I agree that much of the problem is that Fitzgibbon is not up to running Australia's Defence portfolio. He is not knowledgeable enough to press issues or ask his senior officers the right questions.

He has no practical background or academic training in the key areas of defence or foreign policy.

A pretty thin CV http://www.joelfitzgibbon.com/templates/JOELFITZGIBBON_template.aspx?edit=false&pageID=2376 for a Minister of a multi-billion portfolio.

Fitzgibbon appears to have been appointed by Rudd on Labor factional lines. The factional system is alive and kicking.

For Rudd Fitzgibbon's lack of knowledge and opinions on Defence is a benefit. This allows Rudd to attempt (but fail) to micromanage Defence without having an influential Defence Minister to hinder this mistaken approach.

Why Arch Bevis wasn't appointed appears to be that Bevis came from the wrong Labor faction. Bevis http://www.archbevis.com/215.html served for 2 years as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence when Labor was in Government in the 1990's. He's asked searching questions of Defence lately. Maybe Rudd doesn't like that.

This makes Bevis a knowledgeable threat to Rudd.

Can't have Fitzgibbon or Foreign Minister Smith obstructing Rudd's defacto position as Minister for Defence and Foreign Affairs.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Plantagent.
You maybe right that Fitzgibbons is out of his depth and maybe he should go Bruce Haigh makes some valid points. But your assertion is a bit unfair by tying it to ALP factionalism. Tell me which Defence (government) minister either side, has had the appropriate specific departmental training? DOCTOR Brendan Nelson GP?
There is no guarentee that Bevis would be appropriate either. He got the position as Secretary by the same flawed method.

In truth our system of government doesn't necessarily gain the most appropriate people. That lamentably includes the selection of MPs. The candidates are chosen by the party branch members to represent the PARTY. Therefore the voters’ choice is often between “the lessor of two evils.” Some dyed in the wool party devotees will support the party regardless of policy or personnel.

When they get to Parliament ministries are drawn from this flawed and dubiously appropriate bunch on the basis of power within the party (divvying up the spoils), skill in Parliament and hardly ever on specific departmental knowledge or appropriateness. We need a different system of choosing our leaders.

examinator

Re "But your assertion is a bit unfair by tying it to ALP factionalism. Tell me which Defence (government) minister either side, has had the appropriate specific departmental training? DOCTOR Brendan Nelson GP?"

Tis true - one way or the other ministers are appointed due to political considerations - which does indeed apply to all parties.

The political, technical and financial qualities needed for a Defence Minister have been way beyond the abilities of most of them - particularly in the last 18 years. Hence each has only lasted a short time.

At the risk of rose coloured glasses Kim Beazely stood out as well qualified for the job politically and academically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Beazely#Career_in_government . Both sides of politics acknowledged this.

Befor Kim Jim Killen was also widely considered well equipped for the job http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Killen.

But no-one is permitted to say politicians in big portfolio are any good, least of all the portfolio that must train for war.

Every country needs them even if the New Zealand Defence Minister hides NZ's assistance to the US...

Pete

Spot on about Fitzgibbon and ditto the comments about the Russians and Brits in Afghanistan. Use the forces as leverage for talks.

I find many of the ALP appointments underwhelming.

Plantagent,
The two examples are questionable or at best happy happenstance rather than an endorsement of the flawed system or dubious politics.
Longevity and party political pedigree is not always best i.e. Alexander Downer nice guy but lousy Foreign minister (his list of departmental failing are legendary not to mention his reliance on POLITICAL advisors). Under the current system Departments get caught up in the day to day politics.

Defence and Foreign affairs needs long-term planning strategies and constancy not change of popularist policy and or what’s good for the PM.’s career or a party.

Dare I say it...yer why not? These two departments policy in particular should be run by a board with members representing the parliament (both sides) in a system like the RBA the chair appointed by both houses. Someone with relevant experience and proven skills rather than politicians. The board and the chair and HOD all answerable by the parliament. People who can be sacked mid stream if they prove useless by the parliament. Polis just aren’t always the best at public administration and their wages and stakes too high for armatures or trainees.
These departments are too important to be politicised the way they are.
Comments?

Examinator

examinator

Where you say "These two departments policy in particular should be run by a board with members representing the parliament (both sides)"

Naturally you would be aware of the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Committee http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/jfadt/members.htm - although it is very limited in scope.

Cabinet also has a National Security Committee with an experience secretariat - but it is very secretive.

The are also many other joint committees for generalised or particular functions.

Defence has too many committees at too many levels.

The more committees there are the easier it is to avoid or deny responsibility and pass the buck.

Foreign Affairs is frequently a consolation prize to keep fallen party leaders, like Hayden and Lord Downer, away from the action - while they travel in luxury for the rest of their political lives.

The Defence Ministry appears to be left to the untried middling politician or the enthusiast who put up his hand.

The balance between having ELECTED leaders or appointed experts has never been resolved.

The US system of appointed officials (hopefully experts) is interesting to study but it can throw up chilling results - enter Rumsfeld - with decades of defence experience and vast knowledge but appalling judgement. He was appointed not elected.

We could discuss this matter forever.

Regards

Peter Coates.