Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's for me a great, great honor to welcome Javier Millay, as you know, the freely elected president of Argentina. And it's actually your first trip to a foreign country after you have been elected. First, congratulations for your election, and congratulations also to your sister who managed your election campaign. I think sometimes people would say with more radical muscles that you introduce a new spirit to Argentina, making Argentina much more related to free enterprise, to entrepreneurial activities, also to bring Argentina back to the rule of law. So we have a very extraordinary person among us today, and of course we are all eager to listen to you and again a very cordial welcome to the World Economic Forum. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Today I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger, and it is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty. Unfortunately, in recent decades, motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others, and others motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world. Rather, they are the root cause. Do believe me, no one better place than us, Argentines, to testify to these two points. When we adopted the model of freedom back in 1860, in 35 years we became a leaning world power, and when we embraced collectivism over the course of the last 100 years, we saw how our citizens started to become systematically impoverished, and we dropped to spot number 140 globally. But before having the discussion, it would first be important for us to take a look at the data that demonstrates why free enterprise capitalism is not just the only possible system to end world poverty, but also that it's the only morally desirable system to achieve this. If we look at the history of economic progress, we can see how between the year zero and the year 1800 approximately, world per capita GDP practically remained constant throughout the whole reference period. If you look at a graph of the evolution of economic growth throughout the history of humanity, you would see a hockey stick graph, an exponential function that remained constant for 90% of the time, and which was exponentially triggered starting in the 19th century. The only exception to this history of stagnation was in the late 15th century with the discovery of the American continent. But for this exception, throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, global per capita GDP stagnated. Now, it's not just that capitalism brought about an explosion in wealth from the moment it was adopted as an economic system, but also if you look at the data, what you will see is that growth continues to accelerate throughout the whole period. And throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, the per capita GDP growth rate remained stable at around 0.02% annually, so almost no growth. Starting in the 19th century with the industrial revolution, the compound annual growth rate was 0.66%, and at that rate, in order to double per capita GDP, you would need some 107 years. Now, if you look at the period between the year 1900 and the year 1950, the growth rate accelerated to 1.66% a year, so you no longer need 107 years to double per capita GDP, but 66%. And if you take the period between 1950 and the year 2000, you will see that the growth rate was 2.1%. Again, the CAGR, which would mean that in only 33 years, we could double the world's per capita GDP. This trend, far from stopping, remains well alive today. If we take the period between the year 2000 and 2023, the growth rate again accelerated to 3% a year, which means that we could double world per capita GDP in just 23 years. That said, when you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 and until today, what you will see is that after the industrial revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times, which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty. We should remember that by the year 1800, about 95% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty and that figure dropped to 5% by the year 2020 prior to the pandemic. The conclusion is obvious. Far from being the cause of our problems, free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty, and extreme poverty across our planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable. Therefore, since there is no doubt that free enterprise capitalism is superior in productive terms, the left wing doctor has attacked capitalism alleging matters of morality, saying, that's what the detectors claim, that it's unjust. They say that capitalism is evil because it's individualistic and that collectivism is good because it's altruistic, of course, with the money of others. So they therefore advocate for social justice. But this concept, which in the developed world became fashionable in recent times, in my country has been a constant in political discourse for over 80 years. The problem is that social justice is not just and it doesn't contribute either to the general well-being. Quite on the contrary, it's an intrinsically unfair idea because it's violent. It's unjust because the state is financed through tax and taxes are collected coercively. Or can anyone of us say that they voluntarily pay taxes, which means that the state is financed through coercion and that the higher the tax burden, the higher the coercion and the lower the freedom. Those who promote social justice, the advocates start with the idea that the whole economy is a pie that can be shared differently. But that pie is not a given. It's wealth that is generated in what Israel Kirzner, for instance, calls a market discovery process. If the goods or services offered by a business are not wanted, the business will fail unless it adapts to what the market is demanding. If they make a good quality product at an attractive price, they will do well and produce more. So the market is a discovery process in which the capitalists will find the right path as they move forward. But if the state punishes capitalists when they're successful and gets in the way of the discovery process, they will destroy their incentives and the consequences that they will produce less, the pie will be smaller and this will harm society as a whole. Collectiveism by inhibiting these discovery processes and hindering the appropriation of discoveries ends up binding the hands of entrepreneurs and prevents them from offering better goods and services at a better price. So how come that academia, international organizations, economic theory and politics demonize an economic system that has not only lifted out of extreme poverty, 90% of the world's population but has continued to do this faster and faster and this is morally superior and just. Thanks to free trade capitalism, it is to be seen that the world is now living its best moment. Never in all of mankind's or humanities history has there been a time of more prosperity than today. This is true for all. The world of today has more freedom, is richer, is more peaceful and prosperous. And this is particularly true for countries that have more freedom and have economic freedom and respect the property rights of individuals because countries that have more freedom are 12 times richer than those that are repressed and the lowest decile in terms of distribution in free countries are better off than 90% of the population of repressed countries and poverty is 25 times lower and extreme poverty is 50 times lower and citizens in free countries live 25% longer than citizens in repressed countries. Now, what is it that we mean when we talk about libertarianism? And let me quote the words of the greatest authority on freedom in Argentina, Professor Alberto Benegas Lech Jr., who says that libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others based on the principle of non-aggression in defense of the right to life, liberty and property. It's fundamental institutions being private property, markets free from state intervention, free competition, the division of labor and social cooperation as part of which success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price. In other words, capitalists, successful business people are social benefactors who far from appropriating the wealth of others contribute to the general well-being. Ultimately, a successful entrepreneur is a hero. And this is the model that we are advocating for the Argentina of the future, a model based on the fundamental principles of libertarianism, the defense of life, of freedom and of property. Now, if free enterprise capitalism and economic freedom have proven to be extraordinary instruments to end poverty in the world, and we are now at the best time in the history of humanity, it is worth asking why I say that the West is in danger. And I say this precisely because in those of our countries that should defend the values of the free market, private property and the other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political and