Perhaps I’m unduly sensitive on the subject having just spent a few days in Thailand, where military coups — past or projected — are a real issue in political life. But do we really want to be the sort of country where the military gets to decide on the appointment of government ministers?
Yet that appears to be view of Tony Abbott, who implied at the weekend that Stephen Smith was unfit to remain as defence minister because “defence personnel don’t want him”. This morning, shadow minister David Johnston is reported as saying that “Defence does not want [Smith] in the job” and it is “time for him to be moved on”.
The attack on Smith has certainly been relentless; John Cantwell, a retired major-general, produced a particularly spiteful piece in The Saturday Age, and the usual suspects such as Dennis Shanahan have also weighed in.
No doubt Smith has his faults, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the primary factor here is outrage in the Defence establishment at a minister who is willing to take them on. The details of the affair are less important than the principle of upholding civilian control of the military.
That’s a principle that the opposition, and Abbott in particular, seem to have some problems with. A year and a half ago, the opposition leader was suggesting soldiers were being “stabbed in the back” — an especially fraught historical term — by the government. And it’s always worth remembering that Abbott’s mentor, Bob Santamaria, began his political career by supporting military rebellion against a democratically elected government in Spain.
For most Australians this is all no doubt impossibly theoretical, and the Spanish Civil War is as remote as the voyages of Columbus. And we are certainly fortunate in lacking any recent experience of a politicised defence force — we tend to treat the military as just another interest group, albeit one with an exaggerated idea of its own importance.
Countries with a less happy history have learnt to be vigilant, and military officers who resist civilian control either resign or are cashiered. But in the more settled democracies, right-wing politicians have developed an unfortunate habit of placing the military on a pedestal, deferring to its judgment and smearing its critics as disloyal.
Of course, public servants of any stripe tend to think — sometimes rightly — that they know more about their field than their political masters. But Abbott would be outraged if the teachers’ union, for example, were to presume to dictate who was acceptable as education minister. Indeed, one suspects that he would regard hostility from the union as a badge of honour for most ministers.
It’s only the military that the opposition wants to put in such a position of privilege, and that’s a dangerous road for any democracy to start down.
Not the first time that Abbott has jumped at something to try and twist a political advantage at the cost of ethical standards.
Sure all politicians are guilty of this but Abbott has proven that there is no bar so lkow that he won’t slither under it
At last we have a commentator who looks at the key underlying issue in the “Smith Affair”: who is it in a democracy that runs the military? As a barometer on the matter just look at the performance of Neil James and the Defence Force Association on this issue. From my memory of watching James on Defence issues this is the only time (over the last 6+ months) where he has offered anything other than bland explanations and anodyne commentary. Why is this I wonder unless it discloses something more about the real mission of the Defence Force Association other than what is clear from their website? The sheer vitriol (and idiocy) of James public comments are a dead giveaway. He and the Association he “represents” seem to reflect the views of senior serving officers with little or no account of the broader public interest or indeed of democracy itself.
On the other hand, Smith personally and viciously attacked an individual, without having the facts to hand, standing them down from their role and basically treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Once the individual was exonerated by an independent inquiry, Smith then sat on the report for months before reluctantly releasing the report.
Smith then refused to apologise for blackening the name and reputation of the ADFA Commandant. If this was anything except the ADF, the employee could sue for damages and reputational loss, however ADF members cannot.
That said however just because they have no recourse doesn’t stop members at all levels of the ADF from wondering exactly what sort of person the Defence Minister is, and coming up with a very unsettling answer.
ADF members give up many of the freedoms we take for granted as part of their career, plus putting their lives on the line when told to by the elected government of the day.
It’s a shame when the Minister charged with responsibility for their welfare is not worthy of the people they represent, which in this case Smith surely is not.
For an ex General to criticise Crikey labelled “REMF” Smith is a bold more.
He can kiss a diplomatic post, gong, job in Defence Awards Tribunal etc etc until Labor is out of power.
The fact that some many have made comments means there must be some serious smoke there Charles.
Michael James is wrong on all counts as demonstrated by the release of the original report by Channel 10.
Smith did not viciously attack anyone, as Minister he said and took appropriate action when the military failed to redress the injustice done to the female party by postponing the review of other matters in which she is alleged to have been involved.
The inquiry is hardly independent when controlled by the military and as the unexpurgated version of the report, courtesy of Channel 10, shows the military found the Commandants actions reprehensible.
Smith with knowledge of the full report obviously refused to apologise; though maybe he attempted to quell the unrighteous indignation of some senior officers by condoning the release of a doctored report.
Michael James should also note that the military reports to the Government, not the other way round. However all is not wrong with Defence, broadly speaking they are an absolute credit to this country, but the attitude that they can do no wrong diminishes them and Smith should be given credit for standing by what is honourable not hiding disgraceful events from public view.