The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Joel Fitzgibbon and the Defence Department > Comments

Joel Fitzgibbon and the Defence Department : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 30/3/2009

It would seem that Defence department 'rogues' are feeling the ministerial heat and have turned on their political superior.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
After years of close observation, I'm convinced that two fundamental causes entrench and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency within Australia's defence organization. Given Defence's cultural and structural situation, any sincere Defence Minister embarking on reform and efficiencies will confront deep, Rum enmities.

First: the ADF itself still clings tight to archaic, barbaric feudal symbols, and actual chains of command, in obeisance to inherited powers and privileges in a foreign country (indeed, a country on the other side of the world). The effects of such a strange cult are profound and not to be under-estimated. Silly, elitist notions of genetically inherited privilege, and mere ladder-climbing games to attain such privileges from below, all encourage an appalling culture of mediocrity, arrogance, and indignant refusal to be held to standards deemed normal and healthy in wider "common" society. In such an odd environment, the genuinely talented and highly motivated are often viewed with suspicion, hostility and even contempt.

In this sense of course, the beat-up about China in this Fitzgibbon case is no wonder, because China, whatever else its shortcomings, has sought aggressively to stamp out such lazy, anti-meritocratic notions of inherited, networked privilege. By contrast, people chasing trappings of rank above all else believe there's nothing else to prove!

Second: the ADF's size and structure (and therefore the civilian Defence Dept too) bloated into vast bureaucracies devoted largely to the more politically self-interested pursuits of expansionist self-administration and self-justification. One aspect of such "sheltered workshop" dysfunctionality are those very questionable and costly procurements (Abrams, Seasprites, Superhornet, etc.). Another is its equally vast commissar-style cohorts of commissioned officers: all much more expensive to raise, pamper and educate, but with little return except greater institutional loyalty/obeisance (and thereby deeper corruption). In fact, studies within recent decades showed officer-enlisted ratios approached 1:5 and even 1:3!

Australia cannot afford such a strange, aloof and spoilt state-within-the-state. By contrast to recent decades' dysfunctional defence culture, Australia has relied on reserves for its earlier magnificent military achievements, largely because a healthier Australian society compelled its military to integrate within the wider society of real work and notions of merit.
Posted by mil-observer, Monday, 30 March 2009 11:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pelican

http://www.igis.gov.au/inquiries/docs/Brereton_2003.pdf is indeed interesting.

The issue of whether or not DSD might arrange/permit another country to spy on Brereton came up. In the UKUSA community such an issue may not be as unusual as it appears.

I invite you to comment on http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8745 . In return I'll reveal a Canadian doc off the interent on this type of sharing arrangement.

THERE - we could continue chatting generally about the intelligence background to the Fitzgibbon affair including the scenario of DSD involvement.

Hope to chat soon :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 9:54:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If history (certainly that of the Howard years) is any guide, it is not of itself a sackable offence"
Does Howard set the standard of accountability for the current government? Thinking about this I'm reminded of the standards required in other places. In 2006 the Energex CEO resigned after admitting that he had traded in shares which were on the banned list.

He made a loss on the shares and there was no indication revealed publicly that his share holdings impacted on his decisions as CEO or that they were the result of insider knowledge. The total value of the shares involved was relatively small compared to his annual income. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20592516-952,00.html

The share trading appeared to be a silly mistake on his part. He was in a position with a high level of accountability as is the minister and he payed a high price for something which he lost money on.

I don't know what kind of job Fitzgibbon is doing but his failure to declare the gifts was a serious omission on his part which in some circles might well be a sackable offence regardless of how well good a job he is doing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 6:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, UKUSA is a very odd creature (wikipedia gives enough away, whatever the spook-stasi scum want to claim about a dissident here).

ANZUS should suffice as the basis for any such arrangements in the context of Australia's post-WW2 strategic orientation and partnerships. But ANZUS was circumvented by UKUSA and UKUSA's isolation into intelligence business. Such separation accentuated that area's already great potential for corruption by removing it from properly broader, overarching diplomatic oversight and constraints.

The most obviously retarding and insidiously sick aspect of UKUSA is its predisposition towards assumptions about "threat". By the early, post-WW2 definition of UKUSA, any potential threat could not possibly come from within any of the UKUSA authorities themselves, whereas such potential threat MUST ALWAYS reside - at least in a dormant condition - in the areas designated for each UKUSA member's areas of intelligence responsibility!

Such a blinkered and prejudiced club membership as UKUSA explains just how easily the "Iraq WMD" and (variously black and grey) "terrorism" fictions were achieved. It also explains this latest nonsensical, sleazy beat-up insinuating some Chinese compromise of the Australian Defence Minister. There's some seriously imperialist, "race" and plain ethno-linguistic baggage within the very prejudiced concept that UKUSA prescribes (just ask the French and Germans too, for example).

It also helps explain why such contextual utterance of the word "intelligence" brings suspicion and laughter from so many in the wider community.

With compromising commitments like UKUSA, forget about real national sovereignty, or government supremacy over its bureaucracy and military.
Posted by mil-observer, Thursday, 2 April 2009 3:01:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With yet another secret first class trip to chat to the chinese political leaders, I wonder if Joel Fitzgibbon might actually have something to hide. What else Fitzgibbon is lying about?

The old saying "there is no smoke without a fire" is probably true here. Putting JF in charge of the directorate is like putting a fox in charge of the chicken coup.

I think his claim of the spying being because of his attempts to reform the directorate is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that he has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar and has a serious security question mark over his head.

The directorate might need reforming, but JF is not the one to do it.
He must go.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 April 2009 9:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't the Defence Department out of control?
News of the Prime Minister's temper tantrum was leaked by people who handled the RAAF report of the incident. Its quite easy to check who accessed that report and fire the lot. As Tumbrell well knows the Army is supposed to be subservient to the government of the day in our democracy.
I agree that Fitzgibbon doesn't sound up to the job, perhaps he is being used as the sacrificial anode and as soon as the reforms are through a competent person will become the Defence Minister
Posted by billie, Friday, 3 April 2009 12:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy