{"id":16093,"date":"2014-10-01T12:15:00","date_gmt":"2014-10-01T02:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=16093"},"modified":"2015-03-27T10:32:39","modified_gmt":"2015-03-26T23:32:39","slug":"defence-and-the-diarchy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence and the diarchy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a><\/figure>\n

If the First Principles Review<\/a> of Defence goes back to first principles, it\u2019ll have to examine the diarchy<\/a> wherein Defence is jointly headed by the Secretary and CDF. That\u2019s likely to occur given that one Review panel member\u2014retired Army chief Peter Leahy\u2014is on the record arguing that the Minister should \u2018ask himself why Defence is the only department or agency in the country run by a diarchy\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a speech in 2000, then departmental secretary Allan Hawke said that the diarchy was \u2018about bringing together the responsibilities and complementary abilities of public servants and military officials\u2019<\/a>. In terms of responsibilities this is undoubtedly true, but only in a circular sense because legislation has been drafted consistent with a diarchy. The fact that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) is headed by a uniformed commissioner<\/a> shows that there\u2019s no underlying legal impediment to putting the CDF in sole charge.<\/p>\n

What about complementary abilities? Is Defence really so large and complex that it requires two leaders with different backgrounds to manage the enterprise effectively? Of course not; the largest of corporations and even entire countries get by with a single head. Where specialist advice is needed, specialists can provide it. Whatever expertise a departmental secretary has could easily be relegated to a subordinate reporting to the CDF\u2014as effectively occurs in the AFP.<\/p>\n

So why have a diarchy? Although such an arrangement is almost unheard of in the business world<\/a>, Australia\u2019s defence diarchy isn\u2019t unique; the United Kingdom for one has a similar arrangement. Other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, maintain civilian defence departments in parallel with their defence forces. The common and essential element is that the government has dual sources of advice on military affairs. In its own way, the United States achieves the same thing within its system.<\/p>\n

The involvement of civilian officials in defence matters is an essential part of the elected government maintaining effective control of the military<\/a>. The risk is not of insubordination; the ADF\u2019s obedience to the government of the day is beyond reproach\u2014as tends to be the case wherever the rule of law prevails<\/a>. Rather, civilian involvement is needed to ensure a level of objectivity in defence administration that can\u2019t realistically be expected from the military.<\/p>\n

The Army, Navy and Air Force, and the ADF as a whole, are institutions with strongly ingrained identities. That\u2019s as it should be; the fighting coherence of our forces is as dependent on their distinct institutional characteristics as it is on their equipment. But with ingrained identities come ingrained aspirations that can put institutional desires above the needs of Australia\u2019s defence. In a classic RAND study from the 1980s<\/a>, Carl Builder captured the idiosyncratic ways that the US Army, Navy and Air Force each approach the problem of force planning\u2014all largely divorced from strategy. The three Australian military services are little different today.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the senior ADF leadership have dual responsibilities: upward to the minister, and downward to its members and to the institution(s). What service chief doesn\u2019t argue for the best equipment, best facilities and best conditions of service for their members? I don\u2019t expect them to do otherwise, but neither do I want an inefficient and gold-plated defence force. As in any other area of government activity, spending should be disciplined by the cold, dispassionate balancing of costs and benefits.<\/p>\n

For exactly the same reasons that the Australian Medical Association wouldn\u2019t be given control of health administration, or teachers control over education administration, neither should the military be the government\u2019s sole source of advice about itself. The diarchy (or something like it) is needed to temper the institutional introspection of the military in favour of the objective interests of Australia\u2019s defence and the taxpayer.<\/p>\n

How can that best be done? The pros and cons of having a diarchy, as opposed to having a separate defence department and defence force, have been discussed by Derek Quigley<\/a> (ex-NZ MINDEF) and Neil James<\/a> (ADA Executive Director). However, the differences between the two options are ultimately of practicality rather than principle. For what it\u2019s worth, I\u2019m firmly in favour retaining the diarchy<\/a>. When it comes to civilian involvement in military matters, the closer and more integrated the better.<\/p>\n

While civilian bureaucratic involvement in Defence is desirable, its present implementation remains imperfect. Today\u2019s plans for the ADF are little more than the sum total of single-service wish-lists, and defence efficiency remains a distant hope. The diarchy may be necessary but it\u2019s manifestly insufficient. Otherwise why would the government have turned\u2014yet again\u2014to external advisors to tell them how to fix Defence?<\/p>\n

Mark Thomson<\/em><\/a>\u00a0is senior analyst for defence economics\u00a0at ASPI. Image courtesy of Flickr user Marin<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If the First Principles Review of Defence goes back to first principles, it\u2019ll have to examine the diarchy wherein Defence is jointly headed by the Secretary and CDF. That\u2019s likely to occur given that one …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":16105,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[139,978,782,64,165,977,1129],"class_list":["post-16093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-accountability","tag-advice","tag-chief-of-the-defence-force","tag-civil-military-relations","tag-defence-secretary","tag-diarchy","tag-first-principles-review"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nDefence and the diarchy | The Strategist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Defence and the diarchy | The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"If the First Principles Review of Defence goes back to first principles, it\u2019ll have to examine the diarchy wherein Defence is jointly headed by the Secretary and CDF. That\u2019s likely to occur given that one ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-10-01T02:15:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-26T23:32:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mark Thomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Mark Thomson\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\",\"name\":\"The Strategist\",\"description\":\"ASPI's analysis and commentary site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":331},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/\",\"name\":\"Defence and the diarchy | The Strategist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-10-01T02:15:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T23:32:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/cea5301d66288d1e898acb13e48f40cd\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Defence and the diarchy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/cea5301d66288d1e898acb13e48f40cd\",\"name\":\"Mark Thomson\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bd29fe5d57ace7a0cb6fea66808c7e20?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bd29fe5d57ace7a0cb6fea66808c7e20?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Mark Thomson\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/mark-thomson\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Defence and the diarchy | The Strategist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Defence and the diarchy | The Strategist","og_description":"If the First Principles Review of Defence goes back to first principles, it\u2019ll have to examine the diarchy wherein Defence is jointly headed by the Secretary and CDF. That\u2019s likely to occur given that one ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/","og_site_name":"The Strategist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org","article_published_time":"2014-10-01T02:15:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-26T23:32:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":331,"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Mark Thomson","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ASPI_org","twitter_site":"@ASPI_org","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Mark Thomson","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/","name":"The Strategist","description":"ASPI's analysis and commentary site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/2730438619_611c4d72f0_z.jpg","width":640,"height":331},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/","name":"Defence and the diarchy | The Strategist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2014-10-01T02:15:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T23:32:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/cea5301d66288d1e898acb13e48f40cd"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-and-the-diarchy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Defence and the diarchy"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/cea5301d66288d1e898acb13e48f40cd","name":"Mark Thomson","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bd29fe5d57ace7a0cb6fea66808c7e20?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bd29fe5d57ace7a0cb6fea66808c7e20?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Mark Thomson"},"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/mark-thomson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16093"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16093"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16143,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16093\/revisions\/16143"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}