defence
31 Mar 2009
The Manchurian Distraction
It has a whiff of espionage, racism and scandal, but the Fitzgibbon affair is really about a minister trying to beat his troublesome department into shape
All of a sudden, Joel Fitzgibbon is in a lot of trouble.The seemingly mild-mannered Defence Minister from the Hunter Valley is the subject of Kevin Rudd's first real ministerial scandal, and he is as much to blame as his enemies in the bureaucracy. When you're the subject of screaming front-page headlines that contain phrases like "spy scandal" and "Minister says sorry", it's not a good time to be misleading people over who pays for your overseas trips.
Certainly, Fitzgibbon is the victim of some very dirty politics. It appears sources in his own Defence Department leaked details of an internal investigation into their Minister to Fairfax journalists. Fitzgibbon, the "unnamed sources" claimed, was a close family friend of a prominent Chinese businesswoman, who was also an ALP donor.
At first, the main issue appeared to be the illegal investigation of a minister by his own staff. Kevin Rudd was forced to defend the Defence Minster, and Fitzgibbon initially came out swinging, claiming he was the victim of his own determination to reform Defence. But by late Thursday evening, the imbroglio had intensified, as the media began to probe Fitzgibbon's 20-year relationship with Helen Liu. Liu is also Fitzgibbon's Canberra landlord, and the two have travelled to China together several times.
After first claiming he had exchanged only "small gifts" with Liu on birthdays, Fitzgibbon was later forced to admit he had failed to declare two trips to China paid for by Liu in 2002 and 2005. She also apparently gave him a suit.
Over the weekend, the Government regrouped. Acting PM Julia Gillard (who seems to be quite enjoying how much time Kevin Rudd spends on foreign tours) made a point of specifically defending Fitzgibbon on the weekend news. The message was carefully calibrated. Yes, Fitzgibbon had stuffed up. No, the Government won't sack him.
"It's a lapse in judgement," Gillard told ABC TV. "Joel acknowledged that. It's something he should have recalled — it's something he should have made proper disclosure of at the time."
Gillard also took the time to sink the boot into Malcolm Turnbull, suggesting that the attacks on Fitzgibbon were "really cheap politics flowing from the Opposition here, from Malcolm Turnbull personally, and from his shadow treasurer Joe Hockey".
Indeed, the Opposition's attack on the Rudd Government had widened from its justifiable points about Fitzgibbon to a genuinely xenophobic attack on the Government's engagement with China. Last Friday, Turnbull made the ridiculous accusation that Kevin Rudd is some kind of "roving ambassador" for Beijing. On Monday, his Deputy Julie Bishop was ineffectually waffling the same line. It's an unedifying attack from an increasingly desperate Opposition, but it may well generate some short-term traction.
Perhaps in order to nip it in the bud, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner got in on the act too, pointing out that Helen Liu had also met with then-prime minster John Howard, and accusing the Opposition of "trying to stir up some Yellow Peril sentiments". Turnbull took the bait, calling Tanner's remarks "contemptible".
Tanner's comments were certainly unnecessary, and by using such a provocative phrase it might even be argued he has further fanned the very controversy he was accusing Malcolm Turnbull of igniting. But the Government's counterattack over the weekend has also cleverly shifted the focus away from Fitzgibbon's performance, which was the Opposition's original target. The imbroglio is now so confused that many of the substantive points raised by the incipient "spy scandal" have been lost in the clamour.
The real issue, as I explained when I examined the issue in early March, is the Defence Department itself.
Australia's Defence bureaucracy is complex, opaque and often ungovernable. Fitzgibbon is merely the latest in a long line of Defence Ministers who have struggled to manage, or even come to grips with, the Commonwealth's largest portfolio. A succession of Defence Secretaries have suffered similarly, in part because of the unwieldy structure of the portfolio.
Australia's defence apparatus has a unique "diarchy" structure, whereby the white-collar Defence staff and the uniformed ADF both report directly to the Minster. The Minister is also in charge of the organisationally separate, but still enormous, Defence Materiel Organisation (responsible for a long parade of over-budget defence acquisitions), the vast payroll and landlord responsibilities of the Defence Department, not to mention the uniformed members of the Australian Defence Force itself. To make matters worse, ADF chief Angus Houston has apparently got used to reporting directly to the Prime Minister, effectively bypassing his responsible Minster. It's an unholy mess.
No wonder most agree that the command structure of Defence, the DMO and the ADF all require substantial reform. But the challenge this poses is immense.
