Here's how it works...
I have no idea what happened in Australia. But here's half a dozen projects I've seen, in a nutshell:
Reasonably competent System Integrator IT Architects (and yes there sure are a lot still remaining, even in IBM) make reasonable recommendations.
Public Sector Client doesn't have the budget, doesn't understand risk, signs off on a risk, orders a different design.
Reasonably competent System Integrator IT Architects beg and plead.
Public Sector Client doesn't fathom that "risk" can actually "happen" and continually ignores recommendations.
Dejected System Integrator Architects implement what they can and start drinking.
Things predictably explode.
Public Sector Client blames System Integrator Publically.
System Integrator management releases meaningless PR response despite sitting on years of correspondence that would implicate Public Sector Client, because they want to get hired again, and Public Sector Client dam well knows it's not SI's fault and that's just how things go around here, over and over, year after year, project after project.
Defeated System Integrator Architect ponders career alternatives.
Again, without a clue what happened in Australia, I've seen similar things happen across multiple continents.
People can bitch & complain at IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, KPMG, CGI, HP, Oracle, etc... but world