The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, also criticised Mr Smith's handling of the matter and challenged Mr Smith's assertion that there was a problem with defence culture. ''Bad things happen in all walks of life,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/leaked-report-backs-smiths-stand-against-academy-chief-20120308-1unbk.html#ixzz1oa3TYMIs

May bad things happen to Tony too...

I usually enjoy reading Mike Carlton, but I found his analysis of Minister Smith's handling of the Skype incident disappointing (''The failure of Smith's slick political fix'', March 10-11).

He has relied on his ''defence sources'' for his information, but it is to be expected that they will present a Defence point of view. What he has overlooked is that every defence minister of whatever side of politics has had trouble with Defence.

This is largely because Defence claims to have a culture of its own and claims not to be understood. What has come out of Minister Smith's actions is a revelation that the culture is the problem.

It is rotten and needs changing.

We should not forget that senior members of the defence services will have come through this culture and will not see the need to change it.

Change is now being forced upon them and for this Mr Smith needs to be congratulated.

Mike Carlton further disappoints in suggesting the minister ''should be towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire''.

He can't be a critic of Alan Jones for suggesting a similar thing about the Prime Minister and then make the above suggestion without being charged with hypocrisy. I, for one, expect better of him.

Clive Williams Lavender Bay

But Mr Fitzgibbon said Major-General Cantwell, who had only been a ''relatively minor player'' in the white paper process, totally misrepresented both that process and his time as minister.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Defence had been taken aback at the extent to which he had become involved in the white paper preparation. He said it was outrageous to suggest he had not understood the brief.

He had insisted on giving members of cabinet's national security committee PowerPoint presentations but when Defence prepared them ''I was frustrated that they were practically unintelligible for NSC members who weren't dealing with these matters on a day-to-day basis and I insisted  they be rewritten in plain English without the plethora of acronyms and other Defence-speak''.

Major-General Cantwell, who escorted Defence Minister Stephen Smith during one of the minister's four visits in Afghanistan, also accused Mr Smith of having ''no respect'' for those who served in uniform.

A spokesman for Mr Smith said that the minister was ''surprised and disappointed at the remarks of retired Major-General Cantwell. The remarks are not an accurate or fair portrayal of the respect and regard that the minister has for our forces in the field''.

Defence Force chief David Hurley says he has a good working relationship with the Defence Minister despite their recent disagreement over the handling of the ADFA Skype sex scandal.

Tensions between Stephen Smith and some members of the Defence Force have been strained over the handling of the scandal and the findings of the Kirkham inquiry.

Mr Smith has refused to apologise to Defence Force Academy commandant Commodore Bruce Kafer despite the inquiry clearing him of any error of judgment.

Former chief of army Peter Leahy said the episode had diminished Mr Smith's legitimacy as minister, while Major-General John Cantwell said Mr Smith had no respect for the men and women of the ADF.

But General Hurley says while those men are entitled to their views, their comments do not reflect the Minister's relationship with the top brass.

General Hurley has told ABC Radio's PM it was not his job to pass judgment on Mr Smith.

"It's not the Defence organisation or Defence Force's job to dismiss ministers," he said.

"My job is to follow the direction of the government of the day and bring the ADF and help the secretary bring Defence in line to implement government policy. That's what we're about."

General Hurley says he has a good working relationship with Mr Smith.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-12/defence-chief-has-27good-relationship27-with-smith/3884568

From: John Richardson

Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:10 AM

To: Mike Carlton

Subject: Re: Stephen Smith ....

Hi Mike,

I can’t agree with your opinion piece on Stephen Smith in today’s SMH …. in fact, it would seem to be way off the mark based on the following quotes from the Kirkham Report:

''Commodore Kafer could and should have foreseen that [disciplinary charges would be served on Kate] at a time when [she was receiving] medical treatment and had recently been advised of the Skype incident, and further that such service could cause her upset.''

Mr Kirkham's report also found that Kate suffered unnecessary distress because of Commodore Kafer's actions, and that he failed to inquire as to whether Kate wanted the disciplinary matter to be delayed. ''The inquiry finds this failure unfortunate … such inquiries would have been a sensible and appropriate course of action.''

Moreover, your position is not only at odds with the Kirkham Report, but also with that of your colleague, Dylan Welch, who was published yesterday with this piece.

By all means take Smith to task over his performance as Minister for Defence, but please leave the personal smears to the likes of Jones, Ackerman, Bolt et al, from whom we expect not much else.

Cheers,

John Richardson.

Wallagoot.

Former Liberal defence minister Brendan Nelson has backed the performance of current Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

The Federal Opposition is vowing to continue its pursuit of Mr Smith on the back of a stinging critique by Australia's former top commander in the Middle East.

Major-General John Cantwell launched the attack on Mr Smith at the weekend, saying he appeared uninterested during briefings while in Afghanistan and "tolerates", but does not respect, Australia's soldiers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/nelson-defends-smith-amid-opposition-pounding/3887652

...

