Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Just a thought NG.

The average house price at Stanley Point just along from the base itself is $1.75m. Narrowneck, Cheltenham and Devonport village are all over $1.3m.

Question how big is the base in area? And how many low-rise apartments could be squeezed on there? Why not sell it?

People (well rich people) would pay well over a million for a quality waterside 3LDK apartment with seaviews across to the Auckland skyline, 2 car parks and a 10 minute Ferry ride into the CBD.

Help solve Auckland's housing crisis. Use the money to build a new Naval base at the Port of Tauranga and a small Naval unit down South.

I have always wondered how future MarPol laws will affect Waitemata Harbour in 20 odd years anyway.

Post script:

The Navy have a further 21 valuable properties along Calliope Road.

Navy tenant commands top digs - National - NZ Herald News

Cheers, MrC

Similar thought has been at the back of my mind to. Close Devonport down and resite the naval base elsewhere. Tauraunga would've been a good choice, however the housing and land prices there now have the Auckland disease. Whangarei? Nice deep sheltered harbour, with plenty of room for expansion. Wanganui? Preexisting harbour works and not far from Ohakea and Linton. Land and port facilities would be cheap. Not silly to consider a North Island west coast port. Split the fleet in half with half based at a North Island west coast port and the remainder at a South Island east coast port.

 

[KiwiRob]

Just a thought NG.

The average house price at Stanley Point just along from the base itself is $1.75m. Narrowneck, Cheltenham and Devonport village are all over $1.3m.

Question how big is the base in area? And how many low-rise apartments could be squeezed on there? Why not sell it?

People (well rich people) would pay well over a million for a quality waterside 3LDK apartment with seaviews across to the Auckland skyline, 2 car parks and a 10 minute Ferry ride into the CBD.

Help solve Auckland's housing crisis. Use the money to build a new Naval base at the Port of Tauranga and a small Naval unit down South.

I have always wondered how future MarPol laws will affect Waitemata Harbour in 20 odd years anyway.

Post script:

The Navy have a further 21 valuable properties along Calliope Road.

Navy tenant commands top digs - National - NZ Herald News

Cheers, MrC

My granddad used to live above the Base, unless they planned on using the sports grounds at the other end of the tunnel to build housing I couldn't see where else they could realistically build anything. Althought there is the old naval hospital (my mum was born there) and build on that site..

With the cost of housing in Auckland not showing any signs of slowing down or going backwards and with the not so great pay Naval personal are paid the govt will have to look at sorting out housing for staff, otherwise how are they going to find the manpower then need. The only other option is a complete relocation, selling off the defense land around devonport would recoupe some of the costs.

 

[ngatimozart]

My granddad used to live above the Base, unless they planned on using the sports grounds at the other end of the tunnel to build housing I couldn't see where else they could realistically build anything. Althought there is the old naval hospital (my mum was born there) and build on that site..

With the cost of housing in Auckland not showing any signs of slowing down or going backwards and with the not so great pay Naval personal are paid the govt will have to look at sorting out housing for staff, otherwise how are they going to find the manpower then need. The only other option is a complete relocation, selling off the defense land around devonport would recoupe some of the costs.

Actually you could add the outdoor centre at Whangapaoroa to that list and Whenuapai as well. Get both the RNZN and RNZAF out of Auckland completely.

 

[MrConservative]

My granddad used to live above the Base, unless they planned on using the sports grounds at the other end of the tunnel to build housing I couldn't see where else they could realistically build anything. Althought there is the old naval hospital (my mum was born there) and build on that site..

With the cost of housing in Auckland not showing any signs of slowing down or going backwards and with the not so great pay Naval personal are paid the govt will have to look at sorting out housing for staff, otherwise how are they going to find the manpower then need. The only other option is a complete relocation, selling off the defense land around devonport would recoupe some of the costs.

From the Spring St entrance through to Calliope Dock there seems plenty of good space for building low rise residential apartments. A lot of it is on stable reclaimed land. Seems good to go for a workover with a Cat D11. Flood the Dockyard, a bit of cobblestone work, a few cafes, an art gallery, it could be just like the Viaduct Basin Rob.

There is talk of a future port for Auckland being build out by Orere Point, another option is at Muriwai Beach so maybe when that happens or where next port for Auckland is built is probably the time to make the move.

 

[Rob c]

Yes, I was at Shelly Bay when they used to come in for revictualling, restoring, refuelling and runs ashore.

