Dick, what CSD said is spot on. It is "impossible" to apportion blame to a faceless public service. This is the whole reason a bureaucracy exists so that no one person is to blame.
I have to disagree with PAF somewhat in that he said there are lots of projects that deliver capability on time and budget. This may be the case for very very simple systems and capabilities, however anything more complicated invariably cost more money. Where is this line in the sand draw? Well that is a very very easy question to answer. If something is off the shelf and NOT changed ie not "Australianised" then it more often than not runs pretty much to schedule and budget. Where Australia decides to change ANYTHING then invariably the risk of the project blowing out (either time or money) increases exponentially with that "Australianisation".
PAF was spot on where he said if we buy off the shelf then the capability we get is only off the shelf capability that essentially anyone can by and so we never get the "edge". The C17 is a case in point. probably the poster child in procurement of how to do something right as Australia changed nothing but the country markings. However the reason this was also successful is because essentially it was of a very short timeframe and driven by the govt and we had a defence Minister that just said "this is what we re doing" (Obviously after various briefs etc). There is more to this, but it largely irrelevant. The other reason this was successful is that we are not trying to "beat" anyone in the region, we simply have our requirements for airlift and we do not need to maintain an edge over anyone in airlift in the region, it is solely an intrinsic "edge" we need to maintain.
Now compare this to the Wedgtail project. The Wedgtail is extremely high risk. Whilst the airframe is largely low risk the airframe is irrelevant in the scheme of things, it is the electronics, the radar, the link system etc which is important. NONE OF THIS EXISTED before Australia ordered it. Issues with integration, different systems talking to one another etc. This is where the risk lies and so we currently have a four year blow out in this capability being delivered as the risk was so much greater. but the point here is, the ADF is willing to wear this risk as the edge in capability it gives us is so far ahead of the next competitor that it is worth it.
Now take the JSF for example. This is also a very risky program, but in order for us to maintain the "edge" in capability in the region we MUST take this course. Due to the increase in risk, because the aircraft is only developmental, then there will be delays, there will be cost increases. But this is the risk we have of getting the best capability we possibly can. The JSF is not a white elephant, it does suit what Australia needs. I am not saying that a mix with F22's would not be nice, but Australia cannot afford F22's. Various people in the media love talking about the F22 cost has come down and the JSF is increasing, but the difference between the airframes is still US$100M each and will remain so. Plus the F22 simply does not do what we as Australia need an aircraft to do. That is put bombs on target on time. The JSF does this through stealth and various other systems that network and integrate with various other systems we have in all three services to provide a total capability across the board. This gets lost when various discredited, so called analysts talk of keeping the pig going etc. They simply have no idea how modern warfare is fought and are thinking of each platform as a standalone capability. To consider the JSF or any of our future systems as a standalone piece is wrong, it must be considered in how it integrates into the whole capability of the entire ADF.
Anyway to answer your question, as I said at the beginning, no one is responsible. As PAF said the only person that can be responsible right now is the current govt and Mr Rudd is ultimately responsible there.
The funny thing is the original reason the Sea Sprites were procured has largely gone away as we are procuring larger ships with larger landing areas on them than what was thought when the contract was originally signed. PAF’s question about what is replacing them and how much will it cost? Well I believe nothing will replace them so perhaps the govt did save $150m?
Cheers
Mr B