economic establishment, some due to mistakes in the theoretical framework and others due to a greed for power are undermining the foundations of libertarianism, opening up the doors to socialism and potentially condemning us to poverty, misery, and stagnation. It should never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that has failed in all countries where it's been tried out. It's been a failure economically, socially, culturally, and it also murdered over 100 million human beings. The essential problem the West today is not just that we need to come to grips with those who even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the overwhelming empirical evidence continue to advocate for impoverishing socialism. But there's also all leaders, thinkers, and academics who are relying on a misguided theoretical framework, undermine the fundamentals of the system that has given us the greatest expansion of wealth and prosperity in our history. The theoretical framework to which I refer is that of neoclassical economic theory which designs a set of instruments that unwillingly or without meaning to ends up serving the intervention by the state's socialism and social degradation. The problem with neoclassicals is that the model they fell in love with does not map reality. So they put down their mistakes to supposed market failures rather than reviewing the premises of the model. On the pretext of a supposed market failure, regulations are introduced which only create distortions in the price system, prevent economic calculus, and therefore also prevent saving, investment, and growth. This problem lies mainly in the fact that not even supposedly libertarian economists understand what the market is, because if they did understand, it would quickly be seen that it's impossible for there to be something along the lines of market failures. The market is not a mere graph describing a curve of supply and demand. The market is a mechanism of social cooperation where you voluntarily exchange ownership rights. Therefore, based on this definition, talking about a market failure is an oxymoron. Ah, no market failures. If transactions are voluntary, the only context in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion. And the only one that is able to coerce generally is the state which holds a monopoly on violence. Consequently, if someone considers that there is a market failure, I would suggest that they check to see if the state intervention involved, and if they find that that's not the case, I would suggest that they check again because obviously there's a mistake. Market failures do not exist. An example of these so-called market failures described by the neoclassicals are the concentrated structures of the economy. However, without increasing returns to scale functions whose counterpart are the concentrated structures of the economy, we couldn't possibly explain economic growth since the year 1800 until today. Isn't this interesting? Since the year 1800 onwards with population multiplying by eight or nine times per capita GDP grow by over 15 times. So there are growing returns in which took extreme poverty from 95% to 5%. However, the presence of growing returns involves concentrated structures, what we would call a monopoly. How come then that something that has generated so much well-being for the neoclassical theory is a market failure? Neoclassical economists think outside of the box. When the model fails, you shouldn't get angry with reality, but rather with the model and change it. The dilemma faced by the neoclassical model is that they say they wish to perfect the functioning of the market by attacking what they consider to be failures, but in so doing, they don't just open up the doors to socialism, but also go against economic growth. An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns automatically would destroy economic growth. In other words, whatever you want to correct a supposed market failure inexibly as a result of not knowing what the market is or as a result of having fallen in love with a failed model, you are opening up the doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty. However, faced with the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful and the empirical evidence that it has failed couldn't have been otherwise. The solution to be proposed by collectivists is not greater freedom, but rather greater regulation, which creates a downward spiral of regulations until we're all poorer and the life of all of us depends on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office. Given the dismal failure of collectivist models and the undeniable advances in the free world, socialists were forced to change their agenda. They left behind the class struggle based on the economic system and replaced this with other supposed social conflicts which are just as harmful to life as a community and to economic growth. The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between man and woman. Libertarianism already provides for equality of these sexes. The cornerstone of our creed says that all humans are created equal, that we all have the same unalienable rights granted by the creator, including life, freedom and ownership. All that this radical feminism agenda has led to is greater state intervention to hinder the economic process, giving a job to bureaucrats who have not contributed anything to society. Examples, ministries of women or international organizations devoted to promoting this agenda. Another conflict presented by socialists is that of humans against nature, claiming that we human beings damage the planet which should be protected at all costs, even going as far as advocating for population control mechanisms or the bloody abortion agenda. Unfortunately, these harmful ideas have taken a strong hold in our society. Neo-Marxists have managed to co-op the common sense of the Western world and this they have achieved by appropriating the media, culture, universities and also international organizations. The latter case is the most serious one probably because these are institutions that have enormous influence on political and economic decisions of the countries that make up the multilateral organizations. Fortunately, there's more and more of us who are daring to make our voices heard because we see that if we don't truly and decisively fight against these ideas, the only possible fate is for us to have increasing levels of state regulation, socialism, poverty and less freedom and therefore will be having worse standards of living. The West has unfortunately already started to go along this path. I know too many, it may sound ridiculous to suggest that the West has turned to socialism but it's only ridiculous if you only limit yourself to the traditional economic definition of socialism which says that it's an economic system where the state owns the means of production. This definition in my view should be updated in the light of current circumstances. Today, states don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals with tools such as printing money, debt, subsidies, controlling the interest rate, price controls and regulations to correct the so-called market failures. They can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals. This is how we come to the point where by using different names or guises, a good deal of the generally accepted political offers in most Western countries are collectivist variants, whether they proclaim to be openly communist, fascist, Nazis, socialists, social democrats, nationalists, socialist, democrat Christians and democrats, neo-Kangians, progressive, populist, nationalist or globalists. At bottom, there are no major differences. They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals. They all defend a model contrary to that one which led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history. We have come here today to invite the rest of the countries in the Western world to get back on the path of prosperity, economic freedom, limited government and unlimited respect for private property, essential elements for economic growth. And the impoverishment produced by collectivism is no fantasy nor is it an inescapable fate. But it's a reality that we Argentines know very well. We have lived through this, we have been through this because as I said earlier, ever since we decided to abandon the model of freedom that had made us rich, we have been caught up in a downward spiral, a spiral of which we are poorer and poorer day by day. So this is something we have lived through and we are here to warn you about what can happen if the countries in the Western world that became rich through the model of freedom stay on this path of servitude. The case of Argentina is an empirical demonstration that no matter how rich you may be or how much you may have in terms of natural resources or how skilled your population may be or educated or how many bars of gold you may have in the central bank, if measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning markets, free competition, free price systems, if you hinder trade, if you attack private property, the only possible fate is poverty. Therefore, in concluding, I would like to leave a message for all business people here and for those who are not here in person but are following from around the world. Do not be intimidated either by the political cast or by parasites who live off the state. Do not surrender to a political class that only wants to stay in power and retain its privileges. You are social benefactors. You're heroes. You're the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we've ever seen. Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral. If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself.  Thank you very much and long live freedom. Dammit.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we are going to discuss the following question and the question says that transform the equation x square plus y square plus 4x minus 6y minus 51 is equal to 0 when the axes are translated to the new origin which coordinates minus 2, 3 also draw its curve in the new axes. Before starting the solution of this question, we should know our result. If the coordinates of the origin O' of the translated system are hk related to the original system then the new and the old coordinates are related using the following result and that is x is equal to x' plus h and y is equal to y' plus k. Using this result, we can obtain the equation of the conic in the original as well as translated axes. With this key idea we shall move on to the solution. In this question we have to transform the equation that is x square plus y square plus 4x minus 6y minus 51 is equal to 0 when the axes are translated to the new origin which coordinates minus 2, 3. Now see that here we are given the equation in x and y variables that is curve is in the original coordinate axes with origin at 0, 0 and we have to find the transformed equation when the axes are translated to minus 2, 3 that is now we will find the equation in x' y' axes that is in this question we have to rewrite the given equation replacing old coordinates that is x and y variables with the new coordinates that is x' y' variables. So here the ordered pair hk will be given by the ordered pair minus 2, 3 which implies that h is equal to minus 2 and k is equal to 3. Now to transform it in x' y' axes we use the result given in the key idea that is x is equal to x' plus h and y is equal to y' plus k. Now we put the values of h and k in these equations and we get x is equal to x' plus or minus 2 that is equal to x' minus 2 and y is equal to y' plus 3. Now we put these values of x and y in the given equation we get x square that is x' minus 2 whole square plus y square that is y' plus 3 whole square plus 4 into x that is 4 into x' minus 2 the whole minus 6 into y that is 6 into y prime plus 3 the whole minus 51 is equal to 0. Now we simplify this equation and we get now here we have x' minus 2 whole square here we will apply the formula that is a minus b whole square is equal to a square minus 2ab plus b square so here we have x' square minus 4x prime plus 4 plus now here we have y prime plus 3 whole square and here we will apply the formula a plus b whole square which is equal to a square plus 2ab plus b square so here we will write y prime square plus 6y prime plus 9 plus 4 into x prime that is 4x prime plus 4 into minus 2 that is minus 8 now minus 6 into y prime will be minus 6y prime minus 6 into 3 will be minus 18 minus 51 is equal to 0. Now combining the like terms here we get x prime square plus y prime square plus 4x prime minus 4x prime the whole plus 6y prime minus 6y prime the whole plus 4 plus 9 minus 8 minus 18 minus 51 is equal to 0 now we cancel the terms and here we get x prime square plus y prime square now solving this we get minus 64 is equal to 0 this implies that x prime square plus y prime square is equal to 64 and this is the equation of the circle with radius 8 as we can write this equation as x prime square plus y prime square is equal to 8 square now we will draw the curve of the circle in new axis first we draw the original coordinate axis with origin O now new origin is given to be the ordered pair minus 2 3 so we translate the origin 2 units left and 3 units up at this point we draw the new coordinate axis O prime X prime and O prime Y prime here we name this new origin as O prime with coordinates minus 2 3 now this is the required curve of the equation x prime square plus y prime square is equal to 64 thus we have transformed the given equation into this equation when the axis are translated to the new origin with coordinates minus 2 3 and this is the required curve in the new axis this completes our session hope you enjoyed this session


Good morning everyone and it's great to see so many people back in the room today. I think we can all agree that we had a fantastic day yesterday with two very motivating and insightful keynote speeches from from the Minister for Defence and the Shadow Foreign Minister and a very enlightening and eye-opening keynote address from Professor Valerie Hudson. We spent a lot of time yesterday talking about why it's important for women to be for the issue of gender equality and women to be looked at through the prism of security to look at women as enablers and capability enhancers. The message that the involvement of women in national security and thinking about gender equality in that space should be business as usual. The importance of the engagement and involvement of women in defence and cyber industry was touched on and will be expanded upon today. So there were a lot of messages a lot of data and analysis presented yesterday about why women in national security really matter. We also talked about how the law has sometimes tended to lag behind in terms of the protection of women in armed conflict and sexual and gender-based violence. So there was a lot of framing in a sense of what we will be doing today and today we'll be talking more but not exclusively about how we include women more in the space of national security, how we increase the participation and leadership levels of women in the national security field across public sector, private sector, academia, non-government organisations across the wide spread of the national security community as it were. We will shortly be having the Chief of Defence force deliver a keynote address but before that just touching upon what we'll be going through today we'll be looking to draw on best practice findings from across a range of sectors about how you enhance women's participation and leadership and we've got some wonderful presenters from the Australian Public Service Commission from Chief Executive Women and the CEO of Tullis and I particularly want to thank Mr Chris Jenkins from Tullis for being here and giving up two days of his time and also note that that was our sole defence industry sponsor for this conference and they got on board early and they were the first to sign up so thank you Chris very much for that and thank you also to all of our sponsors that we've mentioned. After that we have some mentoring type sessions and chats involving senior women in national security because there's a lot of young and mid-career professional women in this room today and at the conference who I think will benefit and be looking for insights from senior women who've succeeded in national security about some of the tools that they have adopted some of the challenges that they've faced and some of their strategies and ideas in this area and we'll be concluding with a session involving the media and our wonderful media partners Fairfax where we'll be talking about media representations of women with a tendency to focus for example on women as victims rather than enablers is doing us a good service and also how we can frame the future narrative around the involvement of women in national security and the connection between women and national security. So there's some of the things that we'll be talking about today and I hope you will all be able to stay until the end of the session. I also wanted to take this opportunity to thank my fellow team members for this conference Sharon Dean, Chris Farnham, Mona Desi and all the others who've worked so closely with Rory and I on convening this conference. It's been a fantastic team effort and thank you all for your efforts. So now that brings me to the end of my introductions and I would like to invite Professor Helen Sullivan who is the director of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU and is also a keen advocate on gender issues to introduce the Chief of Defence Force before his keynote address. Thank you. Thanks Marina and good morning to you all. It's a real pleasure to be here and to see so much and to feel so much enthusiasm after yesterday. I'm the director of the Crawford School of Public Policy and we work very closely with the National Security College and has already been said I'm one of those people who is absolutely committed to making sure that we have much better representation of women in all areas of life and if any of you are particularly interested in thinking about how we might get more women into politics I'd be very keen to talk to you about a programme that I developed elsewhere because I think it's absolutely vital that we have women leaders in all of these institutions but we also need more women in more places of elected power so that's my sales pitch for this morning and I'm very happy to talk to anybody about that but my job here today is to introduce our Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC and I think our Chief Marshal has a pretty tough gig this morning. One of the things that we talked about yesterday was where are the men?  We had amazing women leaders speaking yesterday but one of their recurrent themes was where are the men and why aren't they hearing the numbers that you perhaps might expect in a conference about peace and security?  So no pressure but I think one of the things we're really keen to do today and I've been overhearing people talking and it seems to be so much appetite now not just for well we understand the issues we understand why we are where we are what we want to know is what can we do about it? How do we go forward? How do we put into place some of the things that we've been talking about that are so sorely needed and I'm absolutely sure that the Chief Marshal will have some great ideas about that and more than just great ideas. One of the things that is extremely noteworthy about the Chief Marshal is that he has established his own women peace and security unit as part of the national action planning process and so if people are particularly interested in how you might do that and what that means and what that involves I'm sure he would be happy to take questions. You have his bio in the pack. One of the things that it's always fascinating for non experts like me to review in bios like this is just how many places people have worked, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force. It's everywhere. He's incredibly distinguished. But what's also fascinating about this bio is that he has spent time studying to be a leader. He's a graduate of the Harvard Business School Advanced Management Programme. He's an Australian Institute of Companies Directors graduate as well as the RAF Command and Staff course where he was awarded the Chief of Staff's Prize for Professional Excellence. So we have somebody who is not just extinguished in his professional field but also is incredibly well credentialed as a leader and I'm sure he will give a fascinating keynote. So please join me in welcoming the Chief Marshal. Thank you Helen and it's privileged to be here today and I agree with you. Actually, where are the men? That's exactly where this should be targeted, not just necessarily towards women. It should be the broader community and I'll take that one away. Any of my conferences I always have to go out and make sure we specify to the supervisors and leaders the exact people that we need at these sorts of conferences to get the broader message out and get the education piece of it going. So ladies and gentlemen, it is good to be here this morning and it's pleasing to see so many participants here today. I had a look at the list of all the representatives and I have to say it's an impressive array of people from an impressive number of agencies and a broad number of nations around the world and I extend a warm welcome to you all. I think this is very, very important and what we're discussing here today has good, strong implications for the way we do business into the future. Like many nations, Australia has a long, proud military history stretching over more than a century, many years more than a century and women have always formed an integral part of that story, although the story hasn't always been well told. During World War I, around 3,000 civilian nurses volunteered for active service, joining 2,000 enlisted members of the Australian Army Nursing Service already in uniform. They worked in clearing stations close to the front line in Britain, France and Belgium as well as hospitals in the Middle East and India and on allied hospital ships and trains. Sadly, 25 Australian women died in service during World War I. Many more were awarded military honours, including eight women who received the military medal for bravery for their actions during the conflict. Our diggers are renowned for their courage and ingenuity and our nurses were no different, however their story wasn't told. As an example, during heavy artillery shelling in France, Sister Alicia Kelly shielded her patients' heads with enamel bedpans and basins. While in Antwerp, Sister Claire Trestrail and her colleagues carried 130 badly wounded patients one by one to the cave-like cellar hidden beneath the basement of a concert hall in the centre of the city, flagging down a British ammunition bus the following morning to escape with their patients to safety. In World War II, additional opportunities opened to women who wanted to contribute to the nation's war effort. The Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Royal Australian Navy Service and the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force all formed in 1941. Accepting women into non-medical military roles increased the number of men available for front-line duties. Women continued to serve predominantly in medical or support roles during the Vietnam War and the three women's service organisations were made separate entities until the early 1980s, with each being ensured into the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force. Now when I look at the Australian Defence Force today, I am encouraged by how far we've come, even over the course of my own military career. Today, in 2017, no job is off limits to women. We have female personnel performing critical roles on all our current operations and there are an increasing number of female commanders leading at all levels across the organisation. In fact, I was privileged to meet one of them in Prosopine on Monday, Lieutenant Colonel Jen Harris, who some here might know, who's currently commanding number three combat engineering regiment and is doing a magnificent job leading the main ADF engineering response to Cyclone Debbie in Northern Queensland. She's a very talented officer. I know the Defence Minister spoke at length yesterday about Australia's commitment to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and our recognition that men and women experience conflict and disaster quite differently. So this morning I'd like to focus on two contemporary tactical level experiences where applying the principles outlined in UNSCR 1325 has enhanced our operational effectiveness and had significant strategic benefit. The first is from combat operations in Afghanistan and the second from Fiji last year when helping that nation respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Winston. At the height of combat operations in Afghanistan in 2009, the International Security Assistance Force began to recognise the important role and influence of women in the Afghan social hierarchy. The women who gathered regularly at the community well to collect water and gather firewood conveyed and received the local news which also made them attentive observers and in a military sense a useful source of intelligence. However, cultural practices meant that male dominated security forces were prohibited from engaging with the female population and this valuable source of information remained inaccessible. In an effort to address the information gap and bridge the cultural divide, ISAF, including Australian personnel based in Orozgun province, formed female engagement teams or FETs. Based largely around the education and healthcare, the female engagement teams were able to interact with the Afghan women in a manner not previously available to security forces. Female engagement was not without its challenges though, but the benefits were profound. Earning their trust gave the Afghan women confidence to openly discuss concerns for their families, community issues that they were facing and other problems arising in their villages. In return, the Australian women were able to gain valuable insights on local personalities and economics, to understand community grievances and gather critical intelligence on enemy activity. As an aside, the Pashtun men came to see the female military personnel as a type of hybrid gender. Women in the security forces were afforded the same respect shown to their male colleagues, yet they were still permitted to interact with local women and afforded access to the family home. So what did this experience in Afghanistan teach us? Women in Afghan communities were where we operated consistently demonstrated their ability to read the atmospherics and provide a valuable source of information that enhanced their overall