Comment – Casey University

In mid-1967 the Tertiary Education Services’ Cadet Colleges Committee was set up with the object of developing plans to establish a single tri-service academy. Its terms of reference specifically stated that a Ministerial decision had already been made to establish such an academy. The committee was only required to report on the “how”. A further more detailed development took place in April 1975, with the appointment of a Development Council for the Australian Defence Force Academy. Following on this, the government agreed that the project should proceed, and in April 1978 a Bill was introduced into Parliament to establish what had by now become known as “Casey University – Australian Defence Force Academy.”

Briefly, it is intended that the new academy should replace the degree components of the existing military colleges with a single establishment. It is intended to provide a university education within a military environment for officer cadets of the three Australian services. Under the legislation, the single academy would have autonomous university status in its own right. It is intended that military training would be of an elementary nature applicable to all three services. It would not be until after, or towards, the end of their university course that students would undertake full professional military training in their chosen profession. It is further planned that they would spend an additional year in this latter phase. The legislation also sets out that the site of the new academy is to be established close to, but not form part of, the existing facilities at Duntroon.

As part of the normal legislative process, the matter was brought under review by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in March 1978. The purpose of this investigation was primarily to review the works aspect of the academy. In the event, the committee extended its research into the actual need for the proposal itself. After a full year of intensive public and private hearings, the Committee unanimously vetoed the whole project in the strongest possible terms.

The committee made thirteen detailed recommendations and conclusions. In not one instance did they agree with the proposals presented to them by the Defence Department or the government. In addition, the Committee made the following general findings:

“The Committee is not convinced of the need for the Defence Force Academy and is of the opinion that the education and training of Service officers should be the responsibility of each individual service.”

They were also extremely critical of the fact that no prior study had been made of the basic need for the proposal. In this regard, they reported as follows:

“The Committee believes that before a decision to establish a Tri-Service Academy had been taken, a comprehensive inquiry should have been conducted to examine all the issues involved in the education and training of officer cadets for the Services and to fully examine all alternatives. The Committee is convinced that this was never done.”

The findings of the Public Works Committee were published in May 1979 – a mere six months before the Minister made his announcement that the government intended to go ahead with the proposal. Included in the full text of his announcement was the comment that the Government rejected the conclusions of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on the grounds that they were “ill-founded”.

This “policy” decision by the government in the face of such firm – and recent – rejection by the Public Works Committee has resulted in a great deal of public and private controversy. There are three distinct forms of criticism. These relate to the financial, academic and military aspects of the proposal.

On the question of cost, the original estimate was $49 million (in February 1977 prices) when the matter was first referred to the Public Works Committee. The committee, after a detailed evaluation, put the cost at $65.22m at February 1978 prices, and this remains the official figure. The true figure may well be much higher in terms of February 1980 prices. The critics claim that in the present financial climate, this money could be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all. Some claim that such an amount could be better used to assist existing universities rather than in creating a new one. Others feel the money could be better spent on extra defence equipment or training.

On the academic side, there is concern within the university community that it is just -not possible for a fully autonomous university to function within a military environment. The two ideas are claimed to be mutually exclusive. It is also argued that such a hybrid institution will not work under the proposed scheme for control. The legislation lays down that the Academy shall be administered by a council to include two executive officers, namely a Vice-Chancellor and a Commandant. Overall the whole project is to be under the control of the Minister of Defence. The academics argue that for it to be a true university it should be under the Minister for Education. A number of vice-chancellors, university councils and staff associations have already threatened to boycott the scheme. Even the title of the unit adds to the confusion and reinforces the view of divided control. It is neither to be a university nor a military academy.

On the military side, the critics are firm in their belief that the three services need different approaches. This view is supported by the Public Works Committee which states in one of its more detailed findings that:

“The Committee believes that for the Defence Force Academy proposal to be viable, there should be evidence that the training of Service cadets in a common environment would raise the officer standard. The Committee received many opinions on this matter but was unable to find convincing evidence to support this view.”

This claim for single-service training stems from the separate and different environments in which each of the three services operates. Such a difference is also claimed to arise from the different technologies required. However, more importantly, it is claimed that each service has a different approach to, as well as distinctive needs for, basic discipline and motivation. The graduate officer from the army finds himself immediately in command of a number of men who in actual combat conditions would all be in direct armed contact with the enemy. In the Navy, all members of a ship’s company are involved in battle conditions within a very confined space. Within the air force very few officers out of the total number will have any direct command function over groups of men, and certainly not within the environment in which he operates.

It is also of interest to note that the proposed academy is only expected to provide one-third of the total officer requirements. There will still be two-thirds of all officers who will not be trained in the joint service mould. It is claimed that this could quite easily create divided loyalties within any particular officer corps. In particular, the tri-service academy would tend to produce graduates who would be looked on as an elite group within each service with possibly different motivations to the bulk of the officer population. To retain the existing system would continue to utilise existing facilities and continue existing loyalties and traditions. More importantly, especially for the combat branches, officers would graduate under the existing system of three separate service academies who are qualified in the basics of their chosen service. They would undergo their cadet training in a military environment designed to the needs of their particular service.

Finally, it is of interest to note that in all the “letters to the editor” and comment in the media hardly a single voice has been raised in support of the scheme to provide a single triservice academy. Yet the government appears determined to continue with their proposal. Whatever the reason, the whole subject should be fully debated. Such important changes in the whole officer training system should not go ahead in an atmosphere of controversy and doubt.