{"id":1617,"date":"2012-10-12T14:00:18","date_gmt":"2012-10-12T04:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=1617"},"modified":"2012-10-17T10:13:30","modified_gmt":"2012-10-17T00:13:30","slug":"defence-the-view-from-outside-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-the-view-from-outside-government\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence: the view from outside government"},"content":{"rendered":"

Senator David Johnston, the Shadow Minister for Defence, spoke at an ASPI lunch yesterday<\/a>. His speech was titled \u2018The politics of defence\u2019, but its main theme was why defence shouldn\u2019t<\/em> be political. Along the way, he made some telling observations about the difficulty of trying to formulate sensible defence policy in opposition, with the twin handicaps of many fewer people and limited access to departmental advice.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s true for every portfolio of course. But he argued that Defence has some singular characteristics that make it even more difficult. First among them was the sheer impenetrability of the language that surrounds defence issues, making for a very steep learning curve for newcomers. There are some mitigating strategies that help, such as the parliamentary engagement program that allows MPs to spend time with uniformed personnel<\/a> to gain a firsthand understanding of their motivations and their work. Another resource Senator Johnston identified is the work of think tanks and the media in trying to make sense of the inner workings of Defence and its advice to government and in providing valuable facts, figures and analysis. Especially for those in Opposition, without the kind of information accessible to Government, independent analysis is a \u2018must-have\u2019.<\/p>\n

In one way that was a \u2018warm and fuzzy\u2019 moment for ASPI, and the Senator was kind enough to direct some gratitude our way. But it’s also an uncomfortable moment, reminding us that we face many of the same challenges as the opposition, in that our access to \u2018inside information\u2019 is extremely limited (often nil), leaving us to work with the usually incomplete public information and whatever we can deduce from experience or the odd snippet that comes our way. We\u2019re glad we can sometimes help to inform the public discussion (and we\u2019d put the chairs on the table and turn the lights out if we couldn\u2019t) but, like the opposition, we\u2019d benefit greatly in our work from greater transparency in the system and more information in the public domain.<\/p>\n

Ultimately what the Senator was getting at was that without a deep and shared understanding of Defence issues on both sides of the Parliament, we get \u2018politics running policy\u2019. And there are several good reasons to avoid that. The first is a matter of deep principle. As Senator Johnston noted, the Department of Defence is the vehicle through which the state sanctions the use of violence and in the process frequently puts its representatives in the form of the ADF at risk of violent death\u2014a unique responsibility for the Portfolio.<\/p>\n

The second reason is a more pragmatic one. Most defence major acquisitions have lifetimes measured in decades\u2014ten full-term governments or more in the case of warships or combat aircraft. It isn\u2019t sensible or efficient for politics or expediency to drive those decisions. Johnston\u2019s priorities for the opposition Defence portfolio should they take government illustrated the point:<\/p>\n