Warning signs in the Minister for Rent-Seeking and Platitude speech.
"Like any big project there will be naysayers."
Blame the critic. Not always helpful. For the Minister one has to first see if a "naysayer's" argument is valid. Some are.
Then the leap to the Snowy Mountain project where the Minister refers to some words from that time:
"This Government has faith in its engineers, its people and the future of Australia.”
Faith is no substitute for project management skills and sound leadership. My fear is what I am seeing is an avalanche on Bullshit Mountain.
"Those who say just buy submarines from overseas."
Yeah well, we can get a consistant learning curve and long tribal knowledge for crews and logistics management established. All that and have a lethal defensive weapon.
"Those that lack the faith in what Australian workers and Australian industry can achieve."
Faith is irrelevant. When examining the track record of the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy, the defective ASC and DMO, one has to depend on what is the goal of all properly planned projects: to perform something that can be realistically accomplished. The evidence of Australia being able to do a big home grown submarine project successfully, just is not there.
On paper, what the Minister outlines sounds great. If only he were working with better clay. The only way for a successful home sub project to happen is if there are massive changes. That is, finding people that can lead, manage and understand the language of engineers as opposed to...rent-seekers.
So the taxpayer just spent hundreds of millions to do a future submarine study, all while the rent-seekers had their foot on the brake underneath the roulette table.
That by any definition is fraud.
1 comment:
Yet another set of incisive observations, Eric.
Designing our own submarine carries with it many high level risks, the biggest of which that is almost certain to materialise being the manufacturers of other subs and, more importantly, their suppliers being less than helpful.
That said, an EMOTS acquisition strategy is a far better way to go, win/win and all of that.
However, would be prudent to do the strategic/tactical needs analysis, first, then determine the operational requirements totally independent of any solutions.
To do otherwise is just, yet again, more "situating the appreciation".
Post a Comment