|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 19, 2005 19:18:43 GMT 12
I did not see the budget, but surfing the net I found this quote about defence spending in this year's budget:
"The Government will spend $1,314.1 million of operating and $782.3 million of capital to help rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force and strengthen justice and policing."
Rebuild - hmmm, interesting. And does this mean the Police, courts AND defence have to share this amount? If so, what the??? That's ridiculous. Surely this is a journalistic error?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2005 18:21:32 GMT 12
As a percentage of GDP how much up the scale from the present sub 1% will this iniatitive take us. At the begining of the 90s we were spending 2% of GDP on defence...the current level is a disgrace...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Oct 29, 2005 21:15:05 GMT 12
I was reading an article in "Investigate" Magazine the other day, written by Ross Ewing (defence consultant, aviation medicine specialist, author and former skyhawk Pilot) and aparently our Peacenik government has realised that it made an error disbanding the air combat wing. However they will not say that publicly of course, but a large number of reports to and from government suggest that the downstream effects of staffing, recruiting etc, were far more costlier than first estimated - surprise surprise. I think that we may see an increase in defence spending, if only to cover the governments butt as a result of this monumental "fowl" up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 29, 2005 21:28:24 GMT 12
I hope you're right about more spending. The mistake is certainly obvious, and always has been to anyone with common sense. There have been so many mistakes made, going back to the early 1990's that have lead to the current crisis in the RNZAF. The closure of Wigram was a travesty that should never have occurred. The impending closure of Whenuapai and Hobsonville are also disasters. The virtually civilianisation of Woodbourne is also very worrying but at least that could be clawed back as it has not yet been given to a tribe to build houses on. The loss of the RNZAF workforce is also terrible, especially in the sectors where people were forced out so they could bring in civilian contracted labour and leased planes. That is a pathetic miscarriage of responsibility to defence.
They are trying to address the huge shortfall in staff right now. So that's a step in the right direction. I hope a reversal will be made on Auckland's closure, they've already extended the deadline on it.
I believe Ross Ewing to be a highly astute and informed gentleman, and quite a hero in the warbird sector too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Oct 30, 2005 19:32:55 GMT 12
The loss of the RNZAF workforce is also terrible, especially in the sectors where people were forced out so they could bring in civilian contracted labour and leased planes. That is a pathetic miscarriage of responsibility to defence. . Being a contractor myself I can't agree  , Good Contractors/contracts can do most (read all) on the non core defence functions better, faster and more effiecnetly (cheaper) than the uniform personnel. The most important thing is ensureing the budget is spent on import things like equipment, spares, personnel and training. I work in an enviroment where we directly support RAN Squirrel operations, thats our only job, we have no distractions unlike the uniform guys that work with us. In Aussie Defence Contractors/Civilans are a big part of the ADF and it would come to a grinding halt without them/us. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 30, 2005 19:50:34 GMT 12
Calum, not trying to take anything away from your work which is obviously valuable, but muy own opinion from what I've seen is some of the places that are contracted to by the RNZAF are clearly shoddy and highly overpriced.
Plus, I simply cannot see it is cheaper. Employing civilians was always twice as much in wages when I was in the RNZAF no matter what the job was. Maybe the training is not a cost to the service, but I'd much prefer someone trained in the forces doing a job than somone trained at a polytech or somewhere like Pacific Aerospace.
Also, do you go on deployments or exercises with the RAN? The more civilians taking jobs of military means the less choice they have for taking air force personnel on general duties roles in exercises or operations. A lot of the trades lost to contracts are non-technical but played a valuable role in the network of Air Force operations. When they are not there, who takes up the slack?
Also, are you willing and ready to pick up a rifle and defend the aircraft or base for them? Would you lay your life on the line? Most civvies would certainly not. They are merely out source workers, not military personnel. We once had a military that could be called on in any emergency, from flooding to earthquake to possibility of war. You won't see civvy contractors getting out of bed at two in the morning to fill sand bags in a town 200 kms away because the RNZAF asked them to. They'd simply tell them the f*** off. An airman or airwomen cannot and would do their duty which they are trained and ready for. That's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 1, 2005 10:55:39 GMT 12
It's a tough issue this one, because there are some cases where civil contractors are doing a really good job, but other cases where service personnel are better (am I fence-sitting, or what?  ). One example that I can think of is the RAAF F-111 fleet, which is now running much more efficiently since Boeing took over a lot of the major maintainence. Apparently, the Pigs have a much higher servicability rate since Boeing started the contract. As you said, Dave, it does become a problem when personnel need to be deployed somewhere, and civvies might say "Jam it up ya khyber"! Although, there are also cases (one very recently) where service personnel have also said "no" when asked to go somewhere too! Why join the miltary if you don't want to/or aren't prepared to go to war? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 1, 2005 12:36:46 GMT 12
That recent case, if it's the one I'm thinking of, where the New Zealand born RAF doctor refused to return to Iraq for the fourth time because he realised how totally wrong the war is, I actually support. Someone with balls taking a stand against an illegal war and bringing it to the public attention is fine by me. I'm just saddened he will lose his career. He's already done his bit there before on three tours by the way, he's not a coward!
It used to really piss me off in the RNZAF where you constantly read how good the RNZAF trained chefs were, winning international awards, etc. Yet we baggies had to eat food made by civilian staff who took little pride and turned out, in many cases, total garbage. They were glorified Dinner Ladies. They cost as much as chefs did to employ, and on one occasion the stupid lot of them went out on strike, leaving us with no food!! This is the sort of crap i hate seeing.
If it's maintenance and they do a fine job, fair enough. I mean the RNZAF has long contracted major maintenance out to the likes of Safe Air and PAC for overhauls. But when contractors start taking over the day to day running on the line, and highly skilled RNZAF folk are laid off because of it, i object. Especially when some of those civil contractors have terrible reputations. It's the usual Government idea of go cheap and pocket the backhanders, rather than spend adequate amounts and reap the rewards of quality and still have a credible defence force that can do the job they're there to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 4, 2005 18:38:10 GMT 12
It used to really piss me off in the RNZAF where you constantly read how good the RNZAF trained chefs were, winning international awards, etc. Yet we baggies had to eat food made by civilian staff who took little pride and turned out, in many cases, total garbage. They were glorified Dinner Ladies. They cost as much as chefs did to employ, and on one occasion the stupid lot of them went out on strike, leaving us with no food!! This is the sort of crap i hate seeing. Well I rememebr hearing that as well , unfortunately allot of the stuff these highly trained chefs served up was crap Maybe it was better in the O's mess  The catering contractor here at Albatross by all accounts does a great job, I rememebr eating the crap cooked by the RAN chefs thinking thank christ I don't have to eat this on a ship. Althougth by all accounts meals on teh ships were much better |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 4, 2005 20:53:11 GMT 12
Calum, not trying to take anything away from your work which is obviously valuable, but muy own opinion from what I've seen is some of the places that are contracted to by the RNZAF are clearly shoddy and highly overpriced. I can't comment on what the RNZAF receives from it's contractors, The RAN FAA generally IMHO (but I'm biased) gets a good service from some companies and terrible from others. Although they seem reluctant to punish those poor performers, mainly because the contracts were poorly written by the RAN to start with. Many of your comments above are similar to what was heard here. and allot of them are due to poor contracts. AS new contracts have been written the performance parameters have been more tightly defined and companies made more accountable. Plus, I simply cannot see it is cheaper. Employing civilians was always twice as much in wages when I was in the RNZAF no matter what the job was. Maybe the training is not a cost to the service, but I'd much prefer someone trained in the forces doing a job than someone trained at a polytech or somewhere like Pacific Aerospace. It doesn't make sense that it's cheaper, but it is, if it wasn't then why as EVERY western nation moved significantly to contracting out the NON CORE parts of their business (War Fighting) The RNZAF (and NZ) may have forgotten it's core business but I can assure you that the ADF US and most others haven't. It's about ensuring maximum resources are spent of maintaining and improving your capability to fight a war, not be involved in peace keeping. Here as a tradesman on the Hangar floor I earned about the same as Leading