The time had come to work out arrangements and procedures between the Secretary and the newly created office of Chief of Defence Force Staff in the exercise of their joint administration of the Defence Force. At the same time each Service Chief, now possessing sole command of his Service, had to be given the financial and other delegations needed for him to exercise this comprehensive responsibility, acting within the policy parameters bid down from the Department.

Within the Department it was necessary to give practical shape to the several ‘organisations’, described in my Report, in the form of conventional Public Service establishments—in most cases divisions headed by First Assistant Secretaries under a Deputy Secretary. I obtained the concurrence of my Service colleague, General Sir Francis Hassett, with this new structure of functional Divisions overseeing uniform policy application to all three Services. Some were headed by two-star Service officers, some by civilians. For example a new Facilities Division, to which I appointed an officer who had originally been a Defence Scientist, would programme the construction and maintenance of buildings and facilities at Service bases. In this way I intended to bring under supervision specifications which sometimes were the product of ambitiously creative Works Department architects, with no incentive for economy, and base commanders seeking nothing but the best for their headquarters. In contrast, living quarters for soldiers’ families in Townsville and elsewhere in the North lacked amenities, as a result of earlier Treasury control requiring the Services to conform to the standards of State housing commissions.

The new situation facilitated the setting up by the Department, without tedious negotiation with independent Services, of project teams to manage the acquisition of capital equipment whose procurement and performance specification had previously been approved elsewhere in the system and endorsed by the Minister. It was not so easy to find qualified Service leaders in this field, and thereafter to prevent the loss of the expertise they acquired as a result of their Service’s promotion or posting policies that took them away to other duties. We had other frustrations, working subject to the rigidities of different portfolio authorities outside Defence. While approving contracts with overseas suppliers involving large financial implications (larger than likely to be found in the private sector), and with the need for them to conform, subject to penalties, to strict Service specifications, I was denied having legal advice at one’s elbow. The indivisibility of Commonwealth legal opinion required that we take time to inform and consult another Department, and to accept the Attorney-General’s Department’s own priorities for use of staff. External consultancies were not easily approved as an alternative.

With the disappearance from each Service of the two-star Board members, each of whom had responsibility for managing the specialised area under his command, new lines of authority from, and accountability to, the Chief of Staff had to be drafted. Some archaisms remained to be eliminated at some stage, such as the Army’s persistence with semi-independent regional Commands in state capitals—a hangover from pre-Federation colonial days. The Navy, formerly commanded by its five-member Naval Board, was now to be made unambiguously responsible to the Chief of Staff. I left these matters to the Chief of Defence Force Staff. I later came to recognise that I had made an error of judgement in not scrutinising the systems the Chiefs were setting up, where they involved matters of finance and defence policy and not military command of training and deployment alone.

Various misunderstandings or challenges from the Chiefs had to be cleared up or disposed of. The Chief of Air Staff of the time challenged the concept and practicability of ‘two-hatted’ arrangements. More importantly, the Chief of Defence Force Staff in 1976 stated his view that, on most matters, senior civilian and Service officers should be responsible to both the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Secretary. This view was unacceptable because the Government had approved my concept that such civilians would remain responsible to their Public Service head, but ‘responsive’ to the Chief of Defence Force Staff. Conversely, it had been agreed that Service officers under command would be ‘responsive’ to the Secretary on matters within his responsibilities. Neither Service command of Public Servants or civilian command of Service officers would apply except by specific assignment, and then would not extend to discipline or conditions of service. With the passage of time, working arrangements between the two joint administrators reduced frictions and worked in the way that I expected and have described in the previous chapter. In order to become aware of causes of dissatisfaction with Public Service attitudes, I arranged to make a call periodically on each Chief for frank discussion of any such problems.

As one Chief of Defence Force Staff succeeded another, I came to believe that there was some reluctance on the part of the occupant of this office to overrule the Chiefs of the two Services to which he did not belong. I can only speculate about the attitude of mind behind this. I do recall that during the high-level committee consultations on the five-year programme involving the Chiefs over which I presided during the 1970s, it was often a senior civilian adviser rather than a Chief of Staff who initiated a critical analysis requiring rejection of another Chief of Staff’s proposal. There was one exception—maritime aviation was a subject where such inhibitions vanished, as the historic rivalry between the Air Force and the Navy lit up meetings.

The Chief of Defence Force Staff had a rather small staff, yet there was no obstacle to his appointing more senior people to support the exercise of command over the Services, calling a Service to account to him where justified. In later years, looking on as an observer outside Defence, I have noted the use by Chief of Defence Force Staff (now Chief of the Defence Force) of the power of command to bring about substantial changes in Service Commands. Some of these ideas existed in the 1970s but were not put into practice.