Defence

Feature

Challenges in Commonwealth cooperation

As head of the Intelligence Division in the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD), Dr Margot McCarthy is responsible for the analytic and intelligence production capabilities. In this role, Margot works closely with key customers within Defence, the wider Australian Intelligence Community and across government. Ara Nalbandian spoke to Margot about her work and her experiences in the Australian Public Service, and about whole-of-government issues.

Photo provided by Public Affairs

Defence magazine: In early 2004 you moved from Defence to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). What were the challenges and eye-openers for you in that move?

The key challenges were the volume and tempo of the work in PM&C. In every government department, there are issues rising to prominence every day—key decisions to be taken, crises to be dealt with, unexpected opportunities to be capitalised on. In the PM&C context, all that comes together in the one department because the Prime Minister, as the head of government, will have an interest in some portion of all that happens every day across government. The volume of issues coming forward for the Prime Minister's consideration every day and the speed at which those issues needed to be dealt with was very challenging—but very stimulating and exciting at the same time.

I've been privileged to work with talented and committed people in every job I've done in Defence. The eye-opener in PM&C was the sheer concentration of these qualities. Very small groups of people were able to achieve amazing things because of that concentration of commitment, talent and energy. Of course, with that goes a very high level of staff turnover, because people of that quality are always ripe for promotion and moves at level, either within PM&C or back to line agencies, or indeed outside government.

PM&C was fertile ground for headhunting (and PM&C was very interested in headhunting at the same time). It was a challenge keeping up the corporate memory, but PM&C is very fortunate always to have people wanting to come and work in that kind of environment. It's terrific for people from line agencies to spend time in one or more of the central agencies—whether it be PM&C or Finance and Treasury—because they bring with them their knowledge and experience about the issues being dealt with, and they can then take back to their line departments a better understanding of how things like the Budget and Cabinet processes work.

The extraordinary collegiality that I encountered in PM&C was another eye-opener. In a sense, collegiality is made easier by the fact that it's a very small department of only some 400 people. But as well as that, there was this extraordinary tendency to share information, and consult and coordinate across PM&C and the whole of government. It was really enriching to work in an environment in which people genuinely wanted to help take issues forward. People knew that no-one's job could be done without effective coordination.

What are the common misunderstandings that people in Defence have about how government as a whole works—particularly about the role of the PM&C's Defence and Intelligence Branch? What are the challenges in providing a coherent policy?

There are two common misunderstandings, at almost opposing ends of the spectrum, about that branch's role and, indeed, about PM&C in general. On the one hand, there are some who take the view that all that PM&C does is reformat and re-present other agencies' views on an issue. The other common misunderstanding was that PM&C was involved in second-guessing and running interference on other agencies' proposals from a position of inexperience and insufficient understanding of what was trying to be achieved.

The Secretary, Dr Shergold, always made it very clear that the job of PM&C is to provide independent advice based on careful analysis and close interaction with the experts in the line agencies who were bringing forward the proposals. The challenge was to be able to really pick the eyes out of an issue—one that people in the relevant line agency had been working on for long periods: in relation to certain Defence capability proposals, several years. My team had to advise the Prime Minister on key risks, key trade-offs, key financial implications. We didn't act simply as a conduit for others' views nor did we engage on an issue without the intention of adding value.

What shapes the whole-of-government agenda? Policy? Dollars? Public opinion? And what is your view of where defence sits in the Government's priorities?

What shapes the whole-of-government agenda is the Government's intentions and expectations. A convenient point to start in the policy development cycle is the Government's aspirations as they are articulated in an election policy platform. Policy then develops, is further articulated, is refined by way of key ministerial statements and key decisions—in Defence's case, for example, on new capabilities, on where and how the Australian Defence Force (ADF) should be deployed, key policy documents such as white papers, Defence Updates, and legislative initiatives.

It's the job of agencies to work together, with central agencies playing a coordinating role, to consider where dollars might best be spent to ensure that there are no duplications in function that would result in inefficiencies and government is given a range of options for responding to emerging public opinion.

In the Government's priorities, defence clearly sits at the top. You only have to look at the last Defence Update, released in December 2005, in which the former Minister said in his Foreword: 'Providing the capability to defend Australia and Australian interests is the first responsibility of government'.

As a contrast, you recently attended the Future Directions Forum along with Wing Commander Steve Roberton, Commanding Officer No. 75 Squadron. What was discussed about the community and priorities for defence?

The forum was a gathering of '90 emerging opinion leaders under or close to 40'. It involved a series of discussions and debates about Australia's 'best possible futures'. Interestingly, defence and security issues were not high on the agenda. An easy answer to why that was would be that people don't have strong views on these issues. I think the more likely answer is that the participants were less willing to grapple with these issues because they don't affect their everyday lives in such an immediate way as issues like health, education and welfare. Had people at the forum been asked a series of pointed, direct questions about defence and security, there would probably have been robust and vigorous debate. It was very good for me—as someone who works so closely on defence and security issues and for whom the issues are central—to realise that there is so much else that people are concerned about. That brings me back to the PM&C context: that is exactly the environment in which the Prime Minister operates—defence, albeit a top priority, is one of a range of priorities that he and his Ministers across government are grappling with every day.

What can Defence do better in how it engages the rest of government? And what can we learn from some of our successes?

Defence is so large and so complex, and has such extraordinary depth and breadth of experience that it is understandable, indeed natural, that people might feel that all the advice and answers can be generated from within. But of course no government agency can operate in isolation, and so much of what government wants to achieve can only be achieved by several arms of government working together coherently. Defence has of course always operated very closely with the intelligence agencies and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). However, it is operating now more than ever with an array of departments with which it has previously not had as much to do, and we're getting better all the time at that cooperation. The counter-terrorism agenda is perhaps the clearest example of a whole range of departments and agencies—Defence, DFAT, the intelligence agencies, the Attorney-General's Department, Customs, Immigration—needing to work together. We can always do better at communicating clearly, succinctly and in plain language the complex issues—particularly capability issues—that Defence is responsible for bringing forward. Plain and unambiguous language gives busy senior officials and the Prime Minister the best opportunity to absorb key messages efficiently and quickly.

In terms of successes, in the area of engagement, there was never an occasion during my time in PM&C when colleagues in Defence didn't do all they could to provide the information, clarification or assistance that I was seeking. There are a couple of parts of Defence that were particularly effective in terms of engagement. DSD, the organisation I'm working for now, came to PM&C early about a particular issue and provided very clear and cogent explanations, and was happy to answer as many questions as we needed to ask. And the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), under Dr Steven Gumley, in relation to major shipbuilding projects was a real standout in terms of the depth and proactivity of its engagement with central agencies. DMO gave us every opportunity to understand the development of project proposals as they were unfolding. The key message I took away from PM&C was 'engage early and often'.

[ top of page ]