There is now a plethora of issues that have emerged from the ADFA Skype sex affair.
Skyping a sex act without the knowledge of at least one of the two participants was reprehensible, as was watching it. Remember that the act of having sex was explicitly against the rules that every cadet understood, so there is plenty of liability to go around.
The demand for the immediate sacking of the male involved has been complicated by the suggestion that he also may have been unaware of the Skyping. Sounds unbelievable, but only an investigation will reveal the truth. If we had sacked him on day one, as so many demanded, injustice would have been heaped on injustice.
The act of an uninvolved cadet who went to authorities was commendable, as was the speed with which the authorities acted (albeit with a few ragged edges — shaving cream, apologies etc.) but only an investigation will clarify these issues because already many accusations have been found to be untrue.
I will make my own decision on how appropriate it was to proceed with the female cadet's previous alcohol and absence charge parallel to the Skype incident once I have seen the investigation. I do not necessarily agree with the Minster that proceeding with the older charge was 'inappropriate, insensitive and completely stupid'.
It would only be a sackable offence if the intent was to humiliate her, and there is no suggestion that was the case. The Minister may know something I do not, but I doubt it. But that previous charge must still be addressed at some stage, and public talk of 'quashing' by the Minister was in error.
The Minster must feel embarrassed that he publicly implied that he led the demand for the second AFP opinion, when it was the military leadership that initiated it. There was no cover up — quite the opposite.
None of us know what happened between the Minister and the CDF in relation to a resignation threat, although the Minister would not have been so direct in his denial had there been any possibility of such a threat later coming out. I conjecture that as soon as the Minister thought about the hole he had dug for himself by his initial comments, he would immediately have realised the position into which he had put the CDF. There would have been no need for the CDF to threaten to resign — the Minister