Defence spending, the same all over...

[A_Berry]

Just to let you know, Defence spending downunder is just as messed up as it is in Canada - worse I think... but then again, the grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side!

Military buying bungled, says Labor

By Ben Ruse

CANBERRA

AUSTRALIA‘S armed forces are being compromised by mismanagement that had resulted in big equipment projects running over time and over budget, the Opposition claimed yesterday.

Shadow defence minister Chris Evans said none of the 20 biggest defence projects under way when the Government came to power had been completed.

He said the projects would be a total of $7 billion over budget.

Seasprite helicopters, now expected to be operational after 2006 despite an original deadline of 2003, will cost more than $1 billion, twice their original budget.

Other delayed projects include improved communications, air defence radar for key bases, new torpedoes for the troubled Collins-class submarines and improvements to the Anzac frigates.

A report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in May found the Australian Defence Force delivered less "bang for the buck" than other similar defence forces.

The report said although the military was performing well on overseas deployments, the delays in capital investment would have long-term consequences.

Defence handling of big equipment projects was reformed in 2000, but contracts signed before then were still causing problems.

Defence sources said the cost overruns were often caused by capability enhancement, when a project‘s scope and therefore its cost was increased after it was designed.

But analysts have said the defence forces had a tendency to underestimate the cost of big projects to make it easier to get initial funding approval from the Government.

Last year Defence Minister Robert Hill warned private contractors to improve their performance or risk losing lucrative contracts.

But Labor said final responsibility must lie with the Government.

It said a high turnover of staff at the top of the defence force meant projects had had several different managers and a consequent shifting of responsibility.

Senator Evans said only air force chief Angus Houston had been in the job longer than two years.

"If any other major organisation had experienced such a massive turnover of senior staff there would be questions asked about those responsible for the appointments," he said.

 

[Infanteer]

Thank you sergeant, for the vindication.

I forgot where I heard some socialogical explanation for military inefficency in peacetime.
Any military is an organization that is created to survive on the wartime battlefield. It is the only conglameration that humans have put through the ultimate test of combat and had it survive as a body of knowledge and tradition. It is an organism for war, not peace, and thus does not fit the peacetime "bureaucratic pants" it has been forced to put on.

How does that sound?

 

[Deleted member 585]

Sounds like a pretty savvy way to sum it up Infanteer.

Cheers.