situational awareness. In fact, I remember talking to people that had been a part of the Battle of Deripet in Tangy Valley, and it was a significant battle for Australian forces. But the one thing that they mentioned to me as they were walking through the village was the fact that the atmospherics from the women and the children was something different that they hadn't experienced before. And so by the time they got to the end of that village, they knew they were in for a fight. Just by watching the women and the way they were reacting and the influence that they were having on the other community within the village. However, the women who formed our female engagement teams performed this task in addition to their primary duties. That made it difficult for them. It was not a dedicated role. Female engagement was more opportunistic than deliberate, and activities were conducted around a unit's operational tempo and tasking. Had we seen female engagement as a necessary part of operations and included in our planning up front, Miwai will have seen greater benefit sooner. In fact, even more basic than that, if I look at it now, if our ADF units had had more women in them in the first place, we wouldn't have needed to form female engagement teams. Our units would have just been structured to do this. The other major lesson arising from our experience in Afghanistan was the need for professional training to apply the four principles outlined in women, peace and security policy. That is to encourage participation of women at all levels, protection of women, prevention of violence against women and incorporating a gender perspective in policy and planning. Fast forward now, seven years to February last year when tropical cyclone Winston struck Fiji. At that time, organisationally, we felt we were better prepared to incorporate the gender perspectives into a major ADF operation. For the first time, two gender revisors were assigned to the task force deployed on Operation Fiji Assist. Lieutenant Commander Jackie Swinton embarked in HMAS Canberra and Major Joe Richards who was based on the ground in Surva. As with most humanitarian and disaster relief operations, Fiji Assist was stood up rapidly. The initial notice to move was issued around 8 a.m. on Sunday and we had the first deployment of ADF personnel on the ground in Fiji by 6 p.m. the next day. Like the evolving situation on the ground, our operational planning matured as Fiji Assist progressed and we worked closely with the Fijian authorities to access real-time information in order to best respond to the population's needs. Early on, Joint Task Force Commander Lieutenant Colonel Scott Hill recognised that as a very proud people, the Fijian men appeared reluctant to ask for assistance. In fact, I'd put it to you, probably no different to men in any community around the world. Now as a consequence, it was difficult to initially determine how best to help and where to best direct our resources. It became apparent that one of the best sources of information on where the help was most needed would come from the women who were, in military terms, the family logisticians. Lieutenant Colonel Hill did two things. First, he looked to women within his team, assessing their individual skills and the expertise each woman brought to the mission to determine how to capitalise on their talent in interacting with the community. Second, the task force actively sought our key women in high-profile positions within the local population to establish a rapport and open line of communication. This engagement ran across the full spectrum of the population, from the village matriarchs to those working in the Republic of Fiji military forces and the Fijian police. And with Major Joe Richards representing the ADF at the United Nations coordination meetings, which were happening quite frequently in Suva. The engagement strategy also extended beyond the ADF task force to non-government organisations and other Australian government agencies, all the way to the Australian High Commissioner and Fiji, Margaret Toomey, who is a great supporter of the ADF and how we operate. And if you ever want to see a very active Twitter page and Facebook page, get on Mark's Facebook page. By seeking out the female population, the task force working closely with the local authorities, gained access to tangible, accurate information about the community's needs. That insight proved to be a turning point for the mission. Where the task force had previously been working on assumptions early in the mission, this maturing local engagement allowed the task force to plan and make decisions based on the situation on the ground. Let me give you an example. The local women influenced the decision for ADF engineers and trades people to help local authorities rebuild a number of schools. Now, remember the context here. Tropical Cyclone Winston was a category five cyclone, the strongest known to have crossed land anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. Forty-four people were killed. Up to 350,000 people were directly affected, including around 55,000 people who lost their homes. In that context, rebuilding the local school may not have seen like a high priority, but the Fijian women highlighted the importance of getting the kids back to school. On an emotional level, it was in part about instilling a sense of normalcy after such a distressing event. But there are also significant practical aspects to this request. Getting the children back to school released the women from their caring responsibilities during the day and allow them to focus their time as well on attention to assisting in the recovery operation. So engaging women in all aspects of the recovery process was critical to the operational success of our close partnership with the Fijian authorities. Equally important, though, was ensuring the women remained engaged once the task force departed. Since our engagement in Fiji, the Australian High Commissioner and the Department of Foreign Affairs have put strategies in place to ensure Australia sustains more active engagement with the Fijian women, providing supports for education and church programs, while the Fijian Australian military to military links that flourished during the operation have also proven enduring. And in fact, last month, the Australian Defence Force delivered 10 Bushmasters to the Republic of Fijian military forces, observers deployed on UN peacekeeping missions in the Golan Heights in Syria. That agreement underpinned by the friendship and goodwill established through our cooperation during Operation Fiji Assist. I'd also like to acknowledge one of the sponsors here today, Chris and his team at TALAS, who made that happen in very, very, very short time, working in cooperation with us and with the Fijian military. Thank you, Chris. Perhaps the greatest lesson arising from Fiji Assist is for future task force commanders to actively seek to establish a specific line of communication with local female population as a priority. The first few days of our operations in Fiji involved gaining the best on-ground situational awareness that we could. We could have expedited this if we had made a more concerted effort to engage local women on the ground from the onset. The principles demonstrated from our interaction with the female population in Fiji are indicative of the way diversity improves our capability. Women in the communities where we operate consistently demonstrate their ability to read the situation and provide a valuable source of information and enhanced situational awareness. The same is true when we take that lesson and put it into the Australian Defence Force. Now, I'm fully aware of the comments that arise from time to time about this being a great time to be a woman in the ADF. I would like to add to that. I think it's a great time to be in the ADF overall. Now, I know some of you here today are convinced about our drive toward increasing gender diversity. And I thank you for that. And it's true that many women in our organization and indeed, probably some here in the audience today have succeeded despite the previous male bias that existed in our organization. But the fact is diversity improves capability. We see it on operations and we see it within the organization every day. A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm. Assess the risks, see them from a different perspective and develop creative solutions. Now, I've seen this on my operations, but I also see it every day in my own office at Russell. Right now, 57% of my personal staff are women. This is no mistake. In fact, I hand choose everyone for that office. They are a diverse and extremely capable group of non-commissioned and commissioned military personnel from the three services as well as a number of talented APS staff. Collectively, they represent a good cross-section of the Defence Organization in both a professional and a personal sense. From corporal to colonel and equivalent, each person brings