But the dept of finance is still not independent (with due respect to the people at the finance dept). The budgeting constraint are still limited by government perspective rather than independent reviewers considering the subject.
DOFD nor independant of Defence? tell mw you're joking...
An independent person will be more objective about the viability of the project rather than a department of finance with vested interest to forward certain existing government objectives. When Government changes, the budgeting process that decisions are based on will often change eg UK cancellation of projects etc. I'm sure their MoD finance tot it worked during the Brown Government but clearly there was a change in priorities thereafter when Cameron took over.
I think you misunderstand the role of auditors by some margin...
It is not the managers level that is the issue. Commercially, we know managers will do (almost) anything to sweet talk their way into a deal. Its not just accountability but an independent person validating what the managers are proposing.
you clearly don't undertstand how procurement works in australian defence. managers can't sweet talk anything, there are independant stakeholders and reviewers involved at every step of the way - this includes reviewers who have no idea about the capability and in some cases one could argue that they have a conflict in operational interest. they certainly provide a counter point.
That's not the point, the question again is that at every process, how independent is the judgement made. Its no point firing a manager after a $3 billion project gets cancelled when an independent reviewer could have raised a red flag even before the first cent is sunk in.
what australian program worth 3bn has been cancelled?? I suggest that you understand the procurement and mulltiple pass model initially proposed by kinnaird before discussing australian procurement. everything you're speaking about is already in place due to kinnaird. the issue is about Govt exercising resident privilege in some programs
An example in the case of the UK, an independent auditor worth his salt would have raised a red flag about the cancellation penalties of the QE carriers. A contract review would have thrown that as a sign off requirement for top management rather than a manager. That would have placed accountability right at the top for making such decisions.
which would have been picked up by DOFD in australia, as they are the questions and things that they do in their role before Govt/cabinet and the Security Council blesses a project into the next pass.
Crikey the last thing we want is independents casting their pearls of capability illiteracy over projects like subs, ewarfare, joint capabilities..
auditors look for breaches of process
reviewers look for compliance - not tactical benefit
govt and cabinet defines the processes.
to change the process you need Govt/Cabinet to do so - and therein lies the problem. hence how subs become a political football.
And why not? Auditors are covered by NDAs. Auditors that audit defence contractors often need Government clearance at the highest level. I know cos I went through that. There are severe penalties on unauthorised release of classified information.
you cannot be serious? DOFD already have people cleared to the approp levels, as do ANAO.
Even if there are programmes that may be justified in restricted access, I fail to see how aircraft
procurement eg fighters etc could fall within that restricted access category.
because the capabilities are joint - they effect a quantum of other critical capabilities. The fatships, subs, specials, ewarfare etc all play in the purple space, wtf would you let someone who is not across all the issues look at all. you seem to have a very narrow comprehension of what the auditors/reviewers role is and can be, they are not SME's
Auditors may not need to have access to classified technology to know whether a project is at risk of cost overruns. For $ billion projects, I would allow an independent pair of eyes to make an independent assessment regarding such budgets.
which is what DOFD do, and if you think that DOFD are not independant of the Defence procurement process, then I suggest that you are absolutely theorising about the australian process rather than understanding how it actually works.
