Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / Ministerial Submission Guidelines Your submission to a senior executive (Minister) with an appropriate portfolio (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minister of Defence etc

Ministerial Submission Guidelines Your submission to a senior executive (Minister) with an appropriate portfolio (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minister of Defence etc

Writing

Ministerial Submission Guidelines

Your submission to a senior executive (Minister) with an appropriate portfolio (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minister of Defence etc.) must be clear and concise (no more than 1,000 words).

 

Organisational Structure (not a Template to Follow)

 

You need to include the following contents:

 

SUBJECT OF SUBMISSION

 

State the issue concisely (in one sentence).

 

RECOMMENDATION (S)

 

Please note the decisions which you wish the Minister to consider making, eg

That you …

That you…

 

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

 

You need to:

  • Provide a short summary of the issue being considered (provide the Minister with enough information to justify the decision(s) being suggested, but not an exhaustive, essay-style treatment of the issue)
  • Explain the reason(s) why the submission was prepared
  • Explain the reasons for the recommendation(s) being made and the risks, advantages and disadvantages of these recommendations
  • And also mention other options available (and briefly, the reasons why they are not being recommended)

 

SENSITIVITY

 

You should note briefly whether there are any sensitivities about the issue: eg is there a particular group or organisation for which this is a particularly sensitive issue and which the Minister ought to know about.

 

COSTING

 

You need to indicate whether the recommendations involve expenditure and other resource requirements.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Note who has been consulted in the preparation of this submission (for example, consider whether it would be wise for other departments to have been consulted).

 

COMMUNICATION

 

You should note whether a public statement (media release) should be made by the Minister.

 

 

 

 

Submission Styles for Ministerial Briefing Papers

 

Hypothetical Examples (not a Template to Follow)

 

To guide your submission preparation, the following hypothetical examples of submission writing are provided to give you a sense of less appropriate (Version A) and more appropriate (Version B) submission styles. In this case, the submissions are in response to a hypothetical request in early 2000s from the US and the UK that Australia joins a coalition to place additional pressure on Iraq to comply with its UN obligations.

 

VERSION A: LESS LIKE THIS

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

The US and UK want to reassemble a military coalition to put pressure on Iraq to comply with its UN obligations regarding weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.  They have asked Australia to participate.  On balance, and although there is a significant risk of combat, we consider that it is in Australia’s interests to consider this request favourably.

 

ISSUES

 

Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait on 2 August 1990.  The US responded through assembling an international coalition to liberate Kuwait.  Coalition forces where deployed predominantly in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and, in Operation Desert Storm, in January/February 1991 the Iraqi occupation force was routed and driven out of Kuwait.  The retreating Iraqi’s engaged in scorched-earth practices, including…. The settlement agreed to by Iraq included the destruction of all its stocks of… and of the capabilities to manufacture these agents and systems.

 

Over the years, Iraq has played cat and mouse with the UN monitors overseeing its compliance with the terms of the settlement of the conflict.  In recent months, this intransigence has become more blatant.  For example,…. In addition, the determination of the UN to insist on full compliance has began to weaken.  Russia and France, for example, have been pressing in the UN Security Council….

 

Over recent weeks we have detected growing impatience in Washington with the UN’s unwillingness or inability to press Baghdad to comply fully…. We have been expecting a US response in some form.

 

Iraq’s Arab neighbours, and Iran, have become more ambivalent about the approach to Baghdad, and the predominantly US military presence associated with it.  These states do not want see Iraq again become a threat.  At the same time, they are uncomfortable about being identified by Iraq as supportive of UN sanctions when these sanctions are being implemented so half-heartedly that they have little prospect of being effective.

 

Australia has been a strong supporter of the UN since its….

 

The alliance with the United States is fundamental to Australia’s defence and wider security policy.  We have been together with the US in every….

 

And so on and so forth

 

VERSION B: MORE LIKE THIS

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

To recommend that Australia agree to join the US and UK in putting pressure, including military force if necessary, on Iraq to comply with its UN obligations.

 

ISSUES

 

The US and UK have formally requested Australia’s participation in a new coalition being formed to put pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations to the international community following its expulsion from Kuwait in 1991.

 

The request makes clear that military action would be a last resort and intended strictly to secure Iraqi compliance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions.

 

Iraq’s compliance with these resolutions has been uneven.  In recent months, however, its defiance has become markedly more blatant.  The UN inspection/monitoring effort, which depends on a measure of Iraqi cooperation, has effectively ceased to function.

 

In terms of our alliance with the US, we need to be aware that Washington attaches the highest priority to this issue.  The softer positions that France and Russia have adopted in the Security Council have attracted unusually harsh American criticism. 

 

Arab states have become more ambivalent about the inspection/sanctions regime against Iraq.  We consider, however, that this more to do with concern that the regime will not be implemented effectively than with a lack of concern about Iraq as a threat to regional stability.  Clear resolve and firm action, including the use of force if necessary, is unlikely to attract a backlash from these states.  This assessment is shared by the US and UK.

 

Australia has a keen interest in protecting and developing the authority of the UN Security Council.  This was a major consideration in our decision to participate in Desert Storm.  Successful Iraqi defiance of its obligations to the UN would be very damaging to these interests. 

