Re Invictus Australia:
Invictus Australia chief executive Michael Hartung told 2GB on Wednesday the organisation was blindsided by the move and was not informed of the decision prior to Mr Chalmers’ formal budget announcement ...
I find that hard to believe, given that
A spokesperson for Mr Keogh’s office [said that] that "the funding for these specific grant programs has now concluded".
This is back to Harry and Invictus always thinking the rules don't apply to them. They knew the grants were ending. They know the economic budget pressures in Australia. Where was Invictus's risk analysis and exit strategy for the ending of grant programmes here and elsewhere? Birmingham UK, for example?
I'm not surprised the Vice-Chair has bailed.
... [Hartung also said] "I think there’s lots of demonstrated evidence as to why the work that we’ve been doing has been so successful with this community ... our evidence also points to cost savings that can be achieved through more participation in sport by this community, so it almost pays for itself in that way as well."
These 'outcomes' as described on the Invictus website are absolute bollocks, as anyone in this sector knows. Amorphous, vague, strangely worded, work-salady and of unevidenced origins. A bit like areas of the Invictus finances.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/labor-withdraws-funding-for-veteran-support-organisation-invictus-australia/news-story/172e3ae5c05fdc2c6810aeb0d8b479ff?amp