27 March 2009

Extreme stupidity at the Department of Defence?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
78

The SMH reports that the Defence bureaucracy, not content with thieving from the frontline soldiery, has now leaked the contents of their security checking into their own Minister.

Even if they do manage to move him on (unlikely when the relationship in question is no secret) what sort of relationship do they think they’re going to have with a possible incoming Minister after playing a dirty trick like this?

The tea leaves are speaking to me about extra efficiency dividends in the Department of Defence’s future.

UPDATE: The Age has a bit on Fitzgibbon coming unstuck on undisclosed trips to China. Good luck to DoD if this does bring him down.

Join the conversation

78
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Faulkner may be able to put a fear of oversight & reporting into some people, but it has been 15 years, two wars, several acts of terrorism, and half a dozen deployments since he was last attached to Defence (Support?) in the early 90s.

He’s probably forgotten more about Defence bureaucracy and process in the intervening years than Fitzgibbon ever wanted to know, though.

jessieduck said :

and now Faulkner’s been named his replacement

and is a member of PRAT. I don’t need to make this up, it is on http://www.gold.gov.au...

and now Faulkner’s been named his replacement

There certainly may have been people out to get Fitzgibbon, but he himself was the one who gave them all the ammo they needed to bring him down.

Foolish man.

A couple of thoughts on this schemozzle:

– I thought it was the job of the PM to decide who was the Minister – not individuals within the Defence Security Authority. Just because they have got their way does not mean that they should not be rooted out. They are a danger to our democracy IMO. Good luck John Faulkner with c_nts like that in your organisation!

– Equally amazing is the fact that the Canberra Times yesterday divulged the area where their source worked, the means with which they communicated with the CT, the times that they communicated with the CT and even the motivation for the leaking. Good luck ever getting a juicy leak like that again.

I am having a shithouse day for irony.

I am having a shithouse day for irony.

Skidbladnir: I believe your irony detector is faulty.

If he didn’t fix up his act after that first bit of scrutiny months ago, he deserved to be asked to resign.

I think Fitzgibbon was carrying out his Leader’s stated wishes, but he gave his opponents sticks to beat him with, which was his fatal error.

Skidbladnir said :

jakez said :

Let this be a lesson to any Minister in the future that thinks they are meant to be in control of a Department and set policy.

Dogs wag tails, tails do not wag dogs.
(That said, what causes pain for the tail might actually be bad for the dog)

Employees of the public service provide support for the direction and policy set by elected government, but at the same time does so on a basis that is free from politically motivated bias and politically motivated influence.

Personally, I suspect putting someone in charge of Defence is always going to be a contentious thing, because you have thousands of staff required to be willing to throw themselves at battles and willingly die for their country, so their internal decisionmaking may not align with a direction set by a civilian in a suit who a) would not do the same, and b) is only there because the public elected sufficient persons of a united political organisation to enable the political party leader to make an internal political decision, who is c) doing what is popular politically, instead of following the direction set by those willing to do the dying.

Everybody now!

“Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses”

jakez said :

Let this be a lesson to any Minister in the future that thinks they are meant to be in control of a Department and set policy.

Dogs wag tails, tails do not wag dogs.
(That said, what causes pain for the tail might actually be bad for the dog)

Employees of the public service provide support for the direction and policy set by elected government, but at the same time does so on a basis that is free from politically motivated bias and politically motivated influence.

Personally, I suspect putting someone in charge of Defence is always going to be a contentious thing, because you have thousands of staff required to be willing to throw themselves at battles and willingly die for their country, so their internal decisionmaking may not align with a direction set by a civilian in a suit who a) would not do the same, and b) is only there because the public elected sufficient persons of a united political organisation to enable the political party leader to make an internal political decision, who is c) doing what is popular politically, instead of following the direction set by those willing to do the dying.

Holden Caulfield said :

Looks like DoD got their way in the end.

Let this be a lesson to any Minister in the future that thinks they are meant to be in control of a Department and set policy.

Holden Caulfield12:07 pm 05 Jun 09

Looks like DoD got their way in the end.

There’s a “story” in the CT about this. Of course, if you’re FREELOADING and reading the website and not paying them money, you only get a very small bit. It’s here:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/rudd-in-defence-damage-control/1478709.aspx

but it says that Ruddles is thinking of doing all kinds of things, including sidelining Nick Warner and replacing him with Dennis Richardson. Words fail me.

I read that with some amazement and other emotions, but then read the story byline: Jessica Wright.

Georges said :

Mr Fitzgibbon has been out of his league with DoD from his early ministerial days in the portfolio; the man was and is an accident waiting to happen and he’s certainly got himself a train wreck at present with pile ups likely to continue until he is forced out of the job. Having said that, DoD has a lot to answer for as well; this dept. along with senior bureaucrats and a couple of other elite agencies should be boiled down and re-structured. Fitzgibbon has shown how effective white ants and back stabbers can be when they have their ribbons ruffled but they were less than effective when the Bali victims needed their expertise and intelligence before being blown up and burnt to pieces on their watch! Notwithstanding the sheer incompetence in mis-managing their rumuneration / corporate financial system and forking out for maximum premiums, rates and agreements for thieving ICT services, I say boil down the lot, start again and give the Australian tax payers value for money and another invitation to trust these agencies to do the job they are well paid to do.

Mr Fitzbiggon has been out of his league with DOD from his early ministerial days in the portfolio; the man was and is an accident waiting to happen and he’s certainly got himself a train wreck at present with pile ups likely to continue until he is forced out of the job. Having said that, DOD has a lot to answer for as well; this dept. along with senior bureaucrats and a couple of other elite agencies should be boiled down and re-structured. Fitzgibbon has shown how effective white ants and back stabbers can be when they get their ribbons ruffled but they were less than effective when the Bali victims needed their talent and intelligence before they were blown up and burnt to pieces. Notwithstanding the sheer incompetence in mis-managing their rumuneration / corporate financial system and forking out maximum premiums for thieving ICT services, I say boil down the lot, start again and give the Australian tax payers value for money and an invitation to trust these agencies to do the job they are well paid to do.

So everyone agrees there are issues at DoD. Parts of it are good, parts of it are shocking, and a lot of the parts don’t know what the other bits are doing.

But what would you do to fix it? I don’t think sacking stacks of people and cutting their funds is going to improve anything.

Maybe they need a big people swap with a few other departments. Loads of people at Defence have been there forever, and do stuff just because that is what they learned in 1963. Or because they all know each other and so-and-so will fix it up if we haven’t done this quite right.

The Defence Department is the biggest shemozzle in government. Anyone who has ever worked for them or knows people who do, continue to be amazed at the stupidity and complete lack of organisational ability.

If DSD has intercepted Mr Fitzgibbon’s IT systems it has breached the law. It is only allowed to intercept foreign signals as far as I am aware.

If even a Government Minister cannot withstand the wrath of his own department imagine the chances of a lowly potential whistleblower. Which is why the recommendation in the Inquiry on Whistleblower Protections is so inadequate when pushing the line that whistleblowers should first approach senior management rather than a ‘safe’ external body that will accommodate confidentiality and offset the negative effects on one’s career.

There have been some big doozies of mistakes by Defence over the years not to mention dodgy purchases outside the procurement system if reports in the papers over the years have been accurate. It needs someone with the guts to wield a big broom and withstand the inevitable backlash.

ant said :

Defence seems to be an immensly stupid department. dealing with their line ops is depressing, it’s like a sheltered workshop. In fact a certain division springs to mind, I cannot fathom how so many of them were so unprofessional. Their collective apparent IQ gave the lie to the title of the division.

ANT, There’s also a Div. in DMO that is referred to as a sheltered workshop by the other Div’s. There are some absolutely top-shelf people in Defence and DMO but there are some absolute tools as well. Unfortunately they have to work with what they have, and they don’t want to scare people off from applying by sacking the dead wood. I hear tell of a one-star (DG) that has been counseled several times for sleeping with junior staff (despite being married) and has had loads of complaints made against him for innapropriate behaviour, harrasment etc.. but they won’t sack him as it send the ‘wrong message’.

Defence seems to be an immensly stupid department. dealing with their line ops is depressing, it’s like a sheltered workshop. In fact a certain division springs to mind, I cannot fathom how so many of them were so unprofessional. Their collective apparent IQ gave the lie to the title of the division.

And to Melonhead, quite often we can hear the shells and gunfire of the army playing sillybuggers in Kowan, if they were REALLY motivated, there’s HQJOC in easy range, adn Campbell Park not too far the other way, and then onward to Russell!

try being at the frontline in the ADF where you can’t get equipment to do your job, or where the only clothes supplied in the tropics are made of polyester. Or where the rifle/ship/truck they give you has been so “improved” by “experts” that is is basically useless, while being very good at the manufacturers gate.

