Howard Ministers Split Over Defence
September 19, 2000
A report in today's Australian newspaper says that the Howard goverment is divided over funding for Australia's defence forces. The article provides a good insight into the practical day-to-day workings of Executive Government at the Federal level.
Much of the work of the Cabinet takes place in its sub-committees, the most well-known of which is the Economics Committee, the group of key ministers responsible for the annual Budget.
Less is heard of the National Security Committee, but it has spent much of this year drafting a Defence White Paper for release in December this year. A White Paper is a document released to the public which sets out a statement of government policy on a particular issue.
The National Security Committee, like all Cabinet committees, is chaired by the Prime Minister. Its members are Alexander Downer (Foreign Minister), John Moore (Defence Minister), Peter Costello (Treasurer), John Anderson (Deputy Prime Minister) and Daryl Williams (Attorney-General). The Finance Minister, John Fahey, is often co-opted to the committee.
According to the report, the committee met in all-day sessions on February 28 and August 21 this year. It agreed on the strategic environment faced by Australia at present, but is split over competing views about how best to deal with this environment. Moore and Downer both favour increased spending on high-tech military resources, including submarine upgrades and new air-warfare destroyers.
Costello and Fahey have apparently criticised this approach, preferring a focus on peace-keeping and low-level contingencies in the region. As the ministers in charge of the purse-strings, focused more on domestic politics, their view is not surprising. Equally unsurprising is the commitment of Downer and Moore to increased spending commitments in their portfolios. The tendency of ministers to fight for more money for their departments is not new. Political and bureaucratic power is often measured in terms of budget allocations and administrative responsibilities.
Of particular interest is the involvement of the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Max Moore-Wilton. He is described as "leading the charge against the Defence Department push for further big investments". The role of senior public servants like Moore-Wilton is not to be under-estimated. The furore during 1999 over the eventual removal of the head of the Defence Department, Paul Barrett, is evidence of their political, administrative and personal impact.
The newspaper says a recent meeting of the National Security Committee was a "bloodbath". Howard is described as "uncommitted" on the defence debate. His attitude will undoubtedly be crucial in resolving the debate and points to the importance of the prime minister, as the public face and leader of the government, in setting the government's agenda.
Earlier this year, the former Liberal leader and Ambassador to the United States, Andrew Peacock, was appointed to head a committee that toured the country to gauge public opinion and take submissions from interested parties. Former Labor Senator, Stephen Loosley, was also on the committee.
Like foreign policy, defence policy receives little public debate in Australia. Key decisions are made by a small coterie of ministers and bureaucrats with minimal involvement by the parliament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 