Red tape in Army’s crosshairs

Army is taking aim at bureaucracy with a new program to strip administrative burdens away from soldiers and commanders to give them time back to focus on warfighting.

CAPTION: The RUTHLESS program aims to cut red tape and help restore accountability to frontline commanders. Story by Corporal Michael Rogers.

The program, Reducing Unnecessary Tasks to Help Lethality, Efficiency & Strategic Success (RUTHLESS), established by the Deputy Chief of Army, aims to cut red tape and help restore accountability to frontline commanders. 

It is led by Deputy Adjutant General – Army Colonel Nick de Bont, who said excessive policy and administration had gradually displaced commanders’ ability to assess, accept and manage risk.

“If we don’t focus on our core function – winning the land battle – then we’re potentially going to learn some really harsh lessons in the next war, and those lessons will cost troops’ lives,” Colonel de Bont said. 

“One area is our ability to understand and accept risk. There’s a view that risk management has been taken away from commanders, and policy and administration have replaced it. 

“By removing unnecessary tasks, we’re giving that authority back to commanders to help ready them for the future fight.”

The creation of the program was directed by Deputy Chief of Army Major General Chris Smith, who said many frustrating processes were self-imposed by well-meaning staff or commanders over time. 

“Much of the burden doesn’t come from the originating policy in a lot of cases,” he said.

“We are encouraging commanders to deviate from policy where doing so has a greater benefit, and where other less onerous mitigations can better deal with the risk. They merely need to seek their higher commander’s approval to do so.”

Since the program’s endorsement in August 2025, Colonel de Bont has engaged directly with frontline soldiers and non-commissioned officers in Townsville and Adelaide, gathering feedback on the administrative burdens that frustrate them most.

The most significant win to date has been the removal of the AF‑121 Army Personal Administration Data Quality Checklist, an annual requirement estimated to save about 32,000 hours of Army time. It was acknowledged that the form did not improve personal data accuracy and was largely redundant.

Major General Smith said the project was to be expansive. 

“We are asking whether a qualification on one rifle should count for all rifles, similar to how a civilian driver’s licence applies across a vehicle class. In other words, a rifle qualification may apply to all rifles for life,” he said.

“We will also consider whether the vehicle qualifications system is overburdened in the same way, and not confuse the need for ongoing practice with an initial qualification.”

Troops will be able to view all initiatives and progress on the RUTHLESS SharePoint page. 

A second phase will capture and share the practical ‘cheat sheets’ soldiers and units develop to navigate Army systems.

“We want to put them into simple language all soldiers can understand and collate them to share across Army, rather than confined to a particular clerk and his mates,” Colonel de Bont said.

RUTHLESS is currently looking to expand, with a call on Forcenet for ‘red tape targeteers’ willing to challenge entrenched systems.

According to Colonel de Bont, more people means more progress. 

“It’s challenging – there isn’t a whole bunch of people diving in to remove or shorten their particular policy or regulatory requirements,” he said. 

“A lot of the time we’re finding a misunderstanding of risk. They think their policy mitigates risk, but it doesn’t if you really interrogate it. 

“We’re keen to get people who want to challenge the systems and have the time to put their hand up to help. We are actively open for anyone to send us alternative ideas that are superior to extant policy.”

.

.

EDITOR’S THOUGHTS: Given that it isn’t 1 April, lets have a little look at this…

1. “Reducing Unnecessary Tasks to Help Lethality, Efficiency & Strategic Success (RUTHLESS)” – ironically indicative of rampant bureaucracy behind a name/policy 🙂
2. “By removing unnecessary tasks, we’re giving authority back to commanders … They merely need to seek their higher commander’s approval to do so.” – sounds very ‘Catch 22’ to me.
3. “If we don’t focus on our core function – winning the land battle – then we’re potentially going to learn some really harsh lessons in the next war, and those lessons will cost troops’ lives.” – “Oh my God, you’ve killed Kenny” is an oft-used quote in South Park, which was adopted onto a unit T-Shirt my colleagues and I once wore – “OH&S (set in stone) kills Kenny”.
4. “many frustrating processes were self-imposed by well-meaning staff or commanders over time … much of the burden doesn’t come from the originating policy in a lot of cases,” – blame shifting much? Or was this caused by fear of consequence from ‘the system’?
5. “We are asking whether a qualification on one rifle should count for all rifles, similar to how a civilian driver’s licence applies across a vehicle class.” – I like this a lot.
6. “We will also consider whether the vehicle qualifications system is overburdened in the same way.” – love the thinking here too.
7. “We are actively open for anyone to send us alternative ideas that are superior to extant policy.” – my suggestion is to get rid of ‘Non-tecnical inspections’ (for much the same reason as stated for the AF‑121, above) – or at least make the checklist actually non-technical. For example, I once refused to sign a ‘non-tech’ on a 110 Landrover because it had so many ‘technical’ questions on it. One memorable one was, “all engine mounting bolts present and correctly fitted”. In my opinion, as a RAEME helicopter dude at the time, was that that was clearly a ‘technical’ question only a vehicle mechanic could truthfully answer. Trouble was, non-pedantic soldiers were ticking ‘yes’ just to get the form finished – thus self-incriminatingly signing their names to a legally-binding document.

.

.


.


.