Allan Ivarsson Author... of Amazon.com Books

‘White Paper’ Bureaucracy is slowing down Australia’s urgently needed growth in strength of our Military Defence System.

Scroll down to content

‘White Paper’ Bureaucracy is slowing down Australia’s urgently needed growth in strength of our Military Defence System.

White Paper bureaucratic system is slowing the needed growth in strength of our Military Defence System. We need a smarter faster action system to upgrade the performance strength of our military. Australia is not prepared for another World War in defence against invasion because of incompetent politicians.

Communist China is building its fourth Aircraft Carrier, but do not panic, the ‘Good News’ is that the Communists are not yet masters of Advanced Technology, other Nations are still ahead of them including USA.

The ‘Bad News’ is Australia is lazily behind ‘Communist China’ in construction of Aircraft Carriers, because our incompetent Politicians are intellectually weak in creating ‘Military Strength.’ The Communist Chinese Leaders are tougher and smarter and more determined than Australian Politicians, which is why we must replace some of our politicians including our second-rate Defence Minister with Military Leaders that have Positive Mental Attitude strength of character and do understand what ‘Military Strength’ and requirements is about in all the services.

We need to return to having combat skilled ‘Defence Ministers’ for everyone of our Military Services all reporting to a tough competent Prime Minister that has the power to make wise decisions in much the same way as the American President.

We had a better defence leadership before Whitlam (Labor) dismantled our earlier strength.

We need to get rid of the false knowledge fearmongering created by ‘Communist Chinese’ bully tactics and identify strengths and weaknesses of China and Australia compared to USA. And we need to explore our ally’s strength that is, Japan, South Korea, and India to ensure we united can stand up strong against the dictatorship of the Red Communists.

We also need to support Taiwan’s right to live free and to support Hong Kong and Tibet’s right to live free and include the freedom rights of every Nation in the South Pacific and South Asia. The bully tactics of Xi Jinping, Beijing and their Communist Comrades must be stopped.

Robert Menzies the Prime Minister wisely abolished the position of Minister for Defence, which existed from January 1st, 1901 until November 13th, 1939. And at the outbreak of World War II, he created separate Ministers for the Army, the Navy, and the Air, with himself as Minister for Defence Coordination.

The title of Minister of Defence was used again in 1942.

The titles of Ministers for the Army, the Navy, and the Air, was foolishly abolished by the Whitlam Government on November 30th, 1973. Thus, the specialist skills of each Defence Force were meshed, and their skills ability was slowed down discouraging advanced development of a team of stronger technology defence.

The pressure for better military equipment for our Military Defence began to stagnate and became neglected by our Prime Ministers, Labor and Liberal thereafter, decade after decade. Australia should have become a stronger Military Coordinated Team of Army, Navy and Air. We failed because the incentive to become stronger and smarter was taken away from the Military by the lack of leadership, denied by the elimination of Ministers of each military force by idiot Whitlam.

The idea today by Australian Governments Labor and Liberal is to give the primary function of the Minister of Defence to direct the formulation of the government’s defence policy, working on behalf of the Australian Government and agencies and personnel of the Australian Defence Organisation. The problem with this strategy is that appointed ‘Defence Ministers’ do not have a military skills background and thus are not driven by the motivation to persistently build a stronger more advanced Military Force in Army, Navy and Air.

Proof of our politician’s incompetence is that we have failed to build more Aircraft Carriers and failed to protect and preserve self-sufficiency in manufacturing, which should have always been a growth industry.

The results decade after decade speaks for itself, the Australian Military Strength is weak and inadequate for Australian defence against invasion. We are failing because we do not have independent Ministers for Army, Navy and Air, focused on becoming stronger military forces. These three common-sense defence forces lead by individual Ministers must through respect of each other, work to unite and coordinate their skills together in peace, training and in war.

The Ministers of the Army, the Navy and the Air should have established specialist departments seeking to upgrade their military skills in technology and in procurement and building of more advanced technology equipment. This includes in simple words… Transport Vehicles, Weapons, Ships, Planes and Missiles and Communication and Supplies.

The existing thinking today in Australian Politics is that the Australian Government operates three principal entities which are responsible for creating and maintaining defence policy with the Australian Defence Structure. The organization idea is that # Australia has an Air Power Development Centre, and # Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a # Sea Power Centre.

The common-sense use of the words, Army, Navy and Airforce is in neglect by our Politicians. We need to dump the above # wishy-washy Organisation names, and focus on Ministers of Army, Navy and Air.

‘Communist China’ is Army, Navy and Air.

It is part of our current political process, void of advanced thinking recommendations from Army Navy and Air to expend extensive resources for the Publication of Defence ‘White Papers’ to assess current defence capabilities of Australian Forces and look at infrastructure to investigate the best manner of improving Defence to support government policy.

This bureaucratic red tape bungling method does not achieve anything. The results speak for itself… Australia’s Military Defence in Army, Navy and Air is weak compared to China, USA, and many other Nations, because Politicians do not have the skills to create a strong military presence for defence of Australia.

