It was an army MRH90! My thoughts go out to the families.
Tas
Tas
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
US will base spies and jets in Australia to counter China
The United States is to send more troops and military aircraft to Australia, and embed spies with Canberra’s intelligence agencies in an unprecedented peacetim
www.thetimes.co.uk
Significant agreements have been reached between the US and Australia, including:
- A plan to expand/improve existing Australian air bases to accommodate more USAF aircraft, such as Scherger and Curtin;
- A combined intelligence centre to be formed in Australia to monitor “issues of shared strategic concern in the Indo-Pacific”;
- The US will expand its military industrial base by helping Australia manufacture guided missiles for both countries to use.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Foreign exchange changes are no-win/no-loss for Defence.
No. FSP20 listed a project for additional air combat capability. That is not, nor ever was, an additional 28x F-35A. It wasn't when it was first stood up (pre-2020). FSP keep the lack of definition to allow ADFHQ and AFHQ the freedom to allocate those funds in ways that were not available in the previous decade: so possible additional munitions, upgrades to platforms and/or drones.
Initially it will be shifted to fund other projects / capabilities within the same years (and likely acquisition, not sustainment). This is really common due to delays and the like - generally speaking ADFHQ manages this internally. If we want to close a Project fully the Government has to approve, but generally speaking we will take a recommendation to them including 'why' and where the newly available money will be shifted to.
Separate to that is that fundamentally the money is the Government's to do as they wish. If directed the Department will transfer money out. We've done it a few times, especially with DFAT, but ultimately it could be for any reason. It can be annoying, especially when sustainment budgets are eyed off, but at the end of the day, the budget is owned by the Government of the Day.
New data shows Defence department spent billions on consulting firms PwC, Deloitte, EY, KPMG - ABC News
Are there any DefPros (or others) who have a perspective on what all this coin is being spent on? Is this just contract labour for work that should be done by junior to mid level APS folks?
Are there any DefPros (or others) who have a perspective on what all this coin is being spent on? Is this just contract labour for work that should be done by junior to mid level APS folks?
15 years in Defence APS, I have seen an absolute conga line of various big 4 consultants come in on various projects (mostly related to change restructures, new work processes etc) and not one of them have delivered anything significant. They did a really good sales job convincing senior "leadership" that they could do things normal public servants couldn't and here we are. It's also very hard to get any answer on how much each contract it worth etc etc. Then there's the very cosy relationship a lot of big 4 partners seem to have with APS management. IMO this inquiry is long overdue and hopefully it'll get some traction.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It is not just Defence that is used to support (i.e boost the Big 4 consultants profits). It is true for every department and GBE. If senior management asked "what colour is the sky?", the APS (and others) would say "blue" and then senior management would engage external consultants who, after much time and money, would report that "the sky is light blue, except on some occasions when it isn't. Now we can examine and quantify those occasions when it isn't blue for you". So the consultants opinion must be worth more because it took 26 words and created an opportunity to engage other consultants.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It is not just Australian governments that have cosy relationships with consultants, same problem exists in Canada and the consultant performance is next to useless. In Canada’s case, this waste also extends to provincial governments as well.
Then there was the tactic of coming up with the answer to an issue, then call in a consultant to give “credibility” to that solution. It didn’t have to be a good answer, necessarily, just one put forward by a consultant; in some cases, a consultant who had no background or particular competency in the issues concerned. Result - some “interesting” outcomes.
A common outcome is the Australian SME (as in Subject Matter Expert) makes a recommendation and is ignored, a consultant comes in and says exactly the same thing and it happens. Often the Aussie making the original suggestion has an English, German, or Swedish accent, but they lost all professional credibility, with the powers that be, upon becoming an Australian Citizen.
Volk, its the same with the states and territories as well.
We paid multi Mills for KPMG to do a staffing model for our organization about 4 years ago, now we have another company doing the exact same thing, as well as reorganise the roster system.
I already know what the outcome will be, recommendations will be made, nothing of any value will come from it, and in a year or 2 , the NT government will hire a consultant to design a staffing model and roster system.....
We paid multi Mills for KPMG to do a staffing model for our organization about 4 years ago, now we have another company doing the exact same thing, as well as reorganise the roster system.
I already know what the outcome will be, recommendations will be made, nothing of any value will come from it, and in a year or 2 , the NT government will hire a consultant to design a staffing model and roster system.....
The NZ Govt loves consultants. They'll use consultants on just about anything.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Sir Humphrey Appleby said:
And if (when) it goes wrong, politicians can announce a review into the ‘problem’ and another into the ‘use’ of consultants, before blaming that one the previous government…
How can they possibly lose from using consultants?
In the meantime, they will quietly switch to another firm and all will be well…
And while billions are being spent on consultants there are shortages of almost 50% and 33% within APS engineering and technical, and project management respectively.
Different buckets of money, lots of $$$ for consultants, who are often literally on three times what a public servant gets for the same job. Any suprise then that the competent APS leave?
How do you fix that, do you raise APS pay for employees with actual qualifications skills and experience to attract and retain them? No you simply put a 12 month moratorium on APS becoming a consultant. So now instead of retaining their knowledge and experience because they need a job that pays enough to cover their mortgage and power bills, defence loses them all together.
Compounding this, trades, technical, engineering, scientific, PM, ILS and other specialist public servants are on the same pay rates as the admin people. The big difference is the clerical clerks, accounts, contracts people have an actual career path. They get appointed to a role, then get trained to do it. Engineering and Technical on the other hand, need to be already qualified and certified, together with having to demonstrate on going professional development, before they can even apply for a higher level job.
So you literally get APS clerical clerks promoted above technical APS and paid more. In the APS most engineering and technical, with formal qualifications, get stuck at APS 5 or 6. That us about $75 to $97k a year, even for those with a couple of decades experience experience. Non technical, i.e. clerks, are on the same pay, without any formal qualifications, and get promoted faster.
So why does defence rely on consultants? They pay their technical people far less than market rates, they don't promote them, then they put them in project offices, working alongside consultants, industry, ADF, all on much more money for the same job, and make them subordinate to clerks who (unlike technical) get promoted.
It is quite common for the most qualified, experienced and demonstrably competent public servants to be the lowest paid people on a project. Then they wonder why they leave.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
My experience has been in a different but more visible and topical government sector in nz. Consultants were used as a legal and consequence buffer by senior bureaucrats (typically who had a cushy little empire and a generous corner office). Who maintained their "impartiality" and "loyalty" to the government of the day. But prepared themselves for recriminations over policies they never believed in in the first place for when the next party swept in.
It was taxpayer funded liability insurance. Perfectly legal and accepted practise. I imagine we learnt it from Uk and Aus.
It was taxpayer funded liability insurance. Perfectly legal and accepted practise. I imagine we learnt it from Uk and Aus.
Man every consultant group o ever work with listened to what we told them, put salad dressing on it and presented it back to us. There is prevelance to use consultants to avoid responsibility and good management practice. If you need a look at something there is a reluctance to take good managers off line to work on it which is counter productive in the long run. The preference these days is for another set of eyes at a rare way higher than what employees get paid.
That is the crux of the matter right there, 100% on the money.
I fear there are some of the same fears with the current referendum in Australia.
Surely these must be able to provide real time targeting data for anti ship?
apple.news
China deploys swarm of satellites to monitor military exercises in Australia — ABC News
Hundreds of Chinese satellites are currently passing over Australia collecting intelligence on military training activities involving the United States and other regional partners.
apple.news