their own view of the organization to the table. They are the first to tell me how it really is and their candour on behalf of their peers and the networks that they represent. Combined with the mixture of unique insights helps me see issues from a different point of view. And in my experience, our differences make a stronger team. A far stronger team. More broadly, I'm sure you've seen all the statistics and they would have been discussed over the last day and will be discussed today. Women make up 51% of the Australian population and more than 40% of the Defence Public Service workforce. Yet female members account for just 16.1% of the ADF population. It is growing. But we're often criticised for the relatively small number of women in senior leadership positions in the Australian Defence Force. However, that criticism ignores the fact that it takes time to grow, a senior officer, with the experience that we need. And I'm confident female representation will increase proportionately over time. But in my view, we cannot claim we're recruiting the best if we are only choosing from half the population right back at the start of our recruiting process. While there are more than 500 additional women serving in the ADF today, then there were more than a year ago, a year ago, if we want to attract and retain the top talent, we have to change the way we do business. We need to continue to drive our unacceptable behaviour. We must empower people to adopt flexible working arrangements where appropriate, and we must consider their family needs. And importantly, we must ensure we have a common understanding about what a diverse, inclusive and capable ADF looks like, and importantly, how we need to achieve it. As an example, since 2012, my Gender Equality Advisory Board has helped shaped and drive the strategic direction of our gender equality priorities in the context of our broader cultural reform program. Now, while this board includes defence members, its real benefit to me are a number of external members who bring experience and expertise from other large public and private sector organisations. Since it was established by my predecessor, David Hurley, the board has provided advice on a range of policies and processes to better support women through a long and rewarding military career. And significant component includes expanding our approach to flexible work arrangements for all defence personnel. Working with the board, we've also taken a detailed look at the way women experience the recruiting process, leading to significant changes in the way we enlist and appoint female candidates. In fact, in reality, the look that they had at the recruiting process helped us out for both male and female applicants looking to join the Defence Force and has helped us shape the cultural reform program currently going on in Defence Force recruiting. It's an important step in reaching the recruiting targets we've set for ourselves. Navy and Air Force are working towards a 25% female workforce by 2023, while Army has set its sights in achieving 15% male participation within the next six years. Now, unfortunately, the notions of targets is not well understood. It's often misinterpreted as a counter-demerate-based recruiting recruitment or promotion. This is wrong. And I'm happy to discuss the reasons behind this and what we are doing with targets in the question and answer, if anyone would like to talk more about that. Selection should always be based on the best person for the job. But the idea of increasing diversity without introducing a target is like saying, hmm, I want to be an Olympic champion, but I'm not going to set any goals on the way. It's an admirable ambition, but you'll never achieve it if you don't have a plan with strategic milestones to accomplish it along the way. In the same way, we'll never reach our goal to increase the number of women in the ADF if we don't set ourselves realistic targets and put programs in place to help achieve them and then analyze those programs to see if they're effective, if they are, continue and invest if they're not, look at other programs that might be successful. As a part of our efforts to increase the number of women in the ADF, each of the services has implemented a range of mentoring and leadership programs designed to develop confidence and professional professional skills in our female workforce. Navy is focused on mentoring women in fields of engineering and project management. Army is working to develop future leaders and Air Force has established a network to support women during what is seen as a non-traditional role. Diversifying our demographic base and increasing the number of women in the ADF correlates directly to what we are trying to achieve in support of UNSCR 1325. Our goal must be to reach the point where applying the principles outlined in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda is no longer considered special. It needs to be accepted not as an adjunct duty but as a primary element of all our operations. Based on our valuable experiences in Afghanistan and the critical contribution applying the gender perspective during Fiji Assist, the Chief of Joint Operations has directed that at least one gender advisor must be deployed on all future humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. And we're taking steps to ensure that women, peace and security principles are incorporated into all future operations. In order to achieve this and in turn enhance our overall capability, we're currently developing Australia's first gender advisor training course and we'll contribute to a new comprehensive study on contribution of women in Australia to peace and security operations. Now these are just a number of the many initiatives in train at the moment. There are many more across the Australian Defence Force. Importantly, they will play a partner's continuing to evolve as a capable and modern fighting force. So ladies and gentlemen, the Australian Defence Force has come a long way since the days of World War I where women were restricted to only medical or support roles. While we've done much, there is still work ahead of us to ensure the gender perspective is embedded in everything that we do and only then will we be able to fully maximise our operational effectiveness. Thank you very much. I'm throwing a lot of questions but I just wanted to start by picking up on a point almost where you left which was about moving from these initiatives being specialist things into just part of what we do every day. And I was wondering about that in the context of the Afghanistan experience you talked about and this idea of women officers being seen as a hybrid gender, able to traverse the public and private spaces. And that seems to me to be a great specialist skill in the sense of having that capacity. But how do you ensure that that doesn't become just another way in which women then become sort of cast in that mould that that's what women do. Women perform that kind of role. So how do you manage that balance of recognising that through you improve capability overall through diversity but without pigeonholing women into men into particular roles? So if I go to the point of the discussion or the point I was trying to make there is if our units are structured such that we have better diversity in the units you're not pigeonholing people into these particular jobs just by their work as they move out into the field. You have a unit that's structured so that you can engage the men and women and the children in the communities and without specifically setting up a unit to be able to do that. So it's actually the opposite of pigeonholing. It's just using the resources you have that have a better diversity in there to be able to do the job. And the Fiji experience was fascinating also in the sense of the way in which you were thinking actively about how do we do things differently? How do we understand? For example, the point you made about schools being a priority when perhaps that wouldn't have seemed obvious. And you then talked about the way in which strategies and policies are being developed. At what point does the experience at the front line, if you like, feed up into those strategies and policies which can sometimes appear to be very much at the top-down level? So how do you draw on those kinds of experiences to inform practice more widely? So our previous experiences in the field led to us developing the policies as part of the National Action Plan. And if I pray to Orchard's here today who's my director in that area, before him, and note that's a man in the job, before him was Jenny Whitwer who's currently over in the UN now on post over there. And so our implementation of the National Action Plan and developing doctrine and policies came out of the work that Jenny Whitwer had started and Brad had worked very closely with her and now Brad is pushing on with as well. And so we developed the policy, the doctrine and that flowed down. My directives to Commander June operations to include gender advisors and operations, him pushing that out. And then in the planning at the highest level, then flowing that down into the organization and then down into the operation. Then on the ground in the operation, taking the lessons that we're learning out of that and moving that back in and adjusting the policy, adjusting the doctrine as we go. For Fiji Assist, it was a part of a whole government approach to the response in Fiji, working closely with the Fiji and authorities. There was another key member and I mentioned her name, Mark Turmy, who's the ambassador on the ground in Fiji and very active in the women, peace and security space. And in fact, we happened to be on the ground, on HMAS Canberra, I guess that's on the water, on HMAS Canberra, on International Women's Day. And so Mark made a point of making sure that we enhanced knowledge of that within the Fijian community, with their authorities and helping leverage that day to help educate a more broader community than you would normally have been able to do. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I can't hog you all to myself. There's a hand gone up over there. John Blackson, the acting head of the Strategic and Defence Study Centre, great to be here, CDF, thank you for that excellent presentation. It strikes me that one of the reasons why women have historically not been able to get ahead in the military is that some of the key combat-related roles have been restricted to them. How much progress have we made? How much progress is left to be made? And following on from that, when do you think we might see our first female service chief? I can't make a prediction. Okay, you hit it on the head and I talked about you've got to be able to develop your senior leaders and you're right, simply by the nature of the operation that we do, leadership, the highest level leadership tends to come out of the war-fighting areas or in that area. Opening up all areas to women now means that we will grow people through the organisation. The area that is leading the most, I'd say, is Navy. We have some very talented senior Navy females who have commanded ships, they've commanded on operations and so without making a prediction about where this might go, you can get an idea of where I'm thinking. The other two services are behind in that area, but we're growing people with the appropriate experience, or women with the appropriate experience through those roles and you'll see that come out. But a generational change takes a generation and so if you rush it, you sometimes force people into a point of failure simply not because they're not capable of doing it, they just don't have the experience. So you've got to watch that as you're looking to progress anyone through the organisation. But we will get there, I have no doubt. So keep your eyes on the Navy, it seems to be there. Sorry, Air Force and sorry. Well, competition's not a bad thing. Who'd like to ask the next question? Just over, right over here. Hi, my name's Lauren Dancer and I work with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I was really interested to hear your presentation, thank you very much, and particularly interested to hear that the ADF looked at the experiences of women during the recruitment process and has made a number of changes to its recruitment processes. Could you tell us a little bit more about that, what kind of lessons were learned and what kind of changes were made? Yeah, so we had been looking at recruiting and we'd been assessing recruiting for a long time, but with the review we did a couple of years ago, what I did, I have a gender advisor, it was Julie McKay for those who know Julie, and those who know Julie know she's not backwards in coming forwards with information and advice. And it's all good advice. And so when we're sitting around with the Gender Equality Advisory Board, we were talking about recruiting and we all get the feedback. I mean, I can't sit on an airplane next to someone and it's not their son or daughter trying to join the Defense Force and there are some problems that's happened. And so we decided to have a review of the recruiting process from a slightly different perspective, which was the gender perspective. And so Julie went into some of the recruiting centers and had a good look around and I won't tell stories out of school here, but the basic issue that we're having was there was an unconscious bias there, but it wasn't just across gender, it was across the board. And we decided out of that that we needed to be able to do something to not just look at the gender side of it, but more address it from a socioeconomic side and all that. And so that was a part of the cultural reform that we started to do in recruiting from a cultural point of view. Then we also had the targets that we had set for recruiting. The three service chiefs had looked at different programs for recruiting and then how that translated to the separation as well. And I'll give you an example of one that we did and we learned. It looked good, but when we assessed it, we realized it wasn't quite on the mark. And it was Army's one year recruitment. It was a try before you enlist type for the longer term approach. And we found in the first year of that Army recruiting statistics were up quite markedly so the input of women into the defense force had increased and it looked really good. Until a year later, we found that the separation rate went up by almost the same percent. And what we discovered was people joining the Army that would go through Kapuka, then they would go for their specialized training and they would be looking to go to the units at about the 12 month period. And so they had built a very close network of friends in that first year. And at the 12 month point, when we were asking them to make a decision to stay with us, we were splitting them all up and sending them off to different units. So we weren't giving them a chance to get into the camaraderie of a unit and the support basis of the unit that they would eventually be posted to. And so we've adjusted that timing now and I think it's currently a two year program. So they've got time to join, go through the initial training and then experience the unit and the support network there and then be in a position to make their decision. So that's the example of if you've got a program running, you've got to assess it, understand what it's giving you and what it's not and then adjust it. And so we do that across the board. The three services are looking at all those different implications of the programs that they have. I'm Maria Puls with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I want to thank you for an excellent presentation and outlining your gender strategy. Also to congratulate you on establishing the gender advisors course. I'd be interested to hear about who that will be targeted to. Will that be more foundation level or open to experienced officers? And just picking up on Professor Sullivan's point about there not being pigeonholed as a gender advisor role only for women. Will this be open to males and how will you incentivize this role and make it more of a career path so people are rewarded if they do take on gender advisor roles? Yeah, so it'll be for officers of experience at different levels. It will be based initially on the Swedish course, the NATO course, where we send people over. We actually send people over to lecture on that as well. And so while we're setting that up in Australia here and Brad will be running with that, Brad, whereabouts are you over there? So if you want more information, Brad will be able to give it to you. Sorry, mate. We've worked with the Swedish military and I've spoken to their Chief of Defence Force and so we'll be getting lecturers from them out to Australia as well because what I don't want to do is have a course that goes off on its own and we end up not keeping up with where we need to with this. I want to stay close to the link with NATO. But it would be open to non-military as well. So foreign affairs, if you're looking from a perspective that you might deploy in some of these operations from a foreign affairs perspective, I'm quite happy to open it up for you as well. And so happy for Francis to talk to me about that. And we'll learn as we do this. Gender advisors don't have to be female. In fact, in many cases, a male gender advisor has more impact in some of the units than simply because of the structure that we have. And so it doesn't matter if it's male or female. In fact, I want a balance of gender advisors across the organisation. Valerie Hudson, currently on a Fulbright at Australian National University. And I understand that the Australian National Action Plan is expiring in 2018 and there'll be a new effort to put in place a revised national action plan. What would you personally like to see in terms of changes to Australia's national action plan? So the first thing I'd like to see is an assessment of where we are