The ring of sexual predators discovered in the supply ship HMAS Success is but one recent example. Testosterone and alcohol can be an explosive mix. But to see this as solely a defence problem is a blinkered delusion. Time we faced up. It is an Australian problem wherever young men gather.

A recent survey by the National Union of Students found that rape is still a fact of life on university and TAFE campuses.

Two weeks ago 30 male students were suspended from St John's College at Sydney University after a drinking orgy left a distressed young woman in hospital.

Not a month goes by without some drunken football star bashing his girlfriend.

The NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, despairs of high rates of youth crime fuelled by ''a drink-till-you-drop culture''.

In fact, defence commanders have wrestled with this abhorrent behaviour for years. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But they have tried, and they are still trying. The idea that change is being forced on recalcitrant Colonel Blimps by a crusading Smith is glossy political spin.

A lot of readers also think the ADF leadership dislikes Labor defence ministers period. Again not true. Generals, admirals and air marshals would tell you the best we've had lately were Kim Beazley and John Faulkner. Conversely, they despised the Liberals' Peter Reith for politicising the military in the ''children overboard'' affair.

Smith has now made that same list.

ONE more thing. Many readers objected to me writing last week that Smith should be towed out to sea and sunk. Too much like Alan Jones, they said.

Point taken. It was meant as a joke, but it was tasteless and wrong, and I apologise. Sometimes the political chicanery gets to you.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/top-brass-have-no-need-for-an-airbrush-20120316-1vabm.html#ixzz1pJocczTq

-----------------------

Touchy touchy... methinks that MC got it wrong nonetheless... Smith trying to encourage a better culture in the defence personnel is not a problem per se. That the minister be treated by former brasses as if he did not pay attention to the "briefings" was way over the top. Kim Beazley? sure, he was nutso about anything that goes bang. Faulkner? He should have been PM a long time ago but he does not have the curry to fight the impossible battles. Smith is not doing a bad job considering the attacks of the defence he has to face as if all the top brassos were always right...

And yes, MC, jokes sometimes can show how the political chicanery, including the defence brassos, who are humans despite their medals, can get to you... From top to bottom the defence personnel does a great job but people make mistakes there as much as anywhere else... And they know it.

I am sure that defence and Smith can patch things up...

from Mike Carlton ....

You get a better class of bollocking from the left than the right. When the tories write to abuse me, it's usually with infantile spelling and grammar, and toilet training evidently still a work in progress.

This week's emails - more than 200 - were largely literate and long. Most were polite, reasoned, more in sorrow than anger: ''I generally agree with you, but … ''

They went on to hammer last Saturday's column: my take on the Skype scandal at the Australian Defence Force Academy and my support for the commandant, Commodore Bruce Kafer. Many readers felt I had been suckered by the cunning Defence Force top brass, which surprised me.

Gimme a break. I did two tours reporting the Vietnam War, virtually a PhD study in military lying and folly. I have written serious naval history. My radar for deceit in uniform is in working order. I know it when I see it. This ain't it. So, sorry, but I'm not backing off.

Here's why:

There's a widespread misconception, stoked by media beat-ups, that the Kirkham report into the Skype incident secretly demolished Kafer but was mysteriously airbrushed by the defence brass to get him off the hook. This is simply untrue.

Andrew Kirkham, QC, the investigating barrister, did make some initial findings critical of Kafer, querying the decision to charge Kate, the young woman cadet, with two unrelated and minor offences. Kafer, like everyone else involved, was invited to respond.

He gave a robust explanation. Contrary to what you may have read, Kate and her defending officer had actually accepted that sentencing on the minor charges should go ahead and she pleaded guilty. The punishment was a small fine and a few days' grounding.

But Kafer and other ADFA staff had been worried for a while that Kate was having real trouble adapting to cadet life. It had not been easy for her. The commandant was genuinely concerned for her welfare. Rightly dismayed and disgusted by the Skype incident, he ensured she got pastoral care and counselling.

Kirkham found much of the initial media coverage to be dead wrong.

Kate was not abused by other cadets, nor by a sergeant on the staff. Shaving cream was not smeared on her door by male cadets. She was not ordered to publicly apologise for going to the media.

So his final report cleared the commandant of any wrongdoing.

No top-brass trickery there.

But wait, there's more. Kafer was also given the okay by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, who drilled deep into ADFA last year. She found he had actually been implementing top-to-bottom reform of ADFA culture well before the Skype scandal erupted.

She reported that while ''widespread, low-level sexual harassment exists'', the academy was ''a vastly improved institution, with a culture that has evolved significantly since the 1990s''.

''Indeed, cadets, staff and parents commented favourably on Commodore Kafer's leadership and commitment to ADFA,'' Broderick wrote. That is borne out by supportive emails this week from ADFA parents angered by Stephen Smith's denunciation of Kafer and the media portrayal of their kids as some sort of uniformed bikie gang.

Understand this: the Skype incident was actually reported to the authorities by a male midshipman appalled at what had allegedly gone on.