We need Defence Ministers and Army Ministers and Navy Minister and Air Ministers all of whom are skilled in Military Defence. Appointing people to serve as Politicians making defence decisions who have no military background expertise is stupid and explains why Australia is so incompetent in upgrading its Military Defence Capability.

The bungled decision to buy French Submarines built in Australia which will not be available for another 12 to 15 years is a classic example of bureaucratic bungling. By the time we get the submarines they will be outdated by better technology.

‘Communist China’ persistently focuses on building and upgrading its military strength in Army, Navy and Airforce, void of bureaucratic red tape, steaming aggressively ahead to become persistently stronger and better, while Australian unskilled politicians are bogged down in mindless detail and thus our weak military strength just coasts along and no doubt many military leaders in Army, Navy and Air are frustrated by the poor decision making of our Politicians.

It has been reported that our Politicians use for their decisions a ‘Defence White Paper’ the last one published in 2016. It was the eighth defence whitepaper since 1976. The papers encourage politicians to form their military policies based upon the information recorded in these ‘White Papers’. The information in these papers is based upon leading policy experts and senior military personnel. Of course, we do not know who those so-called experts are, and we do not know their belief system, they could be anti-freedom Socialists or Communists; or their expertise could be political void of real military skills. Since these papers do not inspire much controversy it suggests that the ideas tabled by military personnel are either walking too soft or the real military leaders are politically hushed from saying it the way it is.

In any event, the ‘White Papers’ have failed, they have not given Australia since 1976 a strong growing Australian Military Force in Army, Navy and Airforce.

Five years have passed since the delivery of the last ‘Defence White Paper’. More proof that the growth of our Military Strength is weakened by Political Incompetence.

We need to eliminate the bureaucratic red tape ‘White Papers’ and appoint a Minister for Army, a Minister for Navy, and a Minister for Air whose responsibility is to work on building a strong defence system in personnel and equipment and strategy. They should be requisitioning the equipment and resources they want as a clear-cut tabled objective and the Prime Minister and Treasurer should be striving to support their needs to build a stronger military defence force.

Burying a list of equipment needed by the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Airforce in a ‘White Paper’ presentation slows down the delivery performance.

Classic example: 12 new submarines are needed to replace the Collins class submarines. Delivery date chosen by politicians is 12 to 15 years. No wonder ‘Communist China’ is laughing at us.

Why are not the Military Personnel fighting for more equipment? Because our Politicians have failed to support their needs. The ‘White Paper’ procedure buries progress and achievement. The results of slow growth in military strength since 1975 proves it.

Where are all our aircraft carriers, submarines, planes, and missiles guarding our Australian entire coastline? ‘Communist China’ moves around us whenever it wants for whatever excuse it tables to keep an eye on us.

It is not clear to the public whether these items listed in the ‘White Paper’ were approved, purchased, and delivered but if each military service had its own independent requisition, process being managed as an objective, pressure to deliver could be increased.

And performance can be monitored and measured.

In addition, we need to answer the question, “How much self-sufficiency activity is used by us in home construction of our military equipment needs?”

Were these requests in the 2016 White Paper delivered?

12 Submarines – No not for another 12 to 15 years. We would have been smarter if we had looked at Japanese or American Submarines instead of French. By the time we get them their technology will be outdated.

An order requisition for two subs a year over six years would have been smarter.

The White Paper lists over twenty years military needs for equipment and systems. Example just some items… why twenty years list? Why not requisition immediate needs progressively from month to month, year to year as required?

  • Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft and a further 7 aircraft of similar design. Reason for need should be included in requisition report not buried in a ‘White Paper’.
  • 12 surface vessels, including 3 Hobart-class destroyers and 9 frigates of a new design.
  • 12 “offshore patrol vessels” to replace Armidale-class patrol boats.
  • 7 MQ-4C Triton surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles.
  • 72 F-35A Lightening II joint Strike Fighters.
  • A new ground-based radar system.
  • 1,100 Hawkei infantry mobility vehicles, and a replacement for the Bushmaster IMV.
  • A new rocket artillery system with a range of up to 300 kilometres.
  • 2 additional KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft.
  • 3 CH-47 Chinook helicopters.
  • 2 new replenishment vessels.

A Military Requisition order for an item needed with a due date target for delivery backed by a reason report could be managed as an important need for action, not buried in a ‘White Paper’ wish-list that might be actioned or not by a Politician down-the-track. This Military Request can then be forwarded to the ‘Defence Minister’ for Action discussion with Prime Minister and Treasurer. This would be a faster action process than waiting for a ‘White Paper’ activity founded upon “To be or not to be.”

‘Big Project Development’ needs by the Military can be defined as ‘Specialist Project Plans’ Requisitions for review and action.

Allan Ivarsson 2021

Retired Specialist in Project Management Skills.

%d bloggers like this: