{"id":13682,"date":"2014-05-06T06:00:11","date_gmt":"2014-05-05T20:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=13682"},"modified":"2014-05-07T06:10:10","modified_gmt":"2014-05-06T20:10:10","slug":"defence-reform-after-the-national-commission-of-audit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-reform-after-the-national-commission-of-audit\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence reform after the National Commission of Audit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Aerial<\/a><\/p>\n

The National Commission of Audit\u2019s report<\/a> created quite a stir last week; pension ages to rise, family payment to fall, and a new model for federation. For those who lack the time to study the Commission\u2019s five volumes, a summary of recommendations for Defence is here<\/a>.\u00a0The recommendations fall into three categories:<\/p>\n

First, in the politest way possible, the Commission recommends that the government base defence spending on an analysis of capability options and strategic risks rather than adhere to its commitment to spend 2% of GDP. This is a sound recommendation<\/a>, but it\u2019s not one that the government is likely to embrace publicly given the politics of promises.<\/p>\n

Second, there\u2019s a series of discrete recommendations about a grab-bag of issues, including budget processes, ministerial directives, reintegrating DMO into Defence, professionalisation of Capability Development Group, new performance indicators, sale of ASC Pty Ltd, privatisation of Defence Housing Australia, closing the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme, ceasing the Skilling Australia Defence Industry Program, and assessing the potential of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation for outsourcing.<\/p>\n

The pros and cons of the various recommendations will be explored in the forthcoming ASPI Defence Budget Brief. For the moment, it\u2019s sufficient to observe that they are mostly secondary matters in the broader landscape of defence reform\u2014despite being of vital interest to those affected.<\/p>\n

Third, and most importantly, the Commission recommends two further reviews of Defence in addition to the government\u2019s already planned \u2018first principles\u2019 review of structures and processes. The first is a Portfolio Agency Audit designed \u2018to comprehensively assess efficiency and effectiveness across all aspects of an agency\u2019s operations, programmes and administration\u2019. The second is a report from the Secretary \u2018on current management structures and spans of control, and opportunities for improvement\u2019. Defence has been selected to go first, but other agencies will eventually come under similar scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The two proposed reviews supersede several specific recommendations from the Commission about Defence\u2019s staffing and structure. It would make no sense, for example, to \u2018reduce the staffing size of Defence headquarters in Canberra, including senior staff, to 1998 levels\u2019 while reviews of Defence\u2019s structure and staffing are underway. For the moment, Defence has been given a reprieve.<\/p>\n

So what comes next? Surely it\u2019s time to start the ball rolling on the next round of defence reform.<\/p>\n

The first step should be to combine the three proposed reviews of Defence into one. It would be ludicrous to have clipboard-wielding consultants bumping into each other in the hallways of Russell Offices on overlapping missions. With the Audit Commission report done and dusted, there\u2019s no excuse for further delay; set the terms of reference, appoint a team, set a deadline, and get on with it.<\/p>\n

Key issues for that combined Review to cover would include:<\/p>\n