The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The guardians must still be accountable > Comments

The guardians must still be accountable : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 4/3/2011

The litany of procurement fiascos in Defence makes sobering reading, but succesive governments have been mute.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The thing about the purchase of our war equipment, is it some genuine trade person or persons looking at the design and determining if it is suitable, or a member of the government without any knowledge, being loaded with goodies, and approving the sale, without knowing a thing about its design, worthiness or suitability, just that the vendor is "a friend"
Posted by merv09, Monday, 7 March 2011 5:13:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are well the Opposition seem to be taking my advice of March 4 [bottom of second comment on this thread] on the accountability of Chief of Navy, Admiral Crane, but no Party is paying me...bugger!

ABC Online reported, March 7 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/07/3157430.htm:

"Opposition spokesman David Johnston says the Government was misled.

...He says the Chief of Navy must be held responsible for passing on the incorrect advice.

I want some accountability. I think the minister wants some accountability. He's got to go and get it.

...If the Chief of Navy is giving advice on such an important issue as amphibious ship lift in the face of a serious cyclone in North Queensland and that information is not true, I think it speaks for itself.

The Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, and the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, were approached for an interview but declined to comment."

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 7 March 2011 9:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley I cannot agree with you about the prevalence of drink spiking. It is a real problem - one cannot argue women should take responsibility for risky behaviours and then broadly claim that drink spiking claims are largely overstated. I have family in law enforcement and the problem is not overstated, and one that necessitates the involvement of community educators.

There would be no need then to take responsibility for safe behaviours if there are few risks involved - clearly there are risks otherwise we wouldn't be talking about teaching safe behaviours.

Maybe you did not mean the statement as it sounded. The case I was referring to was definitely not made up as a later regret. The girl in question was drugged to passing out stage and was treated at a hospital. There is nothing more hurtful to a victim and her family when these sorts of generalisations are made. Each case has to be taken as an individual one on the evidence provided including hospital testing, evidence from bystanders, witnesses if there are any.

You seem to only focus heavily on the notion of dubious allegations of rape rather than actual rape. Why is that? I am not being facetious but just interested in why the tendency to pull out the false claim defence. Clearly not all rape allegations are false.

One can be sympathetic to the minefield and harm caused by false accusations while still being attentive and proactive in legitimate rape situations.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 7 March 2011 10:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ummm pelican

I think it possible your post about drink spiking was place on this Defence thread in error.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 7 March 2011 10:19:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pete - a too quick click on the wrong heading. Will copy and paste if that is allowed in the right thread. Wondered where it went to. :(
Posted by pelican, Monday, 7 March 2011 10:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again. It is all so simple only bureaucrats, academics & politicians could fail to understand.

Much of the navy problem is politics.

We built subs in Adelaide for no reason but politics, It certainly was a silly place to build them. It had nothing to do with navy, or even the bureaucrats.

Labor bought a sub design from a country which doesn't have a navy. Why? Politics, & payola can be the only reasons, & I doubt it enriched an admiral. Oh, the boats were a catastrophe, but have now been sorted.

They have trouble getting out of sight before breaking down, because they have so few engineering crew capable of changing the oil in your Holden that the whole sub service couldn't run a service station.

While they operate from Perth, [another political decision] they will not improve. The men [or their wives] won't go there.

We built a batch of Patrol boats in Cairns for gods sake. Would it surprise you if I suggested that was another political decision. If it did, you would be pretty simple. Can any one imagine some non political reason to build navy ships in a tourist town? No I thought not.

Now to the amphibious capability.

Manoura, & Kinambla are very old ships. They are so old that they would have been retired long ago, if they were merchant ships. They are shot, & have been for years.

Still, they could have struggled on a bit longer if well maintained. Guess what? The politics stuffed even that. When Kanimbla had her last refit it was scheduled for Garden Island, [Sydney] where all the facilities are available. That was until politics got in the way. The unions wanted the work for the floating dock in Newcastle. The fact that they did not have tradesmen qualified to do some of the work was not allowed to get in the way.

So don't blame the admiral, or even the bureaucrats, it's Ruddy & Julia this stuff up is down to, no one else.

Continued
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 7 March 2011 11:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy