February 26, 2024
Defence Minister Richard Marles has sharpened criticisms of his own department, arguing cultural problems among leaders need to be more robustly challenged.
The latest stinging rebuke comes more than two weeks after The Australian Financial Review revealed tensions between the defence minister and his bureaucrats, and Mr Marles' explosive public confirmation in parliament.
In a television interview yesterday, Mr Marles said the broader leadership of the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force must provide more timely and accurate advice to the government.
"I think there are issues of culture within the senior leadership and the more general leadership of the ADF and the department, which needs challenging," Mr Marles said on Sky News.
"That's something I've had complete collaboration with from both the secretary of defence and the CDF [chief of defence force].
"There is an issue in relation to culture, and we should be seeking to have a culture of absolute excellence."
It is understood Mr Marles believes his relationships are good with the military service chiefs and down to the deputy secretary level in the bureaucracy, but he is concerned about resistance to change in lower command ranks.
Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James fired back, saying defence ministers often did not take a long-term view to investing in the portfolio. "Any cultural issues within the defence portfolio are dwarfed by the problems in our political culture, including ministerial supervision of complex portfolios."
Mr James said defence ministers spent a lot of time at Parliament House and in the electorate with voters, but not enough time at defence sites.
"Generally speaking, senators make better defence ministers because they have more time to allocate to a complex portfolio," Mr James said, listing former Labor defence minister Robert Ray and Liberal defence minister Robert Hill as examples.
Mr Marles is also deputy prime minister and a member of the House of Representatives.
Mr Marles has been irritated over the quality of briefs prepared for him, including over matters such as numerous spelling mistakes, which he felt pointed to a lack of attention to detail.
One of the main sore points between Mr Marles and the department has been officials persisting with funding demands for new manned platforms such as tanks, defying the recommendations of the defence strategic review, which called for a more nimble, maritime-focused army.
Defence officials, meanwhile, feel hamstrung by the need to make deep funding cuts to pay for new priorities such as AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines because the government is not increasing the defence budget substantially until 2027.
Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said "leadership starts from the top". "Richard Marles has been a weak deputy prime minister and a weak defence minister," Senator Paterson said on Sunday.
"The extra funding that was announced this week for the surface fleet of only $1.7 billion over four years is the first dollars that Richard Marles has been able to get out of the expenditure review committee in two years following a defence strategic review which said that our strategic circumstances are the worst they've been since the end of World War II."
The government has flagged an extra $30 billion in defence funding over a decade, but it is beyond the four-year forward estimates reported in the budget.
Mr Marles said the revolving door of six Coalition defence ministers and seven defence industry ministers "churning through" the portfolio under the nine years of the former government had hurt morale. "Going forward, though, we need to address that culture," Mr Marles said.
Mr James said none of Labor's current defence ministers were in the portfolio immediately before the election as shadow ministers. He lamented the dumping of former opposition spokesman for veterans' affairs and defence personnel Shayne Neumann from the portfolio after Labor won the election.
Defence secretary Greg Moriarty confirmed Mr Marles had aired concerns over the department's performance in a top-level meeting last year.
