{"id":22135,"date":"2015-08-21T06:00:20","date_gmt":"2015-08-20T20:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=22135"},"modified":"2015-08-20T15:07:23","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T05:07:23","slug":"five-birds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/five-birds\/","title":{"rendered":"Five birds"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n The recent announcement that the government would seek a continuous ship-building program in South Australia has attracted endorsement (from Warren King<\/a>) and criticism (from Nic Stuart<\/a> and Hugh White<\/a> among others). But in this post I\u2019d like to say something about how governments make decisions when big pots of money are involved. Anyone who believes that those decisions are guided by a single imperative\u2014to build a submarine, for example\u2014needs to get with the program.<\/p>\n Go back and have a look at the decisions surrounding the Collins<\/em>-class submarines. The government certainly wanted new submarines. But it didn\u2019t just<\/em> want that. It also wanted the bulk of the monies to be spent in Australia, solid job outcomes for Australian workers, technology transfer to Australian firms, and that favourable political outcome it believed should be the proper return on good policy-making. In short, it wanted to hit five birds with one stone. Some people even think it did manage to hit four of them\u2014no mean feat, though perhaps an outcome not to the immediate satisfaction of those who wanted good new submarines.<\/p>\n The current wave of naval procurement faces similar pressures: anytime a government\u2019s spending some tens of billions of dollars on something, it will want to achieve multiple goals from that spending. We elect governments precisely in order to take those decisions. Otherwise, we\u2019d just let a group of strategic, defence and naval experts decide what to buy and how to buy it.<\/p>\n Does this mean the government can decide whatever it wants without criticism? Of course not. But it\u2019s not an especially telling blow to criticise a government for wanting to achieve multiple objectives in relation to a major procurement program. Defence issues in general aren\u2019t \u2018above politics\u2019. Yes, we want to get the decision \u2018right\u2019\u2014in the sense that we want to procure effective military equipment efficiently. But we want similar effective, efficient outcomes in other portfolios\u2014health and education, for example\u2014and none of those is above politics.<\/p>\n One part of getting the decision right when five birds are involved is to make sure all of the birds are worth hitting. If we\u2019re talking about five plump pheasants to grace Australia\u2019s dinner table, that\u2019s one thing. Five sparrows constitute a more meagre repast. So how do we maximise our return in relation to the money spent?<\/p>\n If we just wanted to inject government monies into the economy, we needn\u2019t build ships at all. Governments could just hand out money. But we want ships and submarines to be part of the outcome\u2014indeed, they\u2019re the raison d\u2019\u00eatre<\/em> of the program. So the costs we accept to get those ships and submarines (one of the birds) can be higher if they give us four more birds as well. But not grossly higher. Nor should we accept a submarine markedly inferior in its capabilities just to get the other four birds. The question of what\u2019s an acceptable level of variation in cost and capability might well produce multiple answers across the electorate\u2014though probably with less spread than some might imagine. The government ultimately has to defend its decisions before that electorate. Still, I can\u2019t recall any Australian government being voted out of office because of poor defence procurement decisions.<\/p>\n