I am impressed that all the serving members of the ADF have not trained all the artillery they have on Russell and disposed of it. Probably they can’t get enough shells at any one time to do the job properly.

What is DSD and who funds them? I believe they are only part funded by the Australian government in conjunction with another foreign power. It is closely linked to the US govt “Not a Security Agency” mob.

How much confidence can DSD and its affiliates have in our Minister of Defence or Prime minister given their links to China.

If you think that’s bad, you should see their civilian recruitment operations. oh boy.

–I have to agree – Defence pay areas can be absolutely useless. I know a similar story where weeks of late night overtime was approved, worked, and then denied months later and never paid for.

The combined services would love you to think that they are self sufficient and self contained, but in reality they need the bureaucracy.

They need doctors, nurses, accountants, marketing people, legal, IT staff and administrators. They don’t have enough of these streams in uniform staff. And it is cheaper to pay public servants in many of those roles than to try to fill them all with military people.

They are also struggling to recruit enough military people. So they need to support the ones they’ve got. Military people are highly trained to perform a particular job during war, that most of us wouldn’t do. Unfortunately not all of them are particularly good at the basics of running an office and purchasing stuff. Let alone running a department.

One possible answer would be to split Defence back in 3 departments of Navy, Army and Airforce. These departments may be more manageable than the huge Defence Dept.

Certainly my experience of Defence was six months in an extremely dysfunctional legal (contract) area of DMO, I couldn’t wait to move to another Dept.

And the outrageously blase attitude of the area I worked in towards public monies was really quite offensive.

Plus, the HR area were total ‘bungle buggers’. It was a nightmare to extract entitlements from them (eg, one person I know was approved for relocation to Canberra, then HR ‘changed their minds’ about some of the entitlements AFTER they had already moved, causing an interminable internal appeal). I for one was totally unsurprised that there was a stuff up with SAS soldiers’ pay.

Go Minister Fitzgibbon.

sepi said :

Yebbut defence isnt’ just a beaurocracy – there’s and army and an airforce in there and all that.

the combined services are a fully self functioning outfit – they don’t need much from anyone, apart from money.

The comment about accessing a “private computer” is wrong. If you access the federal government portals, or areas of defence with a “private computer”, it will be checked.

The departments cannot allow any info to be down or uploaded into the network. I would expect that the computer the the minister is using is actually owned by the government, in which case, doing anything but work on it is just plain stoopid.

It is the property of the government, and the government auditors / analysts can access, audit and capture any information on it… it is not an invasion of privacy, if you are worried about doing something on a corporate or government PC, and someone finding the information, don’t use the work supplied hardware, use your own…

sepi said :

Yebbut defence isnt’ just a beaurocracy – there’s and army and an airforce in there and all that.

Don’t get me wrong sepi, I’m not saying get rid of the dept of Defence or the ADF. I’m (slightly) more nuanced than that. 😉

Yebbut defence isnt’ just a beaurocracy – there’s and army and an airforce in there and all that.

ant, true Fitzgibbon did mention he had received gifts but he described them as simple birthday/christmas type trinket thingies and greatly understated the value of them, hence their rushed entry into the pecuniary registar. Anyhow still doesn’t answer the big question. Oh and pollies don’t necessarily have any kind of clearance (they are after all honourable members) nor are the staff always compelled to have even the most minimum security clearance.

This is exactly why I talk about the size of the bureaucracy as an issue in itself. It seems to me that the bigger they get the more they have an entrenched culture and become unmanageable.

miz said :

David McKnight on ABC (interview with A Sloan this morning) stated that it is most certainly not the role of the Defence Signals Directorate to investigate the Minister

Yes, wouldn’t it be ASIO? That’s their job.

And given that all these pollies and staff are meant to have PV clearances, it’s odd that they didn’t discover the gifts earlier, when the clearances were being done. From what I understand, Fitzgibbon was the one who mentioned the gifts?

That’s why it will really suck if they “get” Fitzgibbon. Defence has been a law unto themselves for too long. Getting them to adhere to the gov’t system of accounts and expenditure has been futile, as various sections will just go waltzing off and commit funds with no regard to due process. It’s a mess.

Fitzgibbon has set out to fix this, and it’s incredibly hard to change teh culture of such a big entity, especially when the entity massively resents any interference.

It’s interesting that the secretary, Nick Warner, is not from defence, he’s from DFAT, and is quite new. I got the impression from his media conference yesterday that he’s sympathetic to what Fitzgibbon is doing.

I hope they get this right. Becuase if he falls, the next minister won’t dare say boo to them. We need Fitzgibbon to be able to do what he’s doing.

This whole affair is nothing short of outrageous and strikes at the heart of our supposedly democratic system of Government. Who runs this country?

David McKnight on ABC (interview with A Sloan this morning) stated that it is most certainly not the role of the Defence Signals Directorate to investigate the Minister from the communication traffic they receive, and it is highly inappropriate that this took place. He also opined that there is always the odd covert operative who is basically a ‘cowboy’ in love with the power (my paraphrase).

The gift aspect is a separate issue.

Slighlty off topic, but the opposition seems hell-bent on making the inference that there is something highly dodgy about all chinese dealings here. There might be lots of things that China could be criticised for, but making it out to be the big bad is not going to look too good when (if?) they make governement again

I feel the Fitzgibbon kiddie would be thanking his lucky stars it’s not a sitting week. Imagine the shit he’d be in if he had made the same denials in the House. That said it’s always the detail that gets you in the end.

The plot thickens. On tonight’s late ABC news, it emerged that Fitzgibbon has accepted gifts… international flights… from the Chinese woman, AND he failed to declare them in the usual manner.

Silly bugger. he’s given them the bullets to shoot him with.

smokey4 said :

The need to declare everything relies on that information being treated as confidential. If a leak did occur then it must be located and the persons responsible despatched to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Agreed. The information should go to those that have a “need to know” so you can’t be blackmailed, bribed etc.

Leaks are a dirty, but sadly often effective, way for parties to achieve their own ends.

The need to declare everything relies on that information being treated as confidential. If a leak did occur then it must be located and the persons responsible despatched to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Emlyn Ward said :

So how else does a citizen of a communist, totalitarian government:
– get introduced to a government delegation at an official function
– turn up in Sydney with enough cash to buy multiple shopping centres, buildings and housing developments, in the name of companies run by the communist party?

To answer your first point… loads of ways. I’ve met official rep’s (including political officers) of communist totalitarian governments at several functions while working as an Australian rep. Hell, I’ve even got drunk with a few. I declared this when I later joined the armed forces and they still let me have a top secret clearance.
The second point, Cash.. so what? In these regimes they’re hardly likely to send peasants overseas to meet us, well me anyway. You, maybe. The point is if you are ever in this position you should declare everything you are, do, say and own. When you’ve done this no-one can ever have anything on you. The big threat comes from having some dirty secret they can use against you.

So we now believe everything that is reported in newspapers is correct and true. Security is covered in smoke and mirrors. We all accept that we need it. Poiticians require a high level clearance. Provided they declare the information and tell the truth no further action should be required. Did that occur?

This whole incident is bizarre, and most people here seem to be missing the point – it isn’t about the leak, it is about an egregious breach by unelected officials who think they have the right to decide who their Minister is.

We elect our governments in Australia. Ministers are the elected representatives of those governments, charged with implementing the platform upon which the government was elected. It isn’t the right of any unelected departmental officials to try to get rid of a Minister. But this goes way beyond that.

Surely if there is any concern about the Minister, that is a matter for the Prime Minister and ASIO. It is certainly not a matter for the Defence Department to investigate.

“Emyln Ward’s” cold war concern about the Chinese Communist party is all the more bizzare as Emlyn seems quite happy to see an unelected Department attempt to ride roughshod over a democratically elected Minister using methods that on all reports appear to fall way outside normal procedure. Not much point in living in a democracy if we don’t protect the fundamentals of it.

captainwhorebags3:29 pm 26 Mar 09

Don’t all government depts have that “Use of this system is subject to monitoring and audit” banner when you attempt to log in?

Anyway, it’s the leak that stinks, not the initial investigation. With the wide ranging access that ministers and their staffers have, to suggest that they should be beyond background checking is ludicrous.

Snooping in his personal computer – poor form.

It was his work computer AFAICT.

caf said :

Bahaha, “agent”.

Check extra carefully under the bed tonight, Emlyn!

So how else does a citizen of a communist, totalitarian government:
– get introduced to a government delegation at an official function
– turn up in Sydney with enough cash to buy multiple shopping centres, buildings and housing developments, in the name of companies run by the communist party?

You’re as naive as Fitzgibbon.

amarooresident22:58 pm 26 Mar 09

Emlyn Ward said :

Tempestas said :

peterh said :

rubbish. The DOD and the ONA are quite correct in investigating everyone. They do this to ensure that a potential threat is quashed quickly, should one arise.

