I have worked in two areas of the DMO.   The OTHR SPO and the Hydrographic SPO.    When the DMO was first established in the late 90s, I was of the understanding it was to take all responsibility for acquisition, maintenance and disposal of capability.   In other words, the Services told the Government what they wanted to meet a White Paper requirement and the DMO did the rest and acquired what the Government wanted.     It was envisaged as a capability cradle to grave concept and let the Uniformed Defence Force get back to the sharp end and Raise, Train and Sustain the military side

In reality, I found the DMO to be a repository of high ranking Public Servants and cast off Military high rankers who controlled the operation of the DMO.      I have never seen so much money wasted on running the HR side of the DMO as opposed to the actual cradle to grave concept it was established for

Military positions in the DMO were few and far between and there was little accountability for purchases made.     A lot of the bungles that we have seen over the years can be traced back to a complete disregard of what we ACTUALLY wanted to what we got and a bungling of what the capability would cost in it's lifetime

One thing that I always remember was when Cyclone Larry hit the Queensland Coast and the DMO were told that capability would be required.   They blatantly lied to the Defence Minister and stated that capability was available when they knew that Tobruk, Manoora and Kanimbla were completely stuffed.      We had to rush out and buy HMAS CHOULES complete with all it's expensive defects to fill the gap

So, what are your thoughts on the DMO?   I believe all those functions have now been incorporated back into Defence and we are back to working side by side.  I have been away from Defence some time now so not sure what happens with regards to capability