Both are led by women but that's where the similarities end. One is dynamic and active, recently publishing an update charting a vision of the future (updating a previous, no longer satisfactory document) and is regularly engaging with her international counterparts.

That's Defence Minister Linda Reynolds. Then there's her predecessor, the person who produced that (now superseded) 2016 Defence White Paper: Foreign Affairs, Minister Marise Payne.

There have been pictures of her meeting recently with US Secretary Mike Pompeo in Washington and, before that, at last year's Melbourne Cup.

Oh, and I'm sure there were lots of others too; it's just none leap to mind. Little does, really, because as a political fighter demanding resources for her portfolio, or carving out a position for Australia in the world, she's been a failure.

The fat vanished from DFAT long ago. Just last month 50 Canberra jobs were cut, along with 10 overseas postings: two from Beijing; two from Port Moresby.

Eliminating any positions in these countries, so vital for our future, demonstrates a lack of vision so comprehensive it's breathtaking. Last week's latest round of belt-tightening isn't just slimming - it doubles-down on the shortsightedness, hacking away at bone.

Another position gone from Moresby (our nearest neighbour, again), Jakarta (largest neighbour), Baghdad (once important enough to fight a war for, today not so much), Beijing (critical for our future), Tokyo (an increasingly important and vital ally), Manilla (our region) and, finally, almost as an afterthought, Mexico City.

Slashing further may appear impossible but scissor-hands Payne would just take a statement like that as a challenge. In a world that's increasingly electronically connected (and threatened) she's ripping out IT consultants.

Actually, perhaps that's a clever move. If we go back to using mail those spying on us will need to go back to steaming open letters, and they'll soon get tired of that. It's been rumoured Payne wanted to change her title to Consular Affairs Minister.

Personally, though, I don't believe this, even if the foreign service is shrinking into little more than a visa processing agency. Such a move would display a depth of insight that hasn't been evident in her management of our international relationships so far.

Reynolds, however, offers a complete contrast in Defence. She's not letting the grass grow under her feet and is as actively buying up weapons and revamping the services as Payne has been forcing her department to diet.

Indeed, in five years time we'll almost definitely have the best defence force that could have been envisaged a couple of years ago.

By then, much of that glorious new equipment will have been superseded, of course, but that's the price you pay for using our outdated acquisition model.

The US has figured out that the speed of technological development has changed everything. Instead of throwing everything at one huge next-generation fighter project, for example, the US is in the process of radically altering its acquisition strategy.

Like the (French/German) European Future Combat Air System it's an attempt to preserve agility by envisaging maintaining air superiority as a complex problem requiring many separate parts.

It simply isn't possible anymore to rely on one fighter to do the job. The increasing interconnectedness of all domains of war fighting require an entirely new way of envisaging conflict: from the grey zone of cyber-war or fishing fleets through to securing the home front and operating on the (militarised) front line.

This is a conceptual challenge that requires a dynamic solution. Unfortunately, our current purchases reflect the tendency to double-down on traditional answers.

This is like re-equipping the cavalry in 1939; we need to change the mindset.

This minister is quick to insist she wants reform. Unfortunately, she's not indicated exactly what the goal for the future is, let alone how she expects to get there.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Marcus Hellyer provides an interesting, measured and careful critique of the strategic update. He says "the military has been quick to grasp the capability of missiles to change the battle space" but then adds "the full implications of this still aren't flowing down".

The procurement plans are "welcome" but "there's a lack of meaningful local content - plenty of welding but not a lot of technical and design work".

This is an area where, ironically, Australia could excel with companies like CEA and EOS building world-leading sensors and weapons for the international market.

Instead of incubating more highly capable designers for the increasingly smaller systems that are coming to dominate the environment we are sending money overseas and paying others to craft solutions to our unique problems.

This is having a trickle-down effect. Bespoke tailors are apparently doing very nicely out of all the equipment purchasing that's been going on.

They'll continue rubbing their hands with glee at the succession of announcements from Reynolds' office about the continuing big spend on equipment.

Unfortunately, simply spending more on defence isn't enough to buy security.

This paradox is evident as soon as you examine the increasing defence spend. This year - even before the latest boost was announced - we'd begun allocating more than 2 per cent of our total GDP on the forces.

READ MORE:

Indeed, as the economy continues to contract, this percentage will soar even higher.

That's because it's essentially a meaningless number; it simply represents the proportion of the budget that's allocated to defence. It's a measure of commitment and emotion, rather than capability and reasoning.

But this, unfortunately, seems to be what the government is best at. Not spending money, understanding the world, or making friends, but buying steroids to puff-up muscles.

The trouble is, brains normally outmanoeuvre brawn. Perhaps some more thought might be in order.