The only, only exemption that the military requested was that the ADS-B mandate be deferred for military aircraft until 2018. Why? Taxpayer dollars (yours) associated with the prohibitive cost of retrofitting legacy aircraft that were due for retirement in the 2012-2018 time-frame. Other than that, and it's an economically sensible approach in respect of your tax-dollars, the military had zip to do with the decision.
Since when does the military worry about spending tax payers money [see Sea Sprite debacle, massive cost over-runs on submarines/ships etc]
The biggest aviation country in the world is the USA. Most corporate aircraft are made there and operate there. Why should CASA/ASA mandate a piece of equipment that does not fit their model? This reminds me of the CVR introduction etc where the Oz installation was different to the FAA mandate = more costs and a re-mod when the aircraft went back there. By the way, how many jets do we make in Australia these days??
Dick is right when he asserts that those making these decisions do not really understand the financial and operational realities. This helps to keep aviation from growing in my opinion..