{"id":19841,"date":"2015-04-20T14:30:14","date_gmt":"2015-04-20T04:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=19841"},"modified":"2015-04-20T13:56:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-20T03:56:20","slug":"defence-reviews-nothing-gnu-here","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-reviews-nothing-gnu-here\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence reviews: nothing Gnu here"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n If the venerable British naturalist David Attenborough was to make a television series entitled The life cycle of the Australian defence review<\/em>, he would say that reviews are to Defence what the Gnu or Wildebeest<\/a> is to the African veldt. These animals are not in danger of extinction; they move in herds along predictable courses; they\u2019re none too bright but can kick hard. At certain times of the year they span the horizon, the earth trembling as they pass.<\/p>\n Close observation of the Australian defence review shows it has an eight-stage life cycle. Each review is special in its own way, but evolution establishes herd behaviour\u2014having seen one Gnu you pretty much know what the next Gnu will be like.<\/p>\n Reviews are conceived largely in two ways; either by Oppositions annoyed at not being in charge or by governments facing unhappy crises. Examples of the first method include the First Principles Review, an election promise of the then-opposition before being elected in 2013. Labor in opposition before 2007 made a similar commitment which ultimately became the Pappas review. Oppositions can\u2019t do much other than plan what they will do in government. Reviews are easy to announce, sound big and decisive and don\u2019t need to be actioned until after an election.<\/p>\n In government reviews are often a way to deal with a crisis. Recall the sad case of Private Jake Kovco who shot himself in Baghdad 2006. The body of another unfortunate individual was mistakenly repatriated to Australia and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson made some public comments about the circumstances of Kovco\u2019s death based on inaccurate advice. The civilian part of Defence had nothing to do with any of this but a furious minister then launched the Proust review<\/a> into \u2018organisational efficiency and effectiveness.\u2019 Crises begat reviews, but the offspring don\u2019t have to look like the parents.<\/p>\n In the review gestation period, terms of reference are written, external teams assemble and start to interact with Defence as they develop their thinking. I recall one group telling a politely non-committal Defence Committee how they would be shaken to their very core, such were the savings and efficiencies to be proposed. However, after the near-continuous use of organisational reviews\u201436 of them from Tange in 1973<\/a> to Peever in 2015<\/a>\u2014it\u2019s difficult to come up with measures that haven\u2019t been tried or considered before. Incrementalism is often the result. Smart reviewers engage in a detailed conversation with Defence and will adapt their recommendations after testing their value with experienced officials. As a general rule, the less interactive the review process the less implementable its recommendations will be. Even clever reviews done in isolation don\u2019t create the support needed to be delivered.<\/p>\n