Sounds like the Defence Dept is following the example of the National Cabinet with no minutes- the cabinet that was ‘created’ during a national emergency but still continues today
Thanks for an interesting article we really have no idea what our government is up to
It seems to me, a mere citizen, that the rorts will continue as long as there is a a culture of fear by whoever is in government that any questioning of our "defence" posture or expenditure is off-limits. In other words, parliamentary oversight is abyssmal, and the rorters work to sustain the myth.
The inability to explain motivates these examples of a failure to disclose, a failure to provide details in minutes that support due diligence , accountability and transparency, all hallmarks of a liberal democracy. Thankyou, Michelle. Defence is expensive, under-educated and rapacious. I would prefer to respect them for their honourable acknowledgement of the facts.
Thanks Michelle for your diligence in holding the Defence procurement machine to account. You have consistently revealed concerning behaviour in Defence which goes way beyond ineptitude. Attempted cover-ups in the name of secrecy for security sake is obnoxious and must be called out. Stricter oversight and revelation of truthful outcomes is needed.
I emailed this link to myself, using Google's gmail. And what a surprise ! (not). Google in its ?wisdom has marked Undue Influence as a "SUSPICIOUS SITE". Well in one way, that's true. Undue Influence is indeed a site that is suspicious - in that it suspects the Australian Defence Department of being incompetent. But I fear that Google's "suspicious sites" mean - DON'T CRIICISE THE GOVERNMENT!
Sounds like the Defence Dept is following the example of the National Cabinet with no minutes- the cabinet that was ‘created’ during a national emergency but still continues today
Thanks for an interesting article we really have no idea what our government is up to
It seems to me, a mere citizen, that the rorts will continue as long as there is a a culture of fear by whoever is in government that any questioning of our "defence" posture or expenditure is off-limits. In other words, parliamentary oversight is abyssmal, and the rorters work to sustain the myth.
The inability to explain motivates these examples of a failure to disclose, a failure to provide details in minutes that support due diligence , accountability and transparency, all hallmarks of a liberal democracy. Thankyou, Michelle. Defence is expensive, under-educated and rapacious. I would prefer to respect them for their honourable acknowledgement of the facts.
Thanks Michelle for your diligence in holding the Defence procurement machine to account. You have consistently revealed concerning behaviour in Defence which goes way beyond ineptitude. Attempted cover-ups in the name of secrecy for security sake is obnoxious and must be called out. Stricter oversight and revelation of truthful outcomes is needed.
I emailed this link to myself, using Google's gmail. And what a surprise ! (not). Google in its ?wisdom has marked Undue Influence as a "SUSPICIOUS SITE". Well in one way, that's true. Undue Influence is indeed a site that is suspicious - in that it suspects the Australian Defence Department of being incompetent. But I fear that Google's "suspicious sites" mean - DON'T CRIICISE THE GOVERNMENT!
There's something Orwellian about that.