On the Record
On this page, we set the record straight to correct any inaccuracies in media reporting of Defence issues.
18 March, 2010
Cost-consciousness in Defence
Over the last week the Sydney Morning Herald has published a series of articles that have questioned the legitimacy and appropriateness of a number of Defence contracts and other expenditures. It also painted a picture of Defence being a profligate organisation.
By way of background, on 27 February 2010, a Sydney Morning Herald journalist made an initial inquiry to Defence seeking answers to 55 questions that addressed contracts and expenditure across all Groups and Services going back several years. Many of the issues raised were wide-ranging and required detailed answers. Defence has provided responses to all of the questions put by the journalist, which can be viewed on the Defence Home Page.
While we are satisfied that, with relatively few exceptions, the expenditures covered by the Sydney Morning Herald’s questions are both legitimate and reasonable, a number of the matters raised reflect unfavourably on particular decisions taken by delegates, and affect Defence’s reputation more broadly.
We believe that Defence has a real opportunity to learn lessons from this exercise and to emerge as a stronger organisation as a result. And we will do so. To do so we need to do more to instil a culture of greater cost-consciousness across Defence. And we need to do more to assure the robustness of our spending and procurement processes.
The Government will soon consider the implementation plan for the Strategic Reform Program (SRP). The plan has been under development since May 2009 and will provide a very detailed blue-print for deep reform in Defence, including the delivery of $20 billion in savings over the next decade which will be reinvested in Defence capability that is essential to deliver Force 2030. We expect to be in a position in the near future where we can brief all Defence staff in detail about the SRP.
At the heart of the SRP is the imperative for all of us in Defence to conduct our business more effectively and more efficiently. This starts with decisions that individuals take each day, including on the expenditure of Australian taxpayers funds provided as part of the Defence budget. The Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, has been very clear about the need for Defence to use its resources more efficiently, effectively and most importantly, intelligently. A culture of discipline and cost-consciousness must underpin our everyday operations and decision-making. This is integral to responding to criticisms of our spending decisions. It will also be integral to the success of the SRP.
We ask all managers, commanders and those exercising delegations to approach their business with these imperatives of discipline and cost-consciousness in mind. We must all recognise and take seriously our accountability for the effective and efficient use of Defence resources. Before we commit to expend funds we should ask ourselves some simple questions. Is this necessary? Is it value for money? Can we do better? Is it publicly defensible? We ask delegates and managers to pay particular attention to justifying and documenting their decisions. Moreover, if your procurement decision will be lodged on the AusTender database make sure that the description of the goods or services is complete and clear, ensure that the figures are accurate, and ensure that you maintain comprehensive and easily accessible records that can be made available for future review if required.
As a final comment, most of the areas of expenditure that have been covered by the Sydney Morning Herald articles will be the subject of further scrutiny as part of the SRP. Any not covered will now be subject to scrutiny in other ways. While uncomfortable in parts, the Sydney Morning Herald articles are a timely reminder for us all of the need to reflect carefully on the decisions we take in our day to day activities as we work to reform Defence. We have no doubt that we will all learn from our recent experience. We will provide further guidance as we move into the implementation phase of the SRP.
The Minister for Defence strongly supports the publication of all the responses as another way of enhancing transparency and accountability and encouraging greater cost-consciousness in Defence. So do we.
IJ Watt 18 Mar 10 |
AG Houston 18 Mar 10 |
09 March, 2010
Letter to the Editor – Bundaberg News Mail
Dear Editor,
I appreciated the paper covering the success of your local cadets at the Chief of Army Cadet Team Challenge in the piece entitled “Bundy’s gold medal army cadets” published on 9 March 2010. However I write to correct a couple of inaccuracies in the article for the benefit of your readers.
The Australian Army Cadets is a leading national youth development organisation, with the character and values of the Australian Army, founded on a strong community partnership, fostering and supporting an ongoing interest in the Australian Army. Clearly because the military structure of Army Cadets and although many of the scenarios and activities that the cadets undertook such as navigation, quick decision exercises, first aid, engineering, obstacle course, drill and shooting are conducted in a military context it must be clear that cadets were not placed in “real-life war predicaments”. Rather the competition is designed as a set of activities that are physically and mentally demanding, set in an appropriately risk managed environment. The activity stresses the values of teamwork, initiative and moral courage and for that reason you can be justifiably proud of the cadets that formed the team representing South Queensland.
As noted in your article Captain Dent said her cadets had displayed leadership and teamwork skills that would hold them in good stead later in life. I could not agree more with that assessment and it underscores the aim and value of the Australian Army Cadets as a youth development organisation.
Brigadier John Withers
Commander
Australian Army Cadets
04 March, 2010
Letter to the Editor – Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail
Dear Editor,
The article “Chopper’s near-miss” written by Ian McPhedran and published on 3 March 2010 is erroneous and therefore misleading. I write to correct the record on this matter for the benefit of your readers.
The article states that the “pilot fought for control”. This was never the case. The aircraft remained fully controllable throughout the incident and the pilot was always in full control.
The claim that the pilot reported a “MAYDAY” is untrue. The crew declared a “PAN”, which indicates a request for priority handling, not an emergency. The event was conducted as a precautionary landing. HMAS Warramunga’s crew were already at their usualFlying Stations but no “Crash on Deck” was ever declared.
There was no “bucking deck”. The ship motion at the time of the incident was benign.
This was a serious incident and is being treated as such. Navy’s Fleet Air Arm sees safety as its number one priority and continues to maintain this focus.
In response to the incident, all Navy Seahawk helicopter flying operations were suspended while the cause of the “PAN” incident was investigated. This response was consistent with Navy’s standard operating procedures and strong “safety first” approach.
Vice Admiral Russ Crane
Chief of Navy
27 February, 2010
Letter to the Editor – The Australian
The article on Air Force’s air combat aircraft by Cameron Stewart in ‘The Australian’ (Saturday 27 February) is not an accurate reflection of Air Force’s current capability and readiness.
Air Force maintains a potent air combat capability, which will be further boosted within weeks, when the first of RAAF’s next-generation Super Hornets will arrive in Australia.
For obvious reasons Defence does not publicly release availability numbers of air combat aircraft. However, Cameron Stewart’s article may be referring to the period of operational standby over Christmas, when Air Force maintains its normal level of high readiness for short notice tasks, while many of our people including maintainers are taking well earned leave with their families.
The newspaper story made only passing reference to the much publicised Hornet Upgrade (HUG) project. This project is successfully delivering state of the art fighter aircraft which will be ready to operate effectively in the threat environment of the next decade. F/A-18s involved in the upgrade are off-line for a period of time, but this is a staged process to ensure Air Force always maintains sufficient capability to fulfil Government tasking and crew training.
The F-111s are ageing aircraft which have served Australia well, but are now approaching the end of their operational life. Air Force is retiring its F-111s at the end of 2010 and is acquiring a fleet of 24 Super Hornets as an interim replacement for the F-111, before the cutting edge F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is delivered to Australia.
Air Force is experiencing some challenges with the ageing F-111s. Again, it is widely acknowledged that the F-111 is increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain and operate. Despite this, a few uninformed commentators continue to call for F-111 operations to be extended beyond 2010.
The arrival of the first group of Super Hornets next month marks a new chapter for Air Force and a major leap in air combat capability. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that, when flown and supported by the high calibre people within Air Force, will ensure Australia’s regional air combat capability edge through to the introduction of the F-35.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
22 February, 2010
Letter to the Editor – The Australian
Regarding Cameron Stewart’s story on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (published Friday 19 February), Cameron appears to confuse two key issues: the F-35’s schedule and the aircraft’s end-state capability.
In capability terms, Australia’s requirement is for a cutting edge 5th generation aircraft that provides both fighter and strike roles. Australia’s decision to acquire the F-35 was based on very detailed and sustained analysis. In fact there is no other multi-role 5th generation aircraft that meets our needs. I remain confident that the F-35 will provide the air combat capability that Australia needs for the future.
In schedule terms, we continue to acknowledge the challenges the F-35 team is facing. As you would expect, I continue to monitor the progress of the F-35 extremely closely. Importantly for me, Australia has a staged F-35 acquisition strategy that includes significant cost and schedule buffers. With regard to schedule buffer, Australia’s first two JSF aircraft are expected to be built in the 6th year of production. In regards to aircraft cost, Australian Defence planning has always adopted a cautious approach to F-35 cost estimates, factoring in significant amounts of contingency funds to deal with cost risks. The staged acquisition approach for the JSF allows Defence to adjust funding provisions in the Defence Capability Plan for the bulk of our JSF acquisition as cost information matures.
