Reforming Defence

SIR: I write to thank Matthew French for his commentary (June 2008) on my article “Reforming Defence” (April 2008). Matthew’s rank was not given, so I hope he will forgive my informality in using his first name. I suspect that he and
I are actually closer in our views than first glance at his letter might indicate.

The major reform programs that I mentioned in my article (the Force Structure Review, Defence Efficiency Review/Defence Reform Program and Defence Regional Support Review) all had the objective of moving personnel from static bureaucracies into the combat elements of the ADF, to remove the hollowness of those units (which was part of the “fitted for but not with” syndrome that Matthew mentions). My concern was that this process had not produced the desired result. Matthew’s letter suggests that I was correct, and that the front-line units remain understaffed.

My article specifically addressed the situation in the Defence bureaucracy (uniformed and civilian), not the combat units (about which my knowledge is limited). Matthew’s implication that the eponymous “staff officers” have more time available for tasking cuts to the core of the issue. When I left Defence in 2001, the bureaucratic practices of empire-building and rank-creep were in play. I have seen nothing since then to indicate that they have been removed. That was the point of my article.

John Donovan,
Canberra, ACT.