seaman, but my skills were much in excess of that level. As for training, one thing that has (as even this week) really pissed me off about the RNZAF training is that NONE of my training was/is recognized by Civilian industry (not sure what it's like now) To work as a tradesmen on ADF aircraft you have to have a qualification that is recognized by the ADF. RNZAF training isn't. I have used to gain trade papers form the NSW trades board which are. But i for all the training I received, I never received anything on paper that was valuable outside. Now I believe the RNZAF tech training is becoming aligned with Civilian industry, hence they will be doing exactly the same course as the civy at polytech. I believe that Air NZ sends it's apprentices to 4TTS. At least they will become LAME's and that is worth something outside. Not sure what the RNZAF guys get out of it Here in Aussie the Aviation trainees do a Civilian apprenticeship and come out with a civilian qualification that is recognized nationally. Virtually All training for everything is aligned with industry. This is how it should be. Also, do you go on deployments or exercises with the RAN? The more civilians taking jobs of military means the less choice they have for taking air force personnel on general duties roles in exercises or operations. A lot of the trades lost to contracts are non-technical but played a valuable role in the network of Air Force operations. When they are not there, who takes up the slack? No I don't go on exercises, I'm in the logistics engineering world , not on the hangar floor. Although civy's do go to sea on occasion, US civilians have been deploying with CAG's for years so it's not a big deal. It's all about moving the money from the tail to the teeth Also, are you willing and ready to pick up a rifle and defend the aircraft or base for them? Would you lay your life on the line? Most civvies would certainly not. [/quote] You miss the point, if anyone has to defend airfield in NZ or (Australia) then we've lost. I'd suggest that airfields in NZ needed defended then everyone would be involved. But as I said, it really all over. They are merely out source workers, not military personnel. This is an insult to these people, in my experience (and I've been a contractor longer than I was a serving member) are just as proud of their contribution to their nations defence as the guys in uniform, they just don't get the accolades or perks of uniformed member. In every western nation today civilian members are the 4th arm of the defence force. We once had a military that could be called on in any emergency, from flooding to earthquake to possibility of war. And you don't now? thats not the contractors fault. In fact here in Australia civy members have work along side uniformed members during Bush fires. I won;t mention the times I've been in on weekends getting stuff to ships in the gulf... No Uniformed guys in sight then. You won't see civvy contractors getting out of bed at two in the morning to fill sand bags in a town 200 kms away because the RNZAF asked them to. They'd simply tell them the f*** off. An airman or airwomen cannot and would do their duty which they are trained and ready for. That's the way I see it. Well I think you've got rosed coloured glasses on, you do see civy's (here in Aus) doing that, they're called the SES, the RFS etc. And yes contractors do get called in to support the deployed troops, yes they get paid for it but so do the troops, Contractors don't get sporties, Melbourne cup functions, etc, Uniforms do... Thats why we're cheaper and more efficient for certain tasks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 5, 2005 12:47:35 GMT 12
I love a good debate. Thanks for all that. You've opened my eyes to how the RAN do it. I hope by now the RNZAF has fallen into line with that style too. As you know I've been away from it for a while and can only rely on what I read or what I'm told by others. Maybe in the ensuing time things have been tightened up. I hope so.
One thing I can confirm, yes now trades are given a trade certificate which is recognised by the civilian world. It is an annoying thing that they were not in our day. I had a job as an upholsterer in 1997-98, I had more experience than the foreman but was on minimum wage because I didn't have a cert. Sucked! The boss - after my contract expired - offered me an apprenticeship. Why would I do three years on basic wage learning a trade I knew better than others there?... I politely said no whilst biting my tongue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2005 17:17:34 GMT 12
One thing I can confirm, yes now trades are given a trade certificate which is recognised by the civilian world. It is an annoying thing that they were not in our day. I had a job as an upholsterer in 1997-98, I had more experience than the foreman but was on minimum wage because I didn't have a cert. Sucked! The boss - after my contract expired - offered me an apprenticeship. Why would I do three years on basic wage learning a trade I knew better than others there?... I politely said no whilst biting my tongue. I know that feeling, When I was working on Seahawks, I worked with 20 yr old sailors who didn't know their arse from their elbow, but becasue they had got a certificate they were more qualified than me. Funnily enough they and the boss always came to me for anything remotely difficult. :-) |
|
, Good Contractors/contracts can do most (read all) on the non core defence functions better, faster and more effiecnetly (cheaper) than the uniform personnel. The most important thing is ensureing the budget is spent on import things like equipment, spares, personnel and training. 
).