now based on where the action plan set the goals. Because I think if we understand where we've got to with the goals that were set, then we'll be able to set achievable goals into the future. It'll be no use closing out that plan and coming up with a new plan if we've still haven't achieved some of the goals that we need. And so Brad will be engaged on my behalf in the discussions on that as it develops. As for us, we will continue to develop where we need to go for gender diversity. Still assessing the programs that we have. Are they helping us meet the targets that we need? Engaging with the community. We do a lot of work with civil society and all that. So we won't hunker down as a defence force and keep this internal. What we learn is useful for the broader community and what the broader community learns is useful for us. One of the points that Valerie made yesterday in her contributions about the US was the speed with which gains that have been made can be taken away, policies can just be moved. And how destabilising that is and what a shock that can be. We talked a little bit about the way in which you might entrench I think was the word that was used, these kinds of progress. And I just wonder, you've talked a bit about culture and changing cultures. What's your sense of how embedded these kinds of changes are? And to what extent might a new administration in Australia just pull all of that away? So if I go to a new administration first, this is not about politics, it's about capability. So the government was to change its views or whatever. When I go, that doesn't affect where we need to go. This is about our capability and being the best defence force that we can be. If I look at it from me down, this isn't a one-person show here. I'll go down through the service chiefs who are fully committed to this. It's their programs at the moment. One of those service chiefs will replace me into the future. The deputy chiefs coming through are fully on board and as you flow down through the organisation, the support is there to do it. The cultural change, the overall cultural change in the Australian Defence Force at the moment is a long-term program. We're coming to the end of the first five years, which was the pathway to change. We've been working with the broader Australian Defence Force down through the organisation. We've probably had touch contact with over 50% of the Defence Force on where we need to take this in the future. And we'll be looking at the next five-year program coming on in the next couple of months. So this isn't a short term and then we'll pocket it away. This is all about being the best we can be and getting the most we can out of the people that we have. CDF Karen Radford from International Policy Division at Defence. We have with us for this conference 22 participants from the Pacific region that we're hosting here. All of those countries are considering integrating more women into their security or police forces and also integrating women into new areas such as supporting the Pacific patrol boats. What advice would you give the men and women who we have here today who are working on that? So it's not something that happens overnight. It's something that takes a concerted effort over a long period and it takes the leadership to do it. Whenever I speak with my counterparts, and in fact, tomorrow I'll be at the South Pacific Defence Minister's meeting, but the prelude to that is the Chiefs of Defence meeting and one of the topics for discussion will be women, peace and security. We are, I run a forum, a women's leadership forum here in Australia. We try and coordinate that with the South Pacific meeting as well. And then we work closely with nations like Papua New Guinea to host their own leaders' meetings that have aspects of this as well and support that to make sure we get a good diverse gender perspective at those conferences. So there's a lot that we do through our Defence Cooperation Programme and just through the general interaction that we have at the leadership level to try and sell this as to why you need to do this to have a highly capable Defence force. And I'm in the remarkable position. I've never, ever had to say this before, but we've only so far had one question from a man. So if there is a man in the room who would like to ask a question, then do, don't feel inhibited. Good morning. I'm Minda Cruz from the Philippines and thank you for the excellent presentation. Just one query. How do you keep the women in the organisation? What's the level of attrition? I'm asking because in the Philippines there has been keen interest for women to join the different services both in the civilian and the military forces. In the latest graduation of the Philippine Military Academy we had eight women graduates. It shows that there is an increasing trend for women to come in. While we pride ourselves of being a very open society and all, there seems still to be some challenges on how to get in this women and how to mainstream them like the questions of when do you bring them to combat? When will they get out from the usual functions of office work or military, I mean, or nursing or medical services? I think it would be great to learn from you on how we can improve this aspect of women in the defence forces. Thank you. Now that's a good question. If I talk about separation rates of women in the defence force and I don't have the exact stats in front of me, but it pretty much matches male separation rates. We've tracked where the peaks are and there's a peak, a separation rate peak at about the eight-year point and that's male and female. Then there's another peak a little bit later on at about the 15-year point. If we've got anyone from Perse here, I think that's about right, it's about the 14 or 15-year point which is slightly different to a male separation peak at that point. So we're analysing that and having a better understanding of what might be causing that. We've got a very good idea. A lot of it is just career opportunity points. But with women there is also the aspect there about setting up families and that as well. And so that goes to our flexible work programmes that we're putting in place, whether that's part-time opportunities for people or that's just the ability to leave a little bit earlier to get to schools or be able to support families in the day-to-day aspect of what we do. That's male and female. That's not just targeted in one particular area. In fact, I look at that as being family-friendly to be honest with you and that's what we need to be. I talk about the targets that we set because that's important. People look at targets as quotas. They're not quotas, they are targets. And we set targets to measure our programmes against and see if we're getting a return on that or not. And I'll give an example of one of the targets that we set and we look at. It's called proportionality. In the different services, some are more stricter than others. There are gates that you need to go through to be able to progress in your career. Traditionally, they are promotion courses. In the officer side of it, there's command and staff college and there's defence strategic study courses. They're the two big ones from a career perspective as John was alluding to to get to that high level. So the targets that we set are quite simple. If proportionately, there's 16% of the Australian Defence Force who are women, I would expect to see 16% of them on those courses. If air force is currently 20%, if the female participation rate in air force is 20%, I would expect to see 20% female in blue uniforms on those courses. Army currently runs, I think about 12.1, I expect to see that. Navy is running about 19.5, I'd expect to see that. And so just proportionality of making sure that you're getting the representation, at least that level of representation means that you're gonna grow the force properly into the future. So there's lots of simple things that you can use to track and make sure you're growing your force the best way that you can. I'm very conscious of time and I think we should stop. I hadn't realised where the time was going. So for that man who really did want to ask the question, you'll have to grab the Air Chief Marshal on his way out. John's on the air, he asked the question. I know, but usually we have 20 men and no women and I have to ask for women to ask questions and that didn't happen this time. But I'm sure there'll be others. Anyway, let's not make a big deal out of it. Air Chief Marshal, thank you so much for both a stimulating presentation but also participating so generously and with great candor in the question session. And this conference has really been all about having that conversation and moving it on and you've given us some really, really good insights into both how to do things but more importantly how to embed change over time. And I think we've all learnt an awful lot this morning. So thank you very much. Please join me. We're gonna appreciate it. Thank you so much.