Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and Purdue Libraries and School of Information Research Studies 4-14-2020 Australian National Audit Office:v E aluating Australian Army Program Performance Bert Chapman Purdue University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs Part of the Accounting Commons, Accounting Law Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Information Literacy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Other International and Area Studies Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Political Economy Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Administration Commons, Public Economics Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Bert Chapman. "Australian National Audit Office:v E aluating Australian Army Program Performance." Security Challenges, 16 (2)(2020): 106-118. Note: the file below contains the entire journal issue. This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Security Challenges Vol. 16 No. 2 2020 Special Issue Plan B for Australian Defence Graeme Dobell John Blaxland Cam Hawker Rita Parker Stephen Bartos Rebecca Strating Mark Armstrong Martin White Bert Chapman Security Challenges Vol. 16 / No. 2 / 2020 Security Challenges ISSN 1833 – 1459 Editors: Dr Gregory Raymond Dr Elizabeth Buchanan Managing Editor Managing Editor [email protected] [email protected] Robert Wylie Geoff Hunt Consulting Editor Defence Industry Policy Production Editor [email protected] [email protected] Editorial Board: Robert Ayson Sam Bateman Rod Lyon Victoria University University of Wollongong ASPI Wellington, New Zealand Wollongong, Australia Canberra, Australia Leszek Buszynski Eliot Cohen Ralph Cossa Strategic and Defence Studies John Hopkins University, Pacific Forum CSIS Centre, Australian National Washington, DC, USA Honolulu, Hawaii, USA University Gerald Hensley Ramesh Thakur Bates Gill Former Secretary of Defence Asia-Pacific College of Professor of Strategic Studies New Zealand Diplomacy, Australian National Strategic & Defence Studies University Andrew O’Neill Centre, Australian National Director, Griffith Asia Institue, Rizal Sukma University Griffith University, Centre for Strategic and Andrew Mack Brisbane, Australia International Studies Simon Fraser University Jakarta, Indonesia Akio Watanabe Vancouver, Canada Research Institute for Peace Danielle Chubb William Tow and Security Deakin University, Melbourne, Department of International Tokyo, Japan Australia Relations, Australian National Megan Mackenzie Anne-Marie Brady University University of Sydney, Canterbury University, Sue Thompson Australia New Zealand National Security College, Australian National University Project Management: Published and distributed by: The Institute for Regional Security 2/10 Kennedy St (PO Box 4060), Kingston ACT 2604 T: (02) 6295 1555 W: https://regionalsecurity.org.au © The Institute for Regional Security. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated in any form or by any means without prior written permission. Inquiries should be made to the publisher. All articles published in Security Challenges are fully peer-reviewed. Any opinions and views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Institute for Regional Security or the editors of Security Challenges. Security Challenges is indexed on EBSCOhost™. Contents Editor’s note 2 Comment Graeme Dobell The Big Defence Beast 3 Articles John Blaxland Developing a new Plan B for the ADF: Implications from a Geostrategic SWOT Analysis for Australia 13 Cam Hawker A Plan B for Australia? Hard Truths and Political Realities in Canberra’s Strategic Policy Debate 24 Rita Parker Is Australia’s Defence Policy Right for the Times? 34 Stephen Bartos Better ways to defend Australia 47 Rebecca Strating Strategy at Sea: A Plan B for Australian Maritime Security? 58 Mark Armstrong Pursuing the Total Force: Strategic Guidance for the Australian Defence Force Reserves in Defence White Papers since 1976 71 Martin White A Natural Partner? Intelligence Cooperation with India and Australia’s Regional Interests 88 Bert Chapman Australian National Audit Office: Evaluating Australian Army Program Performance 106 Notes for Contributors 119 About the Institute For Regional Security 120 1 Editor’s note To kick off the 2020s it seems fitting to produce a Special Issue of Security Challenges focused on the ‘Plan B for Australian Defence’ concept. Australia’s Plan B for defence debate has covered much ground over the past few years: alas Canberra still operates within somewhat of a strategic ‘fog’. Calls have been made to increase strategic attention to the Indo-Pacific, to brace for a US decline and potential for Canberra to go it alone in the region, to scrap diesel-submarine projects and invest in a nuclear-powered future fleet, and to increase Australian Defence spending to 3% of GDP. This special issue features alternative voices in the ‘Plan B for Australian Defence’ debate. Martin White’s article crafts a case for closer Indian-Australian ties to be an element of Canberra’s Plan B strategy. White delves into the shared interests and potential for increased intelligence cooperation between Delhi and Canberra, arguing the two are natural strategic partners. Rebecca Strating’s article focuses the Plan B debate on the question of Australian maritime strategy. Strating argues any Plan B approach should articulate how sea power would be mobilised to protect Australia’s national interests. Strating presents a case for Canberra to develop a new maritime strategy which is tailored to effectively deal with emerging security challenges. Graeme Dobell’s article provides an assessment of the Defence ‘beast’, illuminating the history of the department and subsequent efforts to grapple with the complexity of the challenge inherent in defending Australia. A Plan B, potentially to emerge from the upcoming ‘One Defence’ review, will no doubt need to contend with renewed demands of Dobell’s ‘beast’. Cameron Hawker’s article delves into the origins of our ‘Plan B for Australian Defence’ debate, arguing it is a product of ‘strategic drift’ in the Australian strategic community. John Blaxland presents a geostrategic SWOT framework for consideration in the Australian defence planning debate. Blaxland’s article makes the case for revising Canberra’s defence planning to better grapple with non-traditional security threats. Rita Parker takes a broader view of the ‘Plan B for Australian Defence’ debate. Parker’s article examines the contemporary strategic challenges for Australian security policy. In doing so, Parker illustrates how defence strategy, Australia’s Plan A, is in need of reframing to better reflect our current strategic situation. The Stephen Bartos article engages with Hugh White’s thesis—how best to defend Australia. Bartos employs an economic lens to the challenge of Australian defence, arguing Canberra’s interests are best served by economic and cultural integration with our neighbours and not by expanding military power. Mark Armstrong focuses on the role of Australian Defence Force (ADF) reservists as expressed in Defence White Papers since 1976. Armstrong’s article considers how Canberra can optimise the contribution from reservists to the defence force in future Defence White Papers by unpacking the historical strategic guidance provided. Albert Chapman also approaches the ‘Plan B for Australian Defence’ debate from new territory. Chapman’s article uses Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reportage to assess Australian Army project procurement and performance, in order to illustrate how Plan B forecasts (such as Canberra needing to increase the defence budget due to reduced US support) might influence the ‘bottom line’ of Australian Army capabilities. Dr Elizabeth Buchanan Special Issue Editor 2 Comment The Big Defence Beast Graeme Dobell All Australian governments come to office with a deep admiration for the military and some apprehension about the Department of Defence. Politicians embrace the uniform but worry about the organisation. After some time in office, the mystique of the slouch hat is confirmed; the men and women who salute are as impressive as their reputation. The Defence Department, though, is a big beast that doesn’t become more lovable by close association. Apprehension shifts towards frustration and even anger. The big beast is tasked with doing many things that are expensive, tough and complex. The high degree of difficulty is matched by the huge dump of dollars. Ministers are in the power game; they’re in it to make things happen, not have things happen to them—or happen extremely slowly, if at all. Ministers push and pull at the beast and coax and cajole, yet not much seems to shift. Another dimension of this is that Defence’s mission is to see that catastrophic things don’t happen. The beast gets fed huge amounts of cash, to what result? No war on our shores. Tick. National security. Tick. Trouble is, Australian voters tend to see defence