Defence analysts have called on Australia’s Defence Department to improve transparency in its reporting as it could help the country avoid corruption similar to those seen in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
At a recent parliamentary inquiry hearing, Alex Bristow, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), raised concerns about the Department’s lack of transparency in its latest annual report.
“Unfortunately, the defence annual report, as long and comprehensive as it is, shows Defence still clings to excessive secrecy and assesses its own performance against its own targets when it clearly is not delivering a military power that Australia needs anywhere near fast enough,” he told the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Malcolm Davis, another ASPI senior analyst, said Defence no longer produce key reports that previously show insight into spending, investment and timelines.
“I joined ASPI in 2016, and I remember that when we were doing the cost of defence, the DCP [Defence Force Discipline] reports were invaluable in terms of us assessing what is going on at defence,” he said.
“Now it’s much more difficult to actually get through the wall that has been put up in terms of a willingness on the part of Defence’s public relations.”
Bristow also pointed out that Australia’s federal parliament has less access to confidential defence information than the U.S. Congress.
“If you look at the United States, for example, I think [its] Congress demands and receives far greater detail from its department of defence than we get from ours,” he said.
“I do think that parliament has not taken every opportunity it could have to have expected more from Defence in terms of transparency.
More Transparency Prevents CCP-Style Corruption
A member of the committee questioned whether more transparency in Defence’s reporting would give an advantage to Australia’s adversaries and put the country at risk.In response, Davis said adversaries probably already knew far more than what the Australian public did about what was going on with Australia’s defence.
In addition, the analyst said there is a need to maintain transparency as Australia is a democracy.
“Authoritarian states like China are not going to divulge as much information as democracies are, but we’re democracies for a reason,” he said.
“And I think that it makes sense to whilst being sensible about not revealing information that’s sensitive or classified. It does make sense to have more openness.”
Meanwhile, Bristow said authoritarian states did not necessarily have an advantage over Australia with their secrecy-maintaining practice.
“I think if you look at the regular purchase of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China, there’s some evidence that it’s preventing the raising of the military capability of the PLA because they don’t know where corruption lies, [and] where inefficiencies lie in the system,” he said.
“I don’t think that’s a model that our values would mirror.
“I think the efficiency, [and] the fighting capability of the Australian Defence Force is better served by a degree of transparency.”
The Need to Openly Discuss China’s Threat with Public
Beyond internal accountability, ASPI highlighted the need for the Australian government to be more transparent with the public about the increasing threats the country faces—particularly from China.“I think those who do serve want to defend the country … from the threats. So, if you understand what the threats are, you'll come to Australia’s calling and serve in order to help defend the country,” Bristow said.
The analyst further added that it would help tremendously if politicians and government officials directly pointed out that China is the primary concern.
“China will complain. It will threaten all sorts of retaliatory action. It may threaten to hurt our trade interests,” he said.
“But I do think it’s necessary to be honest that when we’re talking about the focus force in the defence strategic review, we’re talking about the forces focused on deterring, if necessary, fighting China.”