Of the two, out of Wellington or Lyttelton (Christchurch), the latter would be, IMHO, the better location for a second naval port. Apart from the financial aspect, the only real problem would be suitable land space in the area for the establishment of a facility. The advantages are numerous in that it offers shore drafts out of Auckland and partners can have still careers in a major area of economic activity; there will be a second major naval establishment capable of handling all aspects of fleet activities etc; there is a major Army establishment close by with all the associated training facilities including the NZDF School of Medicine; Lyttelton Port itself has major facilities including fuel tanks; a magazine can easily be built well away from built up areas, but close to the port; it is not subject to the same level of natural hazard risk that Wellington (massive earthquake & tsunami) and Auckland (ongoing volcanism - 51 active vents - earthquakes, tsunami, storms) face.

Yes I was also at Shelly Bay at the time, The parties in the sergeants mess when the navy were there were epic, The talk of the time and I know of at least one proposal going to cabinet, that most of Devonport be moved to the Sounds as the operating costs wood be significantly lower and due to its central location ship average transit time would be significantly reduced, however the capital costs meant it did not really add up. I think that there was also a commercial proposal at a later stage for the same thing by a large defence contractor for a lease back arrangement.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Actually you could add the outdoor centre at Whangapaoroa to that list and Whenuapai as well. Get both the RNZN and RNZAF out of Auckland completely.

And what do you suppose the loss of jobs for spouses/partners/ etc is going to do for retention?

Auckland may be relatively expensive, but it's cheap compared to Sydney and th RAN isn't leaving there any time soon. The reality of the modern family is that odds-on the other person in the relationship will have a better paying civilian job close to the base. That rules out moving to the likes of Picton, Whanganui, etc. Tauranga may be viable, but you'd never recover the capital cost of shifting.

 

[MrConservative]

And what do you suppose the loss of jobs for spouses/partners/ etc is going to do for retention?

Auckland may be relatively expensive, but it's cheap compared to Sydney and the RAN isn't leaving there any time soon. The reality of the modern family is that odds-on the other person in the relationship will have a better paying civilian job close to the base. That rules out moving to the likes of Picton, Whanganui, etc. Tauranga may be viable, but you'd never recover the capital cost of shifting.

It was the RNZAF wives and partners who were the ones most up in arms when the shift from WP to OH was mooted.

Tauranga is viable for that reason. The lifestyle is good and people do want to life there in growing numbers. Leaving Auckland to do so. You will not recover the capital costs but the opportunity cost of moving DNB once the population of Auckland gets over 2 million and MarPol laws tighten even more it will be a fait accompli. No Navy employee / couple will ever be able to buy anywhere close to the base anymore. If fact they have not really been able to do that for years.

One thing though is that any future naval base shift would not happen overnight. It would be a long term change forecast at least 10 years ahead. When the Port of Auckland is eventually forced out the Navy will follow. It will happen and a generous timeframe towards a shift will give people the opportunity and time to adjust and the navy a chance to plan and transition as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

And what do you suppose the loss of jobs for spouses/partners/ etc is going to do for retention?

Auckland may be relatively expensive, but it's cheap compared to Sydney and th RAN isn't leaving there any time soon. The reality of the modern family is that odds-on the other person in the relationship will have a better paying civilian job close to the base. That rules out moving to the likes of Picton, Whanganui, etc. Tauranga may be viable, but you'd never recover the capital cost of shifting.

I disagree with your comparison between Auckland and Sydney. For all intents and purposes they are similar. The RAN does not have anywhere near the funding starvation issues that the RNZN does, so your comparison is quite disingenuous.

It's not all about costs. It's about practicalities and what's best for the navy and NZDF. Look where Treasury lead cost cutting mania has got us. A very short sighted solution that creates long term very expensive problems. The Treasury lead idiocy for divestment of the housing in Auckland and the mantra of market rents for the remainder of the housing created a majority of the retention problems that were inflicted upon the RNZN and to a lesser degree the RNZAF. A large number of the couples and families who reside in the Auckland area require two incomes to survive, let alone have a lifestyle. One does not get rich on a NZDF income and one is paid for 24/7/365, not for an 8 hour day / 40 hour week like in civilian life.

I think that you may lack an understanding of service life and conditions, which colours your thinking. The impression I get is that you perceive service personnel just as faceless numbers that can be manipulated and easily discarded. That is an impression that many bean counters and faceless bureaucrats appear to give as well. Ultimately a defence force is only as good as the people who serve in it and if you want to attract and retain your brightest and best warriors you must be prepared to stand behind them and support them. A little history needs to be remembered because there have been mutinies since WW2 over pay and conditions and back then the penalty for mutiny was an appointment with the executioner. It says an awful lot about the NZ govt and bureaucracy when service personnel have to go to that length to get any high level attention to the problems of pay and conditions. You can only push people so far and today they will vote with their feet. That costs a lot of money when they do that. The bean counters and faceless bureaucrats don't think about that.

The other thing that they don't think about is when we signed on and swore the oath of allegiance we signed a blank cheque payable to the govt that could have cost us our lives, literally. For that we do have some expectation of viable support back. Many of us had our cheques returned uncashed but some didn't. We were and are all volunteers and signed on willingly. Many of us would do so again if we are asked to. However, when we are being stabbed in the back at home by bean counters and faceless bureaucrats who live in an ivy clad world who can't see past their nose, we sometimes wonder if it's really worth it. And yes my time in uniform colours and informs my analysis, however it is experience hard learned and earned and it does not limit my view. In fact it gave me the experience and confidence to broaden my views which lead me into other arenas, experiences and expertise.

 

[Lucasnz]

From the Spring St entrance through to Calliope Dock there seems plenty of good space for building low rise residential apartments. A lot of it is on stable reclaimed land. Seems good to go for a workover with a Cat D11. Flood the Dockyard, a bit of cobblestone work, a few cafes, an art gallery, it could be just like the Viaduct Basin Rob.

There is talk of a future port for Auckland being build out by Orere Point, another option is at Muriwai Beach so maybe when that happens or where next port for Auckland is built is probably the time to make the move.

I don't think you'd want to go that route right now. Mobil NZ is currently being chased for $10m to clean up the old fuel depot. Its off the Supreme Court - from what I've read on technicalities. DNB will be so contaminated from over 80 years of commercial use, that I don't you could ever viably turn the dockyard / supply depot or main block at Philomel into residential without some serious clauses in the ASAP or legislation. With regards to the top of the naval base - nice views but never disposal a disposal option given the space constraints within the existing naval base below and security.

IMHO relocation is not the issue. I see the RNZN been constrained by DNB in the following ways:

• The Dry Dock not being able to accommodate new ships
• The increasing size of ships restricting the number of vessels that can alongside.
• The lack of space for growth, compounded by the lost of HMNZS Tamaki
• The Armaments Depot and issues around the safety zone

The dry dock issue can be addressed by expansion, but additional berthing is likely to come at a political cost given the issues the Ports of Auckland have had.

The armaments depot is another issue and consideration should be given to reconstruction and re-opening of the armaments depot at Whangapora for the more explosive weapon systems. The lack of space can only be addressed via a degree of relocation - increasingly I'm of the view that BCT and OTS should relocate to Woodbourne (noting that the first stages of initial officer training is now joint), along with one or two sail training craft and the IPV based out of Picton, with support via a naval section at Woodbourne. Housing could be provided via the RNZAF (if they have anything free). There are some problems with the idea (i.e. Damage Control Training) but it has the advantage of maximising the use of an existing NZDF resource. Personnel issues could in part be addressed by unaccompanied postings and giving personnel the choice of Woodbourne or Philomel as their home base. Personnel would deploy from there for sea postings from their home base.

Long term the NZDF is going to have to provide housing to personnel in Auckland if it is going to retain personnel, unable to compete for housing on an individual (sole income families) and two income basis. Overall relocation of DNB is not going to solve the RNZN problems without substantial costs that could be mitigated via tinkering.

 

[Rob c]

I disagree with your comparison between Auckland and Sydney. For all intents and purposes they are similar. The RAN does not have anywhere near the funding starvation issues that the RNZN does, so your comparison is quite disingenuous.

It's not all about costs. It's about practicalities and what's best for the navy and NZDF. Look where Treasury lead cost cutting mania has got us. A very short sighted solution that creates long term very expensive problems. The Treasury lead idiocy for divestment of the housing in Auckland and the mantra of market rents for the remainder of the housing created a majority of the retention problems that were inflicted upon the RNZN and to a lesser degree the RNZAF. A large number of the couples and families who reside in the Auckland area require two incomes to survive, let alone have a lifestyle. One does not get rich on a NZDF income and one is paid for 24/7/365, not for an 8 hour day / 40 hour week like in civilian life.

I think that you may lack an understanding of service life and conditions, which colours your thinking. The impression I get is that you perceive service personnel just as faceless numbers that can be manipulated and easily discarded. That is an impression that many bean counters and faceless bureaucrats appear to give as well. Ultimately a defence force is only as good as the people who serve in it and if you want to attract and retain your brightest and best warriors you must be prepared to stand behind them and support them. A little history needs to be remembered because there have been mutinies since WW2 over pay and conditions and back then the penalty for mutiny was an appointment with the executioner. It says an awful lot about the NZ govt and bureaucracy when service personnel have to go to that length to get any high level attention to the problems of pay and conditions. You can only push people so far and today they will vote with their feet. That costs a lot of money when they do that. The bean counters and faceless bureaucrats don't think about that.

The other thing that they don't think about is when we signed on and swore the oath of allegiance we signed a blank cheque payable to the govt that could have cost us our lives, literally. For that we do have some expectation of viable support back. Many of us had our cheques returned uncashed but some didn't. We were and are all volunteers and signed on willingly. Many of us would do so again if we are asked to. However, when we are being stabbed in the back at home by bean counters and faceless bureaucrats who live in an ivy clad world who can't see past their nose, we sometimes wonder if it's really worth it. And yes my time in uniform colours and informs my analysis, however it is experience hard learned and earned and it does not limit my view. In fact it gave me the experience and confidence to broaden my views which lead me into other arenas, experiences and expertise.

Hell, this is good, this post I think sums up the core problem regarding the Government (treasury) and in some cases the public attitude to servicemen in all the services. Servicemen face trials and stresses completely unknown by those outside the service and some of these stresses are caused by Government and public attitudes. Often in my time in the services I felt that we carried on because we loved the job, we were doing something that had purpose,and that the NZ services were very good at what we did. (the best). In my time in the services, personal conditions were significantly better (relatively speaking ) than now and I greatly admire the servicemen of today for sticking with it.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I disagree with your comparison between Auckland and Sydney. For all intents and purposes they are similar. The RAN does not have anywhere near the funding starvation issues that the RNZN does, so your comparison is quite disingenuous.

Perhaps you could explain to me how Treasury are so cunning and devious they've managed to convince virtually every senior officer to ignore their own professional judgement and adopt those of Treasury?

I've not heard anyone who has worked closely with Treasury say they've ignored a sound, costed argument. The NZDF/MoD experience working the Treasury on the DMRR and MSC for instance has been commented on very favourably. The key difference there is that NZDF/MoD could demonstrate an investment and outcome based decision-making process.

If you're genuinely interested in how the approach has changed over the years, I'd suggest going down to National Archives and grabbing some of the old staff officer papers for capability requirements from the 70s, 80s and early 90s and compare them to the level of analysis shown in open source investment decisions today. The difference is chalk and cheese, and so has been the response from central agencies.

 

[Volkodav]

Perhaps you could explain to me how Treasury are so cunning and devious they've managed to convince virtually every senior officer to ignore their own professional judgement and adopt those of Treasury?

I've not heard anyone who has worked closely with Treasury say they've ignored a sound, costed argument. The NZDF/MoD experience working the Treasury on the DMRR and MSC for instance has been commented on very favourably. The key difference there is that NZDF/MoD could demonstrate an investment and outcome based decision-making process.

If you're genuinely interested in how the approach has changed over the years, I'd suggest going down to National Archives and grabbing some of the old staff officer papers for capability requirements from the 70s, 80s and early 90s and compare them to the level of analysis shown in open source investment decisions today. The difference is chalk and cheese, and so has been the response from central agencies.

Quite simple any senior officer, public servant or senior employee of a government enterprise can, will and has been overlooked for promotion or even on occasion removed for not towing the line. Even private companies dealing with government (depending on how reliant they are on government contracts) learns very rapidly not to disagree with those who hand out the contracts.

Simply, anyone who is perceived to be a PITA will not be promoted in the first place and any who slip through with be replaced. Private individuals that the powers that be have no direct control over will be blacklisted. This is what happens in the Westminster system (and those who serve it) whenever the bureaucrats have precedence over the autocrats and technocrats for an extended period time. The unimaginative types who lack passion and understanding of the core reasons things are done at all end up running things against the spirit of what they actually exist to do.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I And yes my time in uniform colours and informs my analysis, however it is experience hard learned and earned and it does not limit my view.

Let's have some analysis then. Rather than launch in to a diatribe about what views you seem to think I hold, perhaps you could start with the point that shifting DNB to another location wouldn't justify the capital outlay. If that option fails to meet an investment test, what options do you see as being viable to address salary and benefit challenges of living in Auckland? "Show me your working" as they say.

 

[Volkodav]

Let's have some analysis then. Rather than launch in to a diatribe about what views you seem to think I hold, perhaps you could start with the point that shifting DNB to another location wouldn't justify the capital outlay. If that option fails to meet an investment test, what options do you see as being viable to address salary and benefit challenges of living in Auckland? "Show me your working" as they say.

That sounds like the sort of thing a business graduate would request," this is my position now collect the appropriate data and conduct the analysis in such a way as to justify my position". I have encountered a lot of this over the years, along with stovepipes and selective KPIs, all setup by professional managers for the benefit of professional managers (i.e. themselves) but no regard for the big picture over the long term.

What is really amusing is watching these people, object, defend, attack, squirm and finally run screaming when a holistic continuous improvement program is instituted, with properly designed experiments analysing real data with no preconceived outcomes. It rapidly becomes apparent that the options that are "to expensive, difficult and risky" to undertake are actually far better options than the status quo. The expensive new system that is vital moving forward under proper examination is actually discovered to be unnecessary because the existing system works just fine when the senior people who wanted to replace it actually followed, instead of bypassing it. Then there is the change that was pushed through because of someone's determination to cut costs/streamline systems /drag things into the whatever century, that actually proves to have, not only been retrograde, but completely unnecessary.

The secret to getting it right is to never, ever trust business / commerce / economics "professionals" and especially technically unqualified MBAs, but rather competent, experienced people who have been given the appropriate tools and facilitation to do the job. Far to many things have been stuffed up by people who don't actually know or understand the things they are analysing.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The secret to getting it right is to never, ever trust business / commerce / economics "professionals" and especially technically unqualified MBAs, but rather competent, experienced people who have been given the appropriate tools and facilitation to do the job. Far to many things have been stuffed up by people who don't actually know or understand the things they are analysing.

So given the current CN is a recent business school graduate, I guess that means the RNZN is doomed.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't think you'd want to go that route right now. Mobil NZ is currently being chased for $10m to clean up the old fuel depot. Its off the Supreme Court - from what I've read on technicalities. DNB will be so contaminated from over 80 years of commercial use, that I don't you could ever viably turn the dockyard / supply depot or main block at Philomel into residential without some serious clauses in the ASAP or legislation. With regards to the top of the naval base - nice views but never disposal a disposal option given the space constraints within the existing naval base below and security.

If there is contamination there well that would end it. If millions are to be spent on cleaning it up I would say forget a further use option. Probably could not even use it as a Public Domain. Would have been nice views though ....

IMHO relocation is not the issue. I see the RNZN been constrained by DNB in the following ways:

• The Dry Dock not being able to accommodate new ships
• The increasing size of ships restricting the number of vessels that can alongside.
• The lack of space for growth, compounded by the lost of HMNZS Tamaki
• The Armaments Depot and issues around the safety zone

The dry dock issue can be addressed by expansion, but additional berthing is likely to come at a political cost given the issues the Ports of Auckland have had.

Future Patrol vessels could be relocated South. With the Frigates, Endeavour, LWSV and Canterbury remaining at Devonport. That would free up space. Dry Dock expansion.

The armaments depot is another issue and consideration should be given to reconstruction and re-opening of the armaments depot at Whangapora for the more explosive weapon systems. The lack of space can only be addressed via a degree of relocation - increasingly I'm of the view that BCT and OTS should relocate to Woodbourne (noting that the first stages of initial officer training is now joint), along with one or two sail training craft and the IPV based out of Picton, with support via a naval section at Woodbourne. Housing could be provided via the RNZAF (if they have anything free). There are some problems with the idea (i.e. Damage Control Training) but it has the advantage of maximising the use of an existing NZDF resource. Personnel issues could in part be addressed by unaccompanied postings and giving personnel the choice of Woodbourne or Philomel as their home base. Personnel would deploy from there for sea postings from their home base.

That is food for thought. Woodbourne is a good candidate for a Joint Base of some kind. It has what Auckland lacks - space. I worry about the partner 'career' aspect though, Blenhiem is just a town whereas Tauranga or Christchurch have well established corporate, educational and medical institutions as well as other industries.

Long term the NZDF is going to have to provide housing to personnel in Auckland if it is going to retain personnel, unable to compete for housing on an individual (sole income families) and two income basis. Overall relocation of DNB is not going to solve the RNZN problems without substantial costs that could be mitigated via tinkering.

Maybe the solution is to come to some kind of deal with the owners of the old HMNZS Tamaki / Fort Cawley 3.2ha site at Narrowneck and build a Naval residential precinct involving terraced apartments for families and studios for singles as I cannot see any other reasonable space on the North Shore within decent commuting distance to Devonport. New accommodation blocks at Philomel?
If a 5 bedroom ex-state house is going for 600K in Otara which is Auckland cheapest suburb an hours drive away. It is a huge affordability problem.

But the other long term problem is will there be a Devonport in 25 years if ever stringent MarPol laws dominate acceptable harbour uses.

 

[Rob c]

Perhaps you could explain to me how Treasury are so cunning and devious they've managed to convince virtually every senior officer to ignore their own professional judgement and adopt those of Treasury?

I've not heard anyone who has worked closely with Treasury say they've ignored a sound, costed argument. The NZDF/MoD experience working the Treasury on the DMRR and MSC for instance has been commented on very favourably. The key difference there is that NZDF/MoD could demonstrate an investment and outcome based decision-making process.

If you're genuinely interested in how the approach has changed over the years, I'd suggest going down to National Archives and grabbing some of the old staff officer papers for capability requirements from the 70s, 80s and early 90s and compare them to the level of analysis shown in open source investment decisions today. The difference is chalk and cheese, and so has been the response from central agencies.

The issue with the current system I see is if it is so good, why have has no one else adopted it and we are a minority of one in this regard as to funding defence, it has been use long enough for others to make a judgment on it and even when it was being introduced the governments own people said it was not a good fit for defence. As to the analysis difference in the 70's and 80's that the simpler analysis still gave us good results unless defence was forced into a corner by the pollies. In the 60's,70's and 80's NZD had a world wide reputation for how right they got their capital acquisitions considering their capital constrains and this was simply done by getting the basic's right to start with.

 

[MrConservative]

So given the current CN is a recent business school graduate, I guess that means the RNZN is doomed.

He is also a naval officer, so with that kind of experience and background combined with his business qualification he would look at things in an interdisciplinary sense.

 

[Rob c]

Quite simple any senior officer, public servant or senior employee of a government enterprise can, will and has been overlooked for promotion or even on occasion removed for not towing the line. Even private companies dealing with government (depending on how reliant they are on government contracts) learns very rapidly not to disagree with those who hand out the contracts.

Simply, anyone who is perceived to be a PITA will not be promoted in the first place and any who slip through with be replaced. Private individuals that the powers that be have no direct control over will be blacklisted. This is what happens in the Westminster system (and those who serve it) whenever the bureaucrats have precedence over the autocrats and technocrats for an extended period time. The unimaginative types who lack passion and understanding of the core reasons things are done at all end up running things against the spirit of what they actually exist to do.

As a small note to the above AVM Morrison. CAS for the air force in the mid 60's was noted as the man who rebuilt the air force and in doing so trod on a few pollies toes. When he retired he was the first chief of staff not to be offered a government position up to that time.

 

[Volkodav]

So given the current CN is a recent business school graduate, I guess that means the RNZN is doomed.

Possibly, it depends on his level of competence before business school. A professional engineer or science graduate, or even technician who has worked proficiently within their fields for years before undertaking graduate level studies is a very different situation to an admin type or bureaucrat with no real world experience who does the same post graduate program.

Many post graduate programs are specifically designed to prepare professional and technical experts for senior management roles. They are intended to bring them up to speed in areas in which they would likely have had limited exposure / experience, i.e. hr, industrial relations, budgets, perhaps marketing, law, etc. This enables them to better deal with people who have spent their entire careers in business administration, law, finance etc.

Where it falls down is when the person with the MBA was not a competent professional or technical expert in the first place. They have bought their MBA from a registered training provider, achieved their required minimum grade average then gone and inflicted themselves upon unsuspecting organisations. They know the terminology, talk the talk, walk the walk, but are completely lacking in any in depth knowledge or understanding of pretty much anything. I have worked as a test engineer in a department managed by a lab tech who bought an MBA, as a quality engineer in a company run by a salesman with an MBA, neither was anywhere near as capable or competent as anyone of a number of ex-tradies, technician or engineers I have worked for.

It comes down to who and what the person was before they did the MBA because an MBA can not turn a numpty into a competent leader, it just gets them a fatter pay cheque and a bigger ego as they continue to FU everything they touch.