As Minister Faulkner noted earlier this month, we acknowledge the F-35 schedule will continue to face risks. These issues have also been clearly flagged by US Secretary of Defense Gates. However, Secretary Gates has stated that he believes F-35 is “on track to become the backbone of US air superiority for the next generation.” I believe this will hold true for the Royal Australian Air Force.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
19 January, 2010
Editor - News Ltd
In your article in News Ltd papers this morning titled, 'We're an easy sub target', you stated that 'Air force skills have also been hit because it cannot fly its AP3-C Orion anti-submarine warfare (ASW) planes against "live" targets.' This is incorrect.
Air Force has a requirement to generate levels of capability readiness across a number of roles including Anti Submarine Warfare. There has been no change in the level of Anti Submarine Warfare skills required by Government and the ADF.
Orion crews continue to maintain Anti Submarine Warfare capability, while maintaining their operational commitments to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance tasks in the Middle East and northern Australia.
Air Force AP-3C Orions represent one element of the ADF’s Anti Submarine Warfare capability. Navy also has significant surface and airborne Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities.
Air Force conducts regular Anti Submarine Warfare exercises with the Navy, and foreign forces. The details of these exercises are often not made public for operational security reasons. Some public examples of Air Force Anti Submarine Warfare exercises include Exercise RIMPAC and the Fincastle series of activities.
AP-3C Orions are highly capable and versatile aircraft capable of overland and maritime ISR, anti submarine warfare operations, and search and rescue activities.
Air Force plans its crew training to ensure skills are maintained in all these types of tasking.
For operational security reasons we will not provide further detail on Air Force’s Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities.
Regards
Brigadier Brian Dawson
Director General Public Affairs
Department of Defence
03 January 2010
Chief of Navy sets the record straight over allegations by Weekend Australian on state of Armidale Patrol Boat Fleet
I write in regard to an article in today’s Australian Newspaper (“gas risk remains for Navy boats”) by Michael McKenna. The article is based on a quote from an anonymous sailor, that a member was gassed on board an Armidale Class Patrol Boat in 2009 in an incident similar to a tragedy which injured four crew members 3 years earlier. I have asked Navy’s Patrol Boat Group Headquarters to thoroughly check their files. There is no record of this occurring.
For those who have not been aboard an Armidale, the austere accommodation compartment is designed to house any unexpected overflow of people. When not in use, the space is rarely used and usually sealed off. Therefore, the area is constantly monitored for any trace of toxic gas. Alarms sound at the slightest hint that levels of gas have risen to potentially dangerous levels, even if the amount of gas detected is below the amount toxic to humans. Those alarms have detected carbon monoxide emissions 8 times in the past 12 months and on each occasion the space was empty and no one was injured. No Hydrogen Sulphide (the gas involved in the tragedy in Nuship Maitland in 2006) has been detected. The recent introduction of better exhaust systems is significantly reducing the amount of carbon monoxide being ingested into the boats’ ventilation systems. Their sewage treatment systems are also being modified. Those improvements will continue across our patrol boat fleet.
The most recent incident involving Hydrogen Sulphide occurred in 2008. A small number of people at the HMAS Coonawarra Navy base in Darwin were slightly affected when the gas escaped from a sewage treatment plant as a patrol boat was undocking. This was the result of operator error and had nothing to do with the austere accommodation or the Armidales themselves.
Navy has never hidden the fact that like any new asset, the Armidales had some teething problems. But I can only repeat that the Armidale Class Patrol Boats are a safe, capable and reliable asset. I visited several of our 14 strong fleet just weeks ago and came away impressed with not only their capability but the ability and professionalism of those who crew them.
If Navy personnel of any rank still have concerns about the Armidales, I urge them to communicate this through their chain of command. New Generation Navy Signature Behaviours must apply and I will not tolerate measures or procedures which place our people in unnecessary danger.
However, the facts speak for themselves. I hope that any future reporting of this issue will focus more on the truth and less on hear-say.
Vice Admiral RUSS CRANE
Chief of Navy
Review Letters to the Editor for 2009
Review Letters to the Editor for 2008
Review Letters to the Editor for 2007