 

 

 

 

Example: Submission for the Minister of XXX

(Follow this Template)

Name of Department

Minute Ref                                       001

Minister                                            Senator The Hon. Given Name Surname

For Action                                        Date Month Year

Reason for submission                     Bilateral discussions with United States (US) Secretary of Defense

 

SUBJECT OF SUBMISSION

Likely request from US Secretary of Defense for public statement by Australian Minister for XXX for Australian active participation in a range of missile defence projects.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That you make a public statement indicating Australia’s willingness to participate with a focus on theatre missile defence: “Option 1”.

 

SUMMARY

 

  • The US is developing a global missile defence system comprising limited national missile defence and enhanced theatre missile defence. The US is likely to request Australian participation in missile defence projects
  • Prior Australian government position has been supportive of missile defence and US motivations
  • Australia’s requirement for theatre missile defence capability, reliance on US intelligence and the importance of the US alliance requires Australian participation in some form
  • The Minister should make a public statement that Australia will participate in missile defence projects. Focus on theatre defence for deployed ADF units
  • Alternative options – not making a statement or open ended commitment to participate - are not recommended

SENSITIVITY: US alliance, regional security relationships, international opinion

 

COSTING: Short term – no implications. Long term – subject to commitment. Missile defence is expensive. This is not costed in Defence Capability Plan

 

CONSULTATION: DFAT/DoD, PM&C, US DoD/US embassy prior to public statement

 

COMMUNICATION: Draft speech for Minister (attachment 1). Draft press release (attachment 2). Communication with selected regional foreign ministries recommended after statement

 

AUTHORISED:                                                              APPROVED  /  NOT APPROVED

(Signature)

Name

Position

Tel. Number

Date

 

CONTACT:

A N Other                                                                      Name of Minister

 

SENSITIVITY

  • Missile defence is a highly sensitive international issue.
  • US-Australia alliance. The US wants allies to help develop and deploy a global missile defence system. Failure to participate would be viewed negatively by US.
  • Regional security relations. Australian active involvement in global missile defence will be seen negatively by many countries particularly China.

 

STATEMENT RISKS

 

A public statement to participate involves a delicate balance between the requirements of our alliance with the US and good relations with our regional neighbours and supporting non-proliferation efforts.

  • Not providing a public statement risks alienating the US and may cause some damage to the relationship.
  • Providing a strongly participatory public statement risks alienating key relationships within the Asia-Pacific and wider regions.

Australia’s requirement for theatre missile defence capability and the importance of the US alliance requires a public statement in some form.

 

To offset these risks consultation before the Minister’s public statement with US Department of Defense/US Embassy is recommended. Consultation to explain the focus of the statement. Following the statement communication with selected regional foreign ministries should be considered to explain Australia’s position and minimise any diplomatic fall out. Consideration should be given to subsequent speech by the Minister affirming Australia’s commitment to international non-proliferation efforts and regional security co-operation.

 

MISSILE DEFENCE BACKGROUND

 

The US is developing a missile defence system. This comprises development of limited national (or strategic) missile defence and battlefield (or theatre) missile defence. Distinction between the two has been blurred by the enhanced technical capability of theatre missile defence. The US has withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

Underpinning the US development of missile defence has been the proliferation of WMD and ballistic missile technology and the threat from terrorists and rogue states.

Opponents of missile defence argue that it will lead to a renewed arms race, WMD proliferation and breakdown of the arms control regime.

ISSUES

 

  • The US Secretary of Defense is expected to request in forthcoming bilateral discussions a public statement from the Australian Minister for Defence committing the Australian government to participate actively in a range of missile defence projects.
  • Option 1 (preferred) recommends a public statement of commitment with a focus on theatre missile defence for deployed ADF units and defence of Australia’s air-sea approaches.
  • Option 2 is a public statement of an open-ended commitment to participate in missile defence projects. This is probably closer to the intent of the US Secretary of Defense’s request. It is not recommended due to cost, technical and regional security implications.
  • Option 3 is no public statement. It is not recommended.

Option 1 - Commitment to participate with focus on theatre missile defence

This is recommended. It best meets Australia’s strategic objectives.

  • The proliferation of short/medium range missiles and cruise missiles in the Asia-Pacific region requires theatre missile defence for ADF deployment within the region. This holds true for ADF deployment outside the region in multinational operations.
  • Defence of the air-sea approaches to Australia requires a theatre missile defence capability.
  • This capability is consistent with government policy – Australia’s National Security: A Defence Update 2003 and the Defence Capability Plan. Co-operation on theatre missile defence projects with the US is going on. For example, sea-based ballistic missile defence.
  • Theatre missile defence is less controversial than national missile defence and less likely to upset regional neighbours.
  • Australia is unlikely to be able to afford a national missile defence system.

Option 2 – Open ended commitment to participate actively in missile defence projects

 

This is not recommended. It supports the US alliance but adds only marginally to Australia’s defence and with a financial and diplomatic cost.

  • The financial cost of active participation in national missile defence will be high. Actual cost is unknown but likely to be over ten billion dollars. This is not provided for in the Defence Capability Plan.
  • Australia already hosts components of US missile defence system at Pine Gap. Australia has access to US intelligence, imaging and ballistic missile early warning data.
  • The US national missile defence system is technically unproven.
  • A public commitment to national missile defence risks damaging regional security relationships.
  • There is unlikely to be a state or non-state actor with the capability and intention to strike the Australian continent with long-range ballistic missiles.

Option 3 - No public statement

 

This is not recommended. It is not in Australia’s interest. It is inconsistent with government policy. The US is our key strategic ally and modernisation of the ADF’s capabilities will require access to US technology.

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

16.99 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE