for a total ADF service requirement of nine or ten years.¹⁵ If the Defence Academy’s academic program, in response to the high operational tempo of the ADF, was compressed into a ‘Bond University’, intensive semester program style, then the ADF may receive graduates after three years or four years instead of four or five.

This style of academic program would be more demanding on Defence Academy cadets, and would produce officers faster while retaining the objective of providing a tertiary education to ADF officers. In addition, the officer return of service could be reduced from five to four years, thereby making the commitment to the Defence Academy, at the age of seventeen or eighteen, seem less daunting and therefore more achievable for young Australians.

Is the Defence Academy relevant in twenty-first century Australia? Relevant yes, at this stage, but the ADF leadership needs to maintain a vision that will ensure the first two decades of the Academy are followed by another two that consolidate the reputation and achievements of ADFA in Australian society.

Conclusion

This discussion has sought to answer two questions: do Defence Academy graduates live by their motto, ‘To Lead, To Excel’, and is the Defence Academy relevant in twenty-first century Australia? The answer to both is yes, but with important caveats. Defence Academy graduates are required to lead, and they do so in military, government and business roles. The Defence Academy has withstood and adapted to external reviews and is producing leaders who have strategic impact on our nation. The leadership and excellence of Defence Force graduates needs to be maintained, especially as the ADF continues to achieve a high operational tempo in a complex and demanding world.

Endnotes

1     ADFA Purpose: To serve Australia by providing the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with tertiary graduates who have the foundational attributes, intellect and skills required of an officer. Academy Mission: Best Leaders for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). (http://www.defence.gov.au/adfa/)

2     The Australian Defence Force Academy, located in Canberra, commenced its activities in January 1986 and is now the centre for tertiary education for the armed services. (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/)

3     Chris Coulthard-Clark, Duntroon – The Royal Military College of Australia, 1911-1986, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1986, p. 63.

4     Ibid, p. 67.

5     RMC returned to Canberra in 1937. Ibid, p. 115.

6     Ibid, p. 138.

7     RMC began to graduate officers to the RAAF from 1921, the year the RAAF was established, and soon became the major source of Air Force officers; Coulthard-Clark, p. 108 and 111.

8     Coulthard-Clark, p. 280 and Moore, DC, Duntroon – A History of the Royal Military College of Australia 1911–2001, Army History Unit, 2001, p. 429.

9     Academy graduates achieving COL (E) rank as at 09 December 2006: CAPT Adam Grunzel (1986), RAN; COL Michael Batiste (1986), Army; COL Roger Noble (1986), Army; and, GPCAPT Mike Kitcher (1986), RAAF.

10    Command of Five Battle Groups (Equivalent):

•     Mike Kitcher (F/A-18, Task Group), OP FALCONER, Iraq, 2003 (ADFA 1986);

•     Roger Noble (Al Multhana Task Group), OP CATALYST, Iraq, 2005 (ADFA 1986);

•     Mick Mumford (Battle Group Faithful), OP ASTUTE, Timor Leste, 2006 (ADFA 1987);

•     Scott Goddard (Timor Leste Battle Group-1 / ANZAC Battle Group), OP ASTUTE, Timor Leste, 2006–07 (ADFA 1987);

•     Tony Rawlins (Overwatch Battle Group (West)-2), OP CATALYST, Iraq, 2006-07 (ADFA 1989).

11    Australian Defence Force Academy Graduates Association Sponsors, as at 26 November 2006 (http://www.adfagrad.org/): Frontier Group; Australian Graduate School of Management; Lend Lease; KPMG; Echo Bar; Sigma Bravo Pty Limited.

12    <www.ada.asn.au&gt;, accessed on 20 November 2006.

13    Some reviews into ADFA: Portfolio Evaluation and Review Directorate, ADF Inspector General Division, December 1992 (Evaluation Review Australian Defence Force Academy); Grey Review, 1998 (Grey Review examined the culture at the ADFA, as well as, structural and management issues); Zimmer Review, 2001 (‘Review into Military Postgraduate Education’ (Zimmer Phase 1) and more particularly the ‘Review into the Educational Services delivered through the Australian Defence Force Academy’ (Zimmer Phase 2)); Review of Australian Defence Force Redress of Grievance System 2004, A Joint Report by the Department of Defence and The Commonwealth Ombudsman, April 2005.

14    <http://www.southern.net/wm/about/polytechnique.html&gt;.

15    Defence Academy Return of Service Obligation (ROSO) calculations: three year degree plus one year professional military training (four year total) results in a five year ROSO, for a total of a nine year commitment to the ADF. Or three year degree plus one year Honours, plus one year professional military training (five year total) results in a six year ROSO, for a total of a 10 year commitment to the ADF, as the first ROSO year is served concurrently with the Honours year.