Take the bottomless money pit of the defence budget. Despite the commitment by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd's governments to increasing defence spending by 3 per cent a year in real terms for at least the next decade, Defence has some pressing long-term budgetary issues. A series of hugely expensive purchases committed to by the Howard government left Defence with a long list of acquisitions it won't be able to afford.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institutes's Mark Thomson points out that "the present Defence Capability Plan covers the period 2006 to 2016 and lists 100 project phases valued at around $51 billion in total". He adds that "over the past two years around $7.4 billion worth of investment has been deferred" and that there is an additional $4.3 to $6.4 billion worth of projects listed in the Defence Capability Plan still awaiting approval. All this for a department that can't manage to pay its SAS soldiers properly.
Fitzgibbon made a positive start, but appears to have run into much the same problems that plagued many of his predecessors. Unfortunately, while his strategic reform goals were worthy, his tactics have been suspect. Fighting a media war with your own department is not necessarily an effective way to implement reform, and it almost always guarantees damaging leaks. The ADF has a very distinct culture, one that many politicians don't easily understand. Add to this a byzantine bureaucracy, a disgruntled domestic defence industry upset at losing junior minister Greg Combet to other duties, junior staffers leaking espionage reports — and of course Fitzgibbon's own "lapse in judgment" — and its no wonder many believe Fitzgibbon should be moved on.
But with this latest manoeuvre, those inside Defence who are busy intriguing to have Fitzgibbon replaced may have shot themselves in the foot. Rudd, Gillard and the Government's senior strategists appear to have decided that a full-frontal attack of this nature on a senior minister simply cannot be indulged. The Government will now try to stare down internal critics of defence reform, all the while working the levers to ensure it gets what it wants. And what it wants will almost certainly include big budget savings. The fat years for Defence are now over — and not before time.
In the meantime, Joel Fitzgibbon will stay on as Minister. He should use his second chance to open up his portfolio to more scrutiny. When a department begins to spy on its own minister, its time for more transparency, openness and accountability. There has been precious little in Defence for far too long.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
The Australian Defence ‘Industry’ has long been a total Law unto itself. Many Ministers have tried and failed to bring it to heel, and it’s arrogance knows no bounds. Being part of the World Military Industrial Complex, bound closely to US and UK Defence and Spy networks, plus gigantic suppliers of Arms, Aircraft, Ships and all things that go bang, they consider, as so many of these entities do, that they are above such things as Citizen Governments.
Fitzgibbon indicating that he wanted to take on this monster raised a Red Flag, and they apparently reacted by reaching into his private and Government files to find anything to use against him, to destroy him, and used it via the Fairfax media.
He made the big mistake of having skeletons in his closet! This business of accepting sponsored visits to either other countries (whether friends or otherwise) is clearly full of pitfalls. The Defence Dept. should well know this, as they accept sponsored trips to Arms Dealers/Suppliers all over the world, knowing quite well, and accepting, that these people want them to buy (or to recommend) what they are offering.
I consider the trips business a storm in a teacup, and from a reading of the comments page in the local Murdoch press, most seem to agree with me, and realize that this is an action by the Defence Dept. to destroy an annoying Minister. If any member of the Government/Opposition or a Department NEEDS to visit other countries on business relating to their brief, then this should be paid for by the Taxpayer (NOT any sponsor whatsoever) and a report given to the responsible body. I think Senator Zenophon is suggesting something along these lines, but he always adds things which are otherwise nutty!
Much of the Media seems to be baying for the blood of Fitzgibbon, merely staking their claim on the fact that he did not report the trips. The ABC and parts of the Murdoch and Fairfax Press are very active in this. Probably they are obeying their Masters, including the Liberal Party (ABC, Fairfax) and possibly Murdoch himself. They are all seemingly giving little coverage to the really relevant fact that a Government Department has gone ROGUE! I have to wonder why!!??? Maybe we are all so used to it!
This is the Department that has been politicised to an extreme extent by the Howard mob, but before that it has always had affiliations to the Far Right of Australian Politics, particularly it’s Intelligence aspects. I am sure that there are people, possibly most or all of them, in the DSD, who consider anyone with progressive ideas to be Communists, and as such, to be destroyed/fought in any way possible.
This is the Department that has always ensured that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen who suffer injury whilst on duty are treated as the enemy also, disparaged, ignored and fought through the courts for decades when they claim or try to claim some sort of compensation or proper medical treatment. Indeed, the ABC Four Corners programme has, over the years, brought much of this our ‘temporary’ attention, and nothing has happened to improve matters. There is always denial, obfuscation, and in the end, no proper action.