So I still argue that Kafer is a good man unjustly humiliated by the Defence Minister. Under the media pump, groping for a quick political fix, Smith attacked a senior officer who could not publicly defend himself. Then he gracelessly refused to apologise.

That's why he has lost respect not just with the defence chiefs but throughout the ADF. Curiously, he has never set foot inside the ADFA gates.

Top Brass Have No Need For An Airbrush

Well Mike, how would we know: the Kirkham Report hasn’t been made public? This means that the average “leftie” is forced to rely on what the media tells him/her & you’ve just told us (surprise, surprise) that the media is trading in at least two different versions of the “facts”!!

Have you seen the Kirkham Report Mike?

If you have, how about publishing it or, if you can’t bring yourself to do so, perhaps you could ask Julian Assange to arrange it for us? If you haven’t seen the Report, then how is your opinion worth more than anyone-else’s, even allowing for your self-confessed expertise in things military?

You say that Kirkham “did make some initial findings critical of Kafer” (whatever “initial” means) and you then go on to defend Kafer’s actions; citing his “robust” defence of his own behaviour & the steps that he took to assist the female officer Cadet. However, you don’t acknowledge the reported finding of the Kirkham Report that “The inquiry also found that it was unfortunate that neither the Commandant nor the Deputy Commandant asked the female officer Cadet or her defending officer whether she was capable and wished for the disciplinary proceedings to proceed.” You may recall that it was this particular fact that Smith found to be so reprehensible.

You assert that (as, surprisingly, does the rest of the universe, as far as I’m aware) “Kirkham found much of the initial media coverage to be dead wrong.” & “So his final report cleared the commandant of any wrongdoing.” This is a specious and inaccurate argument Mike, implying as it does that somehow Smith is responsible for the media’s incompetence and then, ipso facto, because Kafer was subsequently “cleared” by Kirkham (as you put it), Smith must have been wrong. So Mike, do you assert that the Kirkham Report didn’t find:

·                  “that it would as well have been a reasonable course of action to not commence and conclude the disciplinary proceedings” and

·                  “that it was unfortunate that neither the Commandant nor the Deputy Commandant asked the female Officer Cadet or her defending officer whether she was capable and wished for the disciplinary proceedings to proceed.”

So Mike, yes, Kafer may not have been guilty of any “legal” wrongdoing, but that doesn’t mean that he exercised sound appropriate judgement in dealing with the situation. Whether you agree or not, Smith’s criticism of Kafer at the time centred on the soundness of his judgement & certainly the Kirkham Report seems to suggest that there was a sound basis for that concern.

Moreover, whilst you are ready to hang Smith over Kafer’s treatment, you fail to acknowledge that the decision to stand Kafer down from his post as Commandant was taken by the then Vice Chief of the Defence Force, who allegedly took the decision “in Commodore Kafer’s best interests, in the best interests of ADFA, and in the best interests of Defence” and said so publicly. You also fail to acknowledge that the Vice Chief of the Defence Force advised Smith that, in his opinion, “the Commandant ADFA (Kafer) had displayed an error of judgement”.

So Mike, there may not be “top-brass trickery” here but there would seem to be a bit of journalistic trickery just the same?

And whilst you pretend to defend Kafer (who I for one never attacked) by falsely accusing Smith of having acted “unjustly”, how is it that you don’t accuse the then Vice Chief of the Defence Force of having acted unjustly? And how can Smith be pilloried for decisions taken by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force? And how could the former Vice Chief of the Defence Force lose respect for Smith when he shares the same opinion?

As for your postscript regarding suggestions that “the ADF is rotten to the core”, this is not a position that I hold.

Having said that, I think it is disingenuous of you to defend the dishonourable reputation of the Defence establishment by referring to the honourable deaths of “diggers”. Our “diggers” aren’t responsible or accountable for the culture of our defence forces, nor for the decisions that put our armed forces in harms way. Nor are our diggers responsible or accountable for the billion $ bungles dreamt-up by our armchair generals or incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats who live off the defence “system”.

And given your knowledge of Australian military history Mike, you should know that it is the same armchair generals & corrupt bureaucrats who, historically, have always abused the patriotism & loyalty of our “diggers”, sending them to wars that did not involve our national interests; conscripting them to fight in “undeclared wars” in defence of imperialist interests, whilst denying them the right to vote; denying them just compensation when they were injured or hurt whilst serving their country; deliberately placing them in harms way as “guinea pigs” for military tests whilst, all the while training them to act inhumanly as military “warriors”, whilst expecting them to always act as ladies & gentlemen when not out on “the field of play”.

And it is these same armchair generals & crooked bureaucrats Mike who seek to cover-up the crimes perpetrated in our names: whether it involves the torture of Indonesian militiamen in East Timor or culpability in the torture & murder of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay.

So Mike, well might we all remember that, no-matter how much air-brushing we might do, things will always rot from the head down.

Good one, John.... My feelings exactly... Mike Carlton has missed the whole point...