Defence procurement rules: Impact on Australian Defence Industry
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- Senator Fawcett questions the Department of Defence regarding the Government's Defence Industry strategy.
Keep up to date with my work:
Facebook: / senatorfawcett
Instagram: / senatorfawcett
Website: senatorfawcett...
Here's a free tip from someone who did Ministerial Support, and worked both sides (public and contracting) on procurement. Everytime a Fed Minister uses their discretion to influence a change in the selection process and triggers an outcome which goes against the selection panels assessment - force them to hold accountability in front of a Select Committee to argue the reasons for their intervention. We have literally wasted billions over the last 20 years over Ministers intervening and corrupting the selection process due to them injecting delays because they have been lobbied. And if people want to work out the costs then also include the peripheral projects that get impacted because some knucklehead has injected themselves into the decision making process to look as though they are doing their job.
Another free tip - stop Minsiters putting inexperienced staff from their office into attending Gate Reviews where its pretty apparent that they have no idea about the capability that they are reviewing and where they are literally wasting everyones time and causing financial delays because they ask ridiculous question advertising their ignorance and invariably forcing the Chair to take things on notice - causing another delay in the gate review cycle.
@@chipmunk449 Im fed up to the back teeth with these people - and more so when they are ex uniforms who should know better unless they spent the last 20 years driving a desk. The shadow defence minister doesnt even understand the difference between commissioned, proposed vessels and those that reached FOC. ( I accept the fact that he spent all his mil working life in little army (as opposed to big army) but for crying out loud, get yr staff to do proper research rather than go to some googled tame and irrelevant data by a researcher who would seem to not have been in a mil environment He seems oblivious to the fact that ADV hulls are not Navy hulls or that the ADV vessels are not built to international registration standards as military rated vessels. That was done so that the crewing costs are lower and because of sleight of hand budgeting allocations to slip the"vote" (ie financial committment) to another agency. We have platforms that were allowed in as unsolicited bids and upset the integrity of a project because they wanted to secure jobs in an electorate over picking the right capability. those platforms have been in close to 10 years and yet they aren't fit for purpose because of mechanical issues. FFS they are vehicles. drive carry go and stop. The last platform that the vendor touched also wasted commonwealth money albeit under a diff company name. Platforms were built that were already regarded as obsolescent and least survivable in modern theatres, yet we happily disgorged money on some lobbiest/vendor fairy dust idea which any uniform who had to sit in the damn things would tell you was an absolute WOFTAM, let alone a needed capability.
This theatre where cheap easy shots are taken at senior uniforms and the rest of the diarchy skates well past the real issues where questions need to be asked. Instead we get this ridiculous pantomine masquerading as a Senator doing their job
We literally have billions wasted due to ministerial intervention and pollution of selection processes, but hey, lets flog CDF for some easy theatre.
theres a multitude of problems that arent even addressed here. how about scope creep triggered by the fact that no one knows how to draw a line in the sand. How about the fact that we bow to State demands rather than making the priority the best platform that the uniforms deserve. how about enforcing VFM over electoral location? how about acknowledging that we can often get better value for money by building overseas - but that it should not be the default position based on swing seats. How about acknowledging that the rush to outsource nearly everything at the maintenance level has resulted in a collapse in internal military skillsets, we have gutted capability. How about acknowledging that we made a mistake with outsourcing to the level we have and that it needs to be reigned in? How about acknowledging that outsourcing has added to the blowout in costs and because there is a limited pool of companies that use nearly identical skills, they end up eating their young because theyre all hoovering bodies up from the same skill pool.
20 years ago the USN showed us a model of how to get around these issues and we blithely ignored them. The junior defence minsiter was too busy flouncing around with some poor female RAN blessed as her ADC (even though the role didnt need one) and ignored the calls from AIDN, the DTC etc...
These stuff ups are a generation in the making, the major parties need to acknowledge their clear contributions to the procurement and development disasters, spend less time trying to brick the other party and start to work together
ASDEFCON incorporates AIC/AIP provisions to satisfy the AIP PCP. Officials may incorporate SICPs that specifically require investment in Australian industry capability. The CPRs do not limit AIP objectives when considering VFM, in fact, they require officials to consider the costs and benefits of a proposal, including benefits to the Australian economy if a procurement is over $4m. If a more resilient local economy is the goal, promote the application of existing policy and make officials accountable.
Ask them about the 400 odd they've let go from Airbus at Christmas, as a result of the MRH90 disposal, 99% of these have left Army Aviation. Who will support the new UH-60M and AH64-E Platforms?
These concerns were raised directly with Shane Fair-weather from CASG and Maj Gen Jobson, at the Brisbane facility, all seemingly ignored.
better still ask why those platforms were selected in the first place when a better established solution was in place and was the preference of the operators. and then this project was blown out because other projects were impacted due to other constraints being triggered as soon as we went with a french solution. worse, all the advise was against this and other platforms. risk was established but ignored. Those jobs could have been established in a safer selection and theyd still have them as opposed to some of them getting picked up elsewhere. If you want to see the truth then argue for a Royal Commission into how Ministers pollute procurement based on electoral impact priorities rather than capability.needs
This is all theatre or he'd be asking other more pertinent questions. But unfort you dont do that if you are going to throw egg on your own party.
Yeh very true mate, they're all rotten to the core, every single one of them. Only 3 of our last 100 highly experienced maintenance team have stayed within Army Rotary Wing Capability, those that have jobs already.
Which Airbus employees happily went along with being paid to destroy the MRH90's?
Stupid fkn question
Thank you Senator
..I'm looking at placks of wood here...Russia shaking in their boots with this lot at the helm.. hahahaha
Surely at some point there must be a stated limit on the costs of acquiring Australian produced equipment? That might be double or triple or quadruple the imported price. The refusal to ever apply for excess US equipment and to upgrade it in Australia sounds reasonable enough when upgraded maintained functioning US Excess equipment is depreciated to 5-25 percent of it's previous cost. It is Keynesian socialism to take money from an existing economy that is creating jobs and providing wanted goods and services and profits and accumulating capital already in a multiplier effect and then funnel it into military production pretending that it has a unique multiplier effect in payments to lobbyists and multinational shareholders and in buying votes and controlling the Manufacturing Union. There was a gigantic change for the better in the prosperity of the world when a man could accumulate enough capital to put a mechanical loom in the roof of his house. The introduction of CADCAM and affordable CNC machines and vacuum forming and suddenly manufacturing is viable and flexible and not requiring vast capital in manufacturing and cheaper tools in comparative terms to the most skilled and experience blacksmith of centuries gone by and with higher quality and precision than vast factories of die setters and lathes.
There is a gigantic problem in the USA that when it comes to programmable logic controller manufacturers the USA is held back by the monopoly combine of Rockwell Automation/Allen Bradley and that is an example where an insistence on local non-imported in manufacturing is a serious national problem with very bad ramifications for every aspect of the US economy including Defence manufacturing.
Blind statements of creating Australian jobs and popular and proven false lies of the past can be dangerous. Made in Australia For Australian Conditions Creating Aussie Jobs was never applicable to Jeeps, Land Rovers or Landcruisers and the same can be said when Hawkei ends up as half the vehicle for double the price of JLTV or the WW2 Boomerang Fighter or the many other manufacturing myths. There is a problem when nobody in the decision process would ever buy military equipment for their own use as a consumer with their own money at acquisition prices. There is a US consumer market that is not buying Australian socks or anything from Lithgow as an example because they are partly rational consumers and not lunatics with billion dollar credit cards and taxpayers money.
Ultimately it's okay to be second and third-rate in all aspects in that no-one remembers Fromelles or Singapore or the pointlessness of 4to1 body counts in Vietnam or HMAS Sydney or the RAAF slaughtered over Port Moresby or Meteors vs Migs in Korea. The Australian Space Division versus the Chinese Space Program about 12 Billion per year plus Rocket Forces plus a vast workforce and skills and science in the 100 Billion Chinese drone industry plus a Chinese robotics industry of 126 Billion AUD and all of them with decades of accumulated skills and experience and loyalty. Thankfully Space Division is just something to put on the CV rather than required for actual war-fighting or deterrent value in the most unequal match-up since Bennelong saw a British ship.
Senator David Fawcett always making the effort and wanting to do the right thing and with his brains and sense of duty is very fabulous and it's part of patriotism and democratic idealism to support the good leaders like him. The Senator probably doesn't expect any gratitude or need it and it looks as if he enjoys what he is doing so that's very good news for Australia.
So much red tape and beaurecrats. Please stop and get it sorted 😢
He's an ex uniform, He should know some of the problems already. But, leave the job, join politics and add to the theatre. After 30+ years of being in the system and working both sides of the aisle I can assure you that the ones fronting the medias and getting air are the ones who do the least. This bloke especially has NO excuses
Nothing more simple than “commercial of the shelf”.
Defence procurement… Australia’s greatest weakness??
There are rules
I thought it was who pays the biggest kick back gets the contract
How else can you explain French helicopters
its not about kickbacks, in australia its about contacts - it flows from there. Poliricians should be barred from working in any indisytry associated with their portfoiio responsibilities from the date of exit. It would help staunch some of the other nonsense that goes on
I wprked under a tota; of 9 different DefMins. All mended up in cushy post "retirement" roles. They give the "so sad" speech when exiting and it always talks about rebuilding family life. within months (and some within days) end up in hi-salary roles. As a snr public servant I had a 12 month embargo placed on my future employment - and thats fair and proper. But whats good for the goose is good for the gander
In what universe does it even make minimal sense that staff from DefMin or mandarin Depts such as DoFD add any value and efficiency? How about analysing the Gate Review process instead of this nonsense. Ive seen multiple instances where passed over uniforms who have gone to other roles get on the Gate Review panel as a rep, and yet their motivation is driven by a desire to have a swing at their old bosses. Meanwhile some talking head does the noddies as though they are insightful and making sense.
Stop fluffing about with this nonsense and drill down to the real issues that cause delays. Theres a reason why Border Force boats were nicknamed HMAS Harvey Norman by some of the external reviewers - and its got zero to do with effectiveness. Ditto with the Fat ships - aka DFAT 1 and DFAT 2. initiated with good intent but evolved into a cluster - and years wasted trying to get French helos to work safeky let alone properly on the damn things. You cant knock the vendors if their ppl successfully managed to convince others that this was a good idea - but at what point before we wasted collective billions did anyone go to the uniforms and ask "is this what you need to do your job?" and then actually listened to them. Nope, nada nyet. Instead we had a gaggle of state and federal politicians who swallowed the fairy story that Aust could be also be a regional helo support and development hub and ignored the fact that by picking French helos we were going to automatically trigger a need to spend extra money protecting certification of other critical capability - and worse, other capability would get short sheeted to pay for this pixie dust selection despite all the historical and obvious warnings about where this would lead.
But hey "The Boss (DefMIn) is keen on this" works every time. and that invariably leads Defence to go into "voluntary efficiency dividends" to try and find "wasted or hidden money" because the Govt of the day had this proud mantra of being pro Defence so we cant smell of being anything but being supportive...... Elected siots well know that Defence flag ranks are not going to push back in public due to the intent of the diarchy structure of the elected suits ruling supreme. We're left witrh a culture by uniform flag ranks not pushing back against the executive for wanting dumb things at dumb prices
Low Tech is best .
Your video showcases the true power of creativity to make the world a better place.