Great stuff. Your Defence working for ...well... themselves.
Senator JOHNSTON: Yes, but why would Dr Thomson say Defence's financial management are having serious problems?
Dr Watt: I do not think we are. We had an underspend this year, a large underspend. That was extremely regrettable. We will be working very hard to make sure we do not have a large underspend next year. We have our problems; Dr Thomson's choice of words are Dr Thomson's, not mine.
Senator JOHNSTON: You know that the committee is not going to sit here and read this very excellent report from ASPI, which is funded by Defence and of which you have had a preliminary copy, and just let this wash under the bridge.
Dr Watt: I am not suggesting you should.
Senator JOHNSTON: Now we spend an awful lot of money trying to plan budget by budget with the defence capability plan, with a legion of people working on where we are going to be next year, the year after, and indeed out to 2030. How is it you get it so wrong?
Dr Watt: As I said, firstly, this was an unusual year. Secondly—
Senator JOHNSTON: Why is it an unusual year?
Dr Watt: We had a significant period of time this year when we had an election, an extended caretaker period and new ministers.
Senator JOHNSTON: But that is predictable, surely?
Dr Watt: No, it is not.
Senator JOHNSTON: So election cycles completely muck up your planning is what you are saying?
Dr Watt: They can; they affect every agency's and department's planning.
Senator JOHNSTON: How?
Dr Watt: Ministerial approval for matters is hard to get during an election.
Senator JOHNSTON: You had two ministers working on it in caretaker mode—myself and Senator Faulkner.
Dr Watt: Yes, Senator.
Senator JOHNSTON: How does it muck your program up, as you are trying to have us believe?
Dr Watt: The answer is this: you do not have the ability to get throughput and cabinet consideration that you would get during a normal period of time.
Senator JOHNSTON: Can you tell me how many approaches to cabinet you have made in the period 2009-10 and 2010-11? How many have been deferred? How many starts you wanted but did not get? Tell us all about those, if you will?
Dr Watt: I can give you those in due course, but what I cannot tell you—
Senator JOHNSTON: Are you going to take those on notice?
Dr Watt: I will take those on notice, but what I cannot tell you is the hypothetical—how many we would have had forward if we had had normal government through the second half of last year. That is the much harder question to answer. What you are saying is, 'You did not go to cabinet and therefore there was no problem,' but what I am saying is that there was no cabinet to go to.
Senator JOHNSTON: No; I am talking about how many times you went to cabinet and did not get a start or were told there was no room for you in cabinet or the NSC for an approval.
Dr Watt: And, again, Senator, I would be happy to give you that information, but the point I am making is that it is not the right question.
Senator JOHNSTON: What is the right question?
Dr Watt: The right question, Senator, is: were there occasions when we did not progress things because of the run-up to the caretaker period?
Senator JOHNSTON: What were those projects?
Dr Watt: We will give you that information, Senator.
Senator JOHNSTON: So, off the top of your head, you do not know the projects but you are telling us to take this on faith and you are going to give us the answers on notice?
Dr Watt: We will take that on notice; that is correct.
Senator FAULKNER: I intend to follow this through a bit later, Dr Watt, but it is true to say, of course, that the caretaker period was—due to the circumstances in relation to the close election result—I think it is fair to say, much longer than anyone could possibly have anticipated. I intend to chase up one or two of these matters a little later in the hearing, but you might have for us the dates of the caretaker period. If you do not have them, I want to follow through at a later stage one of the issues that was raised during that period. But I think we can at least say that the caretaker period was not only the period from the issue writs through the campaign until what ordinarily occurs a week or so later, the swearing in of a ministry, but of course there was also quite a long period of time, the extended caretaker period, while negotiations were undertaken in relation to the formation of a government. I think that is a fair statement to make, don't you?
Dr Watt: I think that is a fair statement to make. We will get those dates for you.
Senator FAULKNER: This has some relevance, I suppose, to what Senator Johnston is asking, but I also want to raise other issues which are to some extent dependent on the caretaker period. Anyway, that is something that can be done over the break. It is not hard to find.
Senator JOHNSTON: Secretary, what is the amount of the significant underspend?
Dr Watt: The estimated underspend in 2010-11 is $1.6 billion.
Senator JOHNSTON: How many weeks were tied up in the election campaign? Was it seven or nine?
Dr Watt: I think we would say of the order of eight weeks.
Senator JOHNSTON: So eight weeks costs you—
Dr Watt: I did not say that it cost me the whole lot; I said it was a contributing factor.
Senator JOHNSTON: What other contributing factors were there?
Dr Watt: Again, we have talked about the fact that the Australian industry did not deliver as fast as we had forecast in relation to a major capital improvements program.
Senator JOHNSTON: On which one?
Dr Watt: I can get you that information.
Senator JOHNSTON: This is quite sizeable. So none of these projects spring to mind as being the ones that the industry is responsible for?
Dr Watt: We can certainly give you that information; in fact, I am sure Dr Gumley can come forward and give you that information now, if you would like it.
Senator JOHNSTON: I would like to know which projects we are talking about. So we have got the election and we have got—
Dr Watt: We can help you, Senator. Dr Gumley will be in shortly.
Senator JOHNSTON: Right.
Dr Watt: The slippage relates to slippage which is primarily due to the—
Senator JOHNSTON: It is major capital programs.
Dr Watt: Yes. The major projects slippage includes a multirail tanker and transport aircraft, multirail helicopters, the armed reconnaissance helicopter project, the high-capacity communications satellite project.
Senator JOHNSTON: Why has that slipped?
Dr Watt: I will get you that information. I do not have...
And later...
Senator TROOD: Thank you, CDF. I do not think you have convinced Senator Johnston that the election was a particularly important intervention, and you have not convinced me. I do not think the committee has had an answer to the question which project failed to be advanced because of the election. Which project was ready to go if the election had not been called when it was? Which project or several projects would have been through one of those committees had it not been for the election?
Air Chief Marshal Houston: I do not have those before me at the moment but the normal practice is that we have somewhere between four and six projects with each National Security Committee of cabinet. That is the normal process. That is what I have seen in my six years as CDF. From essentially the end of May last year through to October nothing moved. It was quite frustrating actually because nothing was happening because we were in caretaker mode for a very extended period of time.
Senator TROOD: Thanks, CDF. I apologise for taking so much time.
This reminds me of truffle hogs, except the hogs have more capability.
16 comments:
At least the hogs know what the hell they are doing. I only wish the numb nuts in the U.S. gov. would argue about NOT spending money!!!!!
Read the whole thing.
"Yes Minister" at it's best.
No public servant can answer properly.
Angus excells himself as uusual, but probably one of his best.
How does he get away with it?
Another interesting one,(page 94 on the Acrobat page number) is concerning the purchase of the Crye Uniform. We paid 3.1 million in IP for a "uniform design"!!
(No one here can design a shirt and trousers?)
The further verbal gymnastics regarding the meaning of "Australian Made" is good,when it is obvious the material is comining from China.
Evidence given also shows Australian Industry was not even given a chance to participate.Totally ignored.
Defence and DMO do such an excellent job.
Coupla things: Firstly who would want Ian Watts job? Trying to defend the jerks in DMO (why?) to the low-life party hacks and time servers that the major parties send to do Senate estimates, who the hell would want to do that? Secondly, I'd be wary of being too critical of Watt and the CDF here - this process is a bit of a star chamber. They get very little notice on what the estimates committee is going to ask, and the discussion frequently goes into peripheral areas so they cant prepare, and dont forget the aforementioned low-lifes' often use this process as a means of attacking the Government for its own sake and personal grandstanding to improve their own position in their party. If you think its easy, try it!
Anyonmous you are kidding.
These poeple are professionals?
Why don't you read the particular transcript,there responses are nothing but bullshit. How does not someone remember what projects they are working on or are involoved in, and the relevant details.
There is politics in involved, I thought that these people were senior members of an organisation, how do you think they got there.
The CDF is the chief offender. Go back over the years and read his responses.
Gets better, according to an article in the Australian last year DMO sent a sample of the latest fabric developed in Australia(ie with the infra red abilities etc) to several Chinese companies for a quote.
And now we have lost the IP, and given the Chinese a giant leg up.
Congratulation DMO.
Atticus, have you tried anything like that?
Its always easier to criticise from the sidelines.
You have no idea.I have been involved.
Apologists come out of the woodwork in droves.
State matters that is.
Similar in every respect.
Funny, the minister we dealt with is now serving 12 years for corruption.
It took 11 years of accustations and information until he was put away.
No aspertions as such concerning Smith, however the system is either corrupt or full of incompetent fools who are apologists for pathetic second class performance.
Brave words Atticus, considering you know as little about me as I know about you. Other than you are probably a fan of Harper Lee, and I suspect you're in QLD. Your experience may well have been worse than the CDF so lets just agree to disagree. I'm a bit of a fan of Houston after he told the RAAF (I'm not in it BTW) when he was CAF in 2004 that there was no reason for so many people to be working excessive hours as we werent on a full-scale operational footing. He was the only senior ADF Officer I have ever heard say something like that. So clearly, at that stage anyway he wasnt a careerist.
I could not care less if he is a nice bloke, and from others I hear he is.
Th point is he, the senior members of Defence and DMO have shown themselves incompetent and presided over the waste of billions on failed projects, and the subsequent loss of capability and future capability of the Defence Force.
They do not tell the truth in the Senate, eg F111 etc.The problems are covered up again and again.
Read these transcripts, I have for years.
Two Words."Yes Minister", they watched the TV series.
Unless someone has changed something, this is a Democracy and the Senate has a job to do, and the pathetic performance will of course attract scruitiny.
Unfortunately some of elected representatives are not up to it either
Why are some sections trying to defend the failure. They are not a protected species.
Atticus, its about putting responsibility where its due. I suspect the guilty parties for this failure may in fact be the one asking the questions in Senate estimates, not those answering them. Its easy to be critical of those in the limelight when its not YOUR neck and job on the line.
Have a look at this from another thread, it comes from another direction but it kinda sums up my feelings on this whole cluster of issues:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6164817033308391151&postID=4686547594770626036
Your link does not work
Anon , waht is your point.
I opened your link?
Sorry about the spelling
To put it simply, the problems in the Department of Defence are of the Governments own making, not the making of the people inside the Department. They have to work within the budget and guidance their political masters give them. I gave some examples. There are many others - Collins class subs, Seasprite Helos,JSF, the list goes on. ALL of these were decisions made for political reasons, NOT military ones, and have experienced problems. Its just a little bit rude for the politicians who force these decisions on the Department to apply a blowtorch to their nether regions when things go wrong. Senate Estimates is mostly aboput individual grandstanding and trying to find "Gotcha" moments against the Government.
You must work for DMO
Post a Comment