Sound and fury of reshuffle won’t improve nation’s defence

Defence Minister Richard Marles’s latest announcement of the biggest reform of the Defence bureaucracy in 50 years should fool no one (“More bangs for bucks in ALP’s sights”, 2/12).

The name Defence Delivery Agency for a reshuffle tried and discarded years back is hardly the root-and-branch reform demanded through the commentary columns by Greg Sheridan on many occasions. As he reminds us, this department has experience 80 per cent growth and the numbers of top brass have doubled while the ADF’s fighting strength has declined (“Different titles for top brass but same result: no change”, 2/12). We have not seen the priorities that he lists addressed: that is, ministers on top of their portfolio, demanding results and ditching ineffective leaders.

Labor’s 2023 Defence Strategic Review now appears to have been merely an effort to embarrass the government’s Coalition predecessors, as none of the review’s recommendations has been implemented.

Unless the opposition and a sleepwalking public wake up to Marles’s latest conjuring trick, the Albanese government will continue to leave the nation without any means of defence.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic

Defence Minister Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy have talked a big game but essentially produced an awful lot of nothing.

Described as the biggest shake-up of the Defence Department in 50 years, it appears little more than an rearrangement of deck chairs that, in any event, won’t come into effect for at least two years. Meanwhile, this country’s investment in defence plods along at a paltry 2 per cent of GDP when many countries in its orbit have committed to north of 3 per cent. Marles and Conroy are continuing the spin that this government is becoming renowned for.

At some point the electorate will tire of its promises and the false dawns. The Coalition must lift its game and point out the failure. Excuse the pun, but there is a lot of ammunition.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

As an erstwhile director of capital system acquisitions in Defence, I have despaired for some time about the hopelessness and waste of government procurement, both federal and state.

The main problems are two-fold. First, for decades departments have been trying to manage the acquisition of highly technical projects with clerks and lawyers, none of whom would have the slightest idea of how to specify a technical requirement for such advanced systems, let alone how to assess what is being offered by suppliers. Procurement agencies need to be smart buyers and that means being staffed with technically qualified people – scientists, engineers and technicians.

Second, there should be (but is never) an independent assessment of major tenders by qualified and independent experts and cost accountants. Auditors-general have such a role but are simply ignored by governments.

M. Flint, Australian Logistics Study Centre, ACT

If, as Greg Sheridan writes regarding the latest Defence reshuffle, he has “seen countless such Defence reorganisations” over “decades”, it indicates such shuffling is not exclusive to a Labor government but endemic to Australian governments in general and, furthermore, that such talk and flurry, like Macbeth’s “sound and fury”, apparently signify nothing but yet another deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic moment. Let us hope Australia will not suffer a Titanic-like fate.

But in these turbulent global geopolitical times, with our politicians seemly so inept at ensuring effective defence of our nation, we may well be feeling unnerved, if not increasingly alarmed.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

Defence Minister Richard Marles has not told us how much the latest reshuffle is going to cost the taxpayers, but we can be sure it will be many tens of millions of dollars. All signage, stationery, ID tags, uniforms – everything connected to the three abolished agencies will have to be scrapped and replaced.

No job losses have been indicated. How is this possible? The three agencies involved in the reshuffle all have their own staff. The new single agency will need only one of each official instead of three.

Robert McCormick, Bridgewater, SA