This is the Department which destroys the careers (and sometimes the lives) of any of it’s Officers who diverge from the accepted ‘line’, and object in any way to the actions of the Senior Officers. some of these people (after being forced out of the Services) have had their moment in the Media, have spoken volubly of their terrible treatment, and the Department denies all (get their Minister sometimes to back them up!) and continue on their merry way, with NO ACTION TAKEN! Because they know they can get away with anything!
We have made National Heroes of a couple of the Senior Officers who have treated their under Officers abominably at the behest of the Defence Intelligence sections, who were offended in some way by the Officer concerned (generally disagreement with their methods and their conclusions). This has been made known to us, but nothing happens.
This Department is VERY GOOD at destroying people it does not like, or who may threaten it in some way. And I do NOT mean just on the Battlefield/s.
So, strength to your Arm, Joel Fitzgibbon, and hopefully you can get full support from Rudd and Gillard. Clean this mob up, Fitzy, and we will all be much better off.
But considering all things, it would be best if you do NOT have too much contact with agents of China, because they, like the USA and many of our near neighbours, DO spy on us, and will at all times do what is best for themselves, not US! China also thinks long term (like decades!) and is not beyond cultivating people they may think may ‘go places’ in the distant future. Not to say that your friend, your family friend, is one of these, but it is possible, and you should always remain cautious.
So many of us (the Great Unwashed!) are becoming very concerned at the many contacts OUR Government members and the Opposition members have with Chinese contacts, because we are NOT talking about a Democracy, or even a ‘nice’ country (because China IS an absolute Dictatorship, it does NOT have any concerns with Human Rights, and does not brook any opposition (internal or external) gladly).
I always feel nauseated by the glad-handing of such people and countries by our representatives, all in the name of Free Markets and Business and Making Money, with no thought of morality! I thought ‘Elmer Fudd’ had been having second thoughts about following the old neo-con formulas? He has NOT suited actions to words! Dazza.
On the whole I think you’re right Dazza.
Please note: this is probably the only one of your rants I’ve read in full; can you try keep them shorter and with paragraph separators if you really need to go over one!
Just a minor observation. It is not the "Defence Materials Organisation", but the "Defence Materiel Organisation". "Materiel" refers to military equipment. — from someone who has to footnote their CV to wearily explain to dippy HR recruiters and other panels that "Materiel" is not a misspelling.
Thanks for that, othello_cat -
We share your pain at mistakes about "materiel" - and regret that it got past us this time. Good luck with those recruiters. Brendan
This article raises the vital issue of who really runs the country.
It seems that the bureaucracy feels that its views and wishes supercede those of the taxpayers’ elected representatives. This is no small matter, indeed it cuts to the heart of Australia’s system of governance. And if this is happening in a vital function like national defence and security, what’s happening in ‘lesser’ portfolios like health, water, industry and so on. Going by results, it’s much the same in all of them.
If true, then an integrated national response is called for driven by effective political leadership that demands that public services perform to meet public needs - something Australia badly needs but doesn’t seem to have experienced.
lisadp, sorry, I can not be held responsible for your Attention Deficit Disorder. And what you read, of course, is your business!
mbolan, for 11 plus years, the Public Service, including the Defence Dept., was at the tender mercies of the Liberal/National Co-alition, and totally politicised. For some strange reason, most if not all of the staff of these PS Departments have not been ‘cleansed’ of the Liberal/National groupies by Rudd and Co. I see Jane Halton, of ‘Tampa’ fame (or infamy) is still Secretary of the Health Dept. She is only one of the hold-outs. All of these people will be white-anting their Ministers at every chance, and they are most certainly NOT going to give of their ALL for a Labor Government.
One has to wonder at the staff in Penny Wong’s Climate Department, maybe they were all direct appointments from the coal/power generation/mining Industry lobby. Only in such a case could one understand the recently released White Paper. But such a paper would not have been released if Rudd had not approved it! I note he keeps bleating (overseas) about the ‘greatest disaster to affect the world’, the GFC, but never mentions Global Warming, which would have to be of a much higher rating and much, much more of a disaster. It indicates his priorities, I guess.
Actually doing something about the mess that is his own back-yard seems to have been left to Julia. Long, long way to go, girl! Dazza.
Good stuff Dazza. 100% agreement.