Mate that's what the public service is for. We don't elect defence people to defence or economists to treasury, we never have and we never will. Most of the time ministers act on the advice of professionals, as long as its politically viable that is.
There is a school of thought that managers don't need to know what their subordinates do, they just need to manage. Having worked for both technically orientated and technically illiterate managers I will take the techos every time. There are far too many people out there who really don't have a clue, who believe that they are some how qualified to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it.
But polies aren't supposed to be managers in the traditional sense, heads of departments are. A politician is essentially a representative of the people who is responsible for ensuring the executive acts in the public interest. Obviously that makes them responsible for any actions taken by their department, but the very reason why Swan isn't an economist and why Smith isn't a security and international relations major is because they shouldn't be acting as a 'manager'. They don't need to have extensive personal knowledge in their area of responsibility, that's what professional public servants are for, but they do need to be able to make a judgement on both the public interest and value for money.
Apply that to a parliamentary democracy when you have new management potentially every four years. Do you really want someone who once studied economics in the Chicago school during the late 1980's running the treasury, getting their own 'ideas' and such, and then four years later you get a new one who got their economics degree under a neo-Keynesian in the late 90's? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.swerve said:
You're assuming that they take heed and listen to considered, apolitical and advice given in the national interest.
Don't get too excited as the government has a multi billion dollar hole to fill for its cabon compensation package and to try to get to surplus. Money is in short supply.
No, just stating how the system is intended to work. Not saying that individual politicians will always act in the manner intended, far from it.
I don't doubt it. Politicians are, after all, political animals and making a decision which might not be best for the nation but is advantageous is hardly unimaginable. It wouldn't surprise me if people able to play the patronage game would be able to have the most influence with a minister. After hearing about the machinations behind party room doors, that sort of thing seems to be commonplace. Smith strikes me as genuine and reasonably competent though, I think I like him more than Fitzgibon and Faulkner.
with the greatest of respect to the Minister, he's not within a golden mile of being as smart and as capable as Faulkner.
:start
Tanner touched on this in his recent book. Politicians are doing all kinds of things now to appeal to the general populace. And it is getting a bit ridiculous that these little things can get in the way of real politics and real decision making. For crying out loud our PM dyed her hair to be a "ranga" for popularity. Politicians like this that are doing these stunts for popularity (unlike ones like Faulkner who isn't in it for personal gain) are the reason why this country is in such a bad political stuff up at the moment.
In light ADMk2's comments, is anyone able to answer my above question in regards to what UAV Australia is currently operating/leasing & if/what we are looking at going forward?
As far as I am aware we are operating Herons and I think also Scan Eagle
Excellent question. RAAF currently has 3x Heron MUAV's on lease. 2 are deployed in Afghanistan and 1 is in Australia for training and test and development activities.
20 STA Regt have a Mini UAV troop equipped with Elbit Skylarks since 2005.
The JSF is not at risk - if it was it would be on the Projects of Concern List - and its not - and its never ever been on it.