Isn’t the point that this has been leaked, and therein lies the issue.

This is a direct result of the SAS pay issue.

There are two ways of dealing with subordinates who fail to perform:
– sort them out
– bitch about them

Fitzgibbon chose to give press conferences bitching about “incompetence”.

So he’s been hoist with his own petard.

Frankly, his close personal and financial association with a Chinese government agent should disqualify him from even entering a government department let alone leading one.

Except the SAS issue came after the alledged spying.

And the poor petals in defence who got upset when their minister described them as incompetant (when they quite clearly are) should really harden the f**k up.

Bahaha, “agent”.

Check extra carefully under the bed tonight, Emlyn!

Emlyn Ward said :

Tempestas said :

peterh said :

rubbish. The DOD and the ONA are quite correct in investigating everyone. They do this to ensure that a potential threat is quashed quickly, should one arise.

Isn’t the point that this has been leaked, and therein lies the issue.

This is a direct result of the SAS pay issue.

There are two ways of dealing with subordinates who fail to perform:
– sort them out
– bitch about them

Fitzgibbon chose to give press conferences bitching about “incompetence”.

So he’s been hoist with his own petard.

Frankly, his close personal and financial association with a Chinese government agent should disqualify him from even entering a government department let alone leading one.

whoa there. agent has not been confirmed. that is purely speculation. and now that it is out in the “open”, so to speak, what worth would she have anyway?

Tempestas said :

peterh said :

rubbish. The DOD and the ONA are quite correct in investigating everyone. They do this to ensure that a potential threat is quashed quickly, should one arise.

Isn’t the point that this has been leaked, and therein lies the issue.

This is a direct result of the SAS pay issue.

There are two ways of dealing with subordinates who fail to perform:
– sort them out
– bitch about them

Fitzgibbon chose to give press conferences bitching about “incompetence”.

So he’s been hoist with his own petard.

Frankly, his close personal and financial association with a Chinese government agent should disqualify him from even entering a government department let alone leading one.

AG Canberra said :

Investigating the Minister’s friend – fair enough.
Snooping in his personal computer – poor form.
And for what? Were they hoping to find something so he’d get the arse?

This is one sure fire way to put the keepers of the purse strings offside….

wait for the bleating after the security audit is completed…

Investigating the Minister’s friend – fair enough.
Snooping in his personal computer – poor form.
And for what? Were they hoping to find something so he’d get the arse?

This is one sure fire way to put the keepers of the purse strings offside….

RE: Ministers of the Crown and all the “Rabblerabblerabble. Off with his head!”, isn’t that the IGIS’s role for oversight, and only if there’s anything interesting, -then- go to the PM?

Let’s not forget that the Australian Crime Commission was only last year found compiling a dossier on their Minister, too. (And these are only the ones that have leaked!)

Oh well, he could always go and join those idiots in Airpower Australia if he gets the arse from job of Minister of Defence – considering he spent so much time listening to what Kopp, Goon and Criss had to say when he was in Opposition.

AT what point will the media start calling this Defence-Gate

An interesting side angle to all this is an article written by Glenn Milne a while ago. There’s talk around the political blogs that the leak is connected to that.

http://tiny.cc/ydykN

If an Intelligence organisation believes that a Minister of the Crown represents a security risk which warrants investigation it should approach the Prime Minister for permission. Not to do so is treasonable and has the capacity to undermine our system of government.

Whoever authorised this should be dismissed.

BerraBoy68 said :

Lets not forget that Minister’s offices also have a record of leaking to get one over on their Departments.

“The ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top down” Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Agreed. the chances of this coming from the area concerned are laughable.

Lets not forget that Minister’s offices also have a record of leaking to get one over on their Departments.

“The ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top down” Sir Humphrey Appleby.

every time that some moron in a department thinks that the public has a right to know, or that his superiors should have given him that promotion, even though he isn’t right for the job – lets punish them by releasing classified info, and remember, a report on a minister would be at least classified, more likely top secret, the perpetrator should be found, sacked and prosecuted.

I wonder what has to happen at Defence for the likes of the Secretary and CDF to be held accountable for the various screwups. Its never someone’s fault things go wrong, its a systemic failure. Well at the end of the day someone at a very senior level is responsible for those systems, and should be held accountable for fixing them. If they can’t do it, get someone who can.

It is no secret that many of the Defence heirarchy despise their minister.

Whoever leaked the info needs to be found and dismissed as an example to others.

These people are responsible for our front line troops and they can’t even sort out their pay.

I’m sure the junior staff at Defence are not happy with this kind of ‘leadership’.

amaroo that is a very real possibility. It does have precedent.

Ubelievable!!

Defence is a strange beast, and does have some issues, but i would have no idea how to go about fixing it. Many have tried, and moved on.

And as much as they are different, the ADF and the defence aps staff are in fact melded together as the department of defence.

amarooresident210:16 am 26 Mar 09

If the article is true than this is NOT a routine check of the Ministers background and associations, it is an unauthorised intrusion into the Ministers affairs (including accessing his private office and computer) by people who have no business doing so.

I’d suggest that the leak isn’t about attacking the Minister at all. Someone has got wind of what’s going on and leaked it to the press which will give the Minister and the Government the excuse to investigate and clear out those elements in defence that are resisting the ministers attempts to reform the department.

ok JB, still didn’t understand the knee jerk comment, but then, I am not as edumacted as some of the others on here. Leaking to attack a minister is nothing new. The departments have done it for years. Even ACT Govt has had its fair share.

What amused me about this one was that it has backfired for the department, by singling out the minister’s association with a person who has links to the chinese govt, they haven’t taught him a lesson at all.

They have torpedoed any chance that the opposition had to use this against the minister. It is now out in the open. It cannot be classed as new information.

Whoever did this leaking now must feel pretty silly, as it will turn the focus away from the minister and direct it at the department. The other departments must think that this is mana from heaven… and the auditors will be readying to just see what goes on in DOD.

Leaking.

And let’s not confuse the defence bureaucracy with the ADF.

Linking or leaking?

peterh said :

rubbish. The DOD and the ONA are quite correct in investigating everyone. They do this to ensure that a potential threat is quashed quickly, should one arise.

Isn’t the point that this has been leaked, and therein lies the issue.

BTW Defence has not had to do with the efficiency dividend like every other agency and was guaranteed a 3% increase pa by past and current Governments. I’m sure many work hard at what they do, but the scale of the $ stuff-ups in the organisation cannot possibly do anything to help the “operational” personnel.

Lets be honest they can’t even get their pay right. It’s about time DOD stopped hiding behind “operational” reasons for administrative incompetence. It’s not actually helping anyone in the long term

Peter next time you have an old man knee jerk to make why not keep it in your pants?

Or do it somewhere else?

The issue is not the investigation.

The issue is the leaking.

peterh I agree with the bulk of what you say but to leak to the press that you had been secretly investigating your Minister does bring into question why it was done.

rubbish. The DOD and the ONA are quite correct in investigating everyone. They do this to ensure that a potential threat is quashed quickly, should one arise.

Considering that this man is a senior minister in our government, in a relationship with a person who has links to the chinese government, it is better that defence is able to recognise this now. If a company that has links to the other person wins a major DOD or other Govt contract, the opposition will cry foul – claiming that it is favoritism. DOD have done the minister a favor. It probably wasn’t the intention, but it is a very valuable act nonetheless.

Defence are being asked now to do more with less. The projects that are currently being rolled out were signed a few years ago, or were negotiated over the last 12-18 months. They don’t have a great big pot of gold. They are managing to do a hard job with very little resources. gershon recognised the need to cut DOD spending, but the problem is that the cuts of contractors won’t gain the department much joy, especially when the need for skills that they have lost arises.

Cutting off the hand that feeds…..
Question is, would this happen if there was no major overseas deployment? (You need us more than we need you) I’m sure this is not isolated to Defence.

I read this story on the SMH site last night, with considerable disgust. Fitzgibbon has done the right thing, from the point of view of the taxpayer, in holding the department to account.

Defence, as many know, is quite feral in the way it runs itself. Even its own rulers have trouble getting every area to behave, observe budgets and due process.

Fitzgibbon has come in and rolled his sleeves up and tried to run a broom through the place, with the predictable response, but I have to say Defence have gone too far this time, and I hope enough people see that.

There is a tradition of hanging ministers out to dry if they offend their departments too much… Vanstone’s first ministerial portfolio of DEETYA is a very good case of this, and in that case, she did deserve it.

This though is just wrong. If Defence gets away with this, then we might as well admit that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like, however they like and at whatever expense.

Fitzgibbon is our best hope of something changing with Defence, and it’s necessary.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.