Who would have thought that Sergeant Schultz was guiding Australia’s Defence Department?
Because, like the bumbling sergeant from Hogan’s Heroes, Defence seems to live by his “I see nothing! I know nothing!” motto.
The latest revelations that Defence has spent $21 million on the US Navy and over $18 million on big-end-of-town consulting firms for advice on Australia’s future submarine project beggars belief.
It also begs a couple of big questions.
First, with its $32 billion budget and 76,000 personnel, why couldn’t Defence find experts within its own ranks rather than outsiders telling us what they ought to be able to work out for themselves?
Secondly, if Defence lacks so much confidence to do its own thinking, what does that say about their ability to make the big decisions necessary for our
nation’s defence?
Because, no matter how big Defence’s budget is, or how much firepower it has, unless the hardware is matched with smart thinking we’re in trouble.
Defence has a long and sorry history of not only squandering billions, but also the opportunity to strengthen our nation’s defences.
Bronwyn Bishop rightly copped a caning for that $5,000 helicopter ride, and eventually resigned as Speaker. But Defence barely got slapped by a wet lettuce leaf when it blew $1 billion on the Seasprite helicopter debacle.
The US-built choppers that were meant to be at the frontline of our defence were not safe to fly because of botched modifications Australian Defence officials insisted on. An Auditor-General’s investigation found that Defence’s excuses didn’t fly either.
And a lazy $40 million evaporated when Defence approved the building of six amphibious craft that were too wide for the ship they were supposed to be
deployed from.
The more recent Air Warfare Destroyer cost blowout was, contrary to the government’s finger-pointing at ASC, due in large part to poor decisions and planning within Defence.
And in the irony of ironies, hundreds of millions were wasted on the Air Force’s early warning aircraft system, because Defence itself failed to see the early warning signs of a botched program.
Recently I was in Singapore (at my expense, not yours) talking to their defence experts on how they procure defence equipment. This tiny island state has emerged from swampy backwater to an economic and defence powerhouse in the last 50 years.
The numbers tell the story. Singapore’s defence budget is $9 billion compared to Australia’s $32 billion. It has four submarines compared to our six. Singapore has 12 naval warships, while Australia has 11 ageing frigates.
Singapore has 120 fighter jets compared to our 95, and four early warning aircraft compared to our six.
And as for on-the-ground presence, Singapore has 72,000 active soldiers and well over 150 battle tanks, compared to Australia’s 28,500 active soldiers and 59 tanks.
Australia’s subs project highlights a stark contrast. Singapore signed contracts within two years of launching their future submarine program in 2012, while six years down the track Australia is nowhere near signing a contract for anything.
So far, Defence has spent $200 million on ‘paper shuffling’ for the subs. It includes more than $10 million on Swedish ‘intellectual property’ that will never be used (why does ABBA’s Money, Money, Money come to mind?).
It’s time that Defence had a rocket put up under it (so long as they’re not responsible for procuring it), and I really hope that the new Defence Minister Marise Payne is the person to do it. Otherwise, Sergeant Schultz’s boss, Colonel Klink, may as well be running the joint.
This article originally appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser.