Gary

I think your Labor leanings are making you overly sympathetic to Fitzgibbon, the local boy from Cessnock.

Defence may continually make the wrong choices in acquisitions but having a second-rate Minister makes things worse.

It is quite a stretch to use the word "competent" when applied to Fitzgibbon. He does not have the necessary knowledge or experience to understand the foreiign policy and technological nuances of his vast portfolio. Fitzgibbon has demonstrated poor leadership and management skills by continually alienating himself from his subordinates in Defence. They simply don't think he's up to it and they are right.

Hiding his Chinese paid trips simply reinforces that he shows poor judgement and poor ethics.

The reasons Fitzgibbon scored this Cabinet post are not related to merit.

Pete

Well said, Pete. Rudd has clearly shown his disregard for the defence of Australia by not sacking the Minister.

I look forward to the day when the military have to hold a fete to raise funds for their next toy and Education receives an adequate budget allocation.
For too long the outrageous waste of public money purchasing out of date and dud equipment has been allowed to continue unchecked.
Their time is up.

A refreshingly succinct, pertinent and balanced piece by Gary Brown. Outstanding.

Funny that someone else can claim to know "national security interest" while apparently boasting of descent from an English monarch.

Brown is correct in calling Turnbull and his craven lackies on this: the very security interest of this country is deeply compromised when such a vast and powerful organization has no accountability or control from the more diverse body politic. Corruption unspoken is corruption unchallenged - a sure victory for criminals.

Lose on this and you lose the region and the country, for a long time.

I would agree with plantagenet that Fitzgibbon's record so far is not one of stellar competence.

I am not in favour of anyone having their life poked into, however, as minister of defense with access to the highest level of security, I would have thought to completely escape scrutiny would be naive. (especially after the Blunt and Philby affairs in the UK)

As the quoted spying into his laptop etc now appears to have been a fabrication by the media, I don't see any evidence of untoward action by the department.

Fitzgibbon knowly lying about his "gifts" displays a level of dishonesty that put Einfelt behind bars for 2 years. However, as a labor MP this appears to be par for the course.

We can console ourselves that it was at least not the paedophilia or outright corruption of NSW labor.

Excellent Gary, your article really goes to the crux of the debate into the deeply disturbing actions by the Department of Defence.

One has to ask why was such an investigation instigated by DOD, who authorised it and did DSD breach their own mandated limit to foreign signal interception? If ASIO does not perceive Ms Liu as a risk why should DOD?

If indeed Mr Fitzgibbon has a case to answer to there is already a very definitive process in place to advise the Prime Minister.

In any case, a review will determine whether DSD had anything to do with the hacking into Mr Fitzgibbon's IT systems.

The preposterous suggestion by the opposition for a democratically elected MP to resign in the face of lack of support from his department is overwhelmingly potent in it's failure to address the core issues. Are we now to be governed by bureacrats in absentia (separate from Parliament). Political gamesmanship at the expense of principle may ulimately work against Turnbull to his regret.

The actions by DOD against Mr Fitzgibbon's attempts to seek reform of a highly dysfunctional department is at the heart of this issue.

A side issue but relevant - if even a government Minister is subject to this kind of scrutiny and undermining campaign, imagine the plight of a lowly potential whistleblower. This is why the findings of the recent Inquiry into Whistleblowing was disappointing in it's recommendation that whistleblowers first course of action is to approach senior management within the offending department in the first instance. This fails to address the risks to one's career with such a move if the intention is to whitewash and demonise the reporter rather than the perpetrators. An independent agency is desperately required to handle reports from whistleblowers. This government looked promising with it's claim to seek greater transparecny within government but I fear it will be more of the same.

Perhaps the Fitzgibbon experience will bring home the very real need to rethink the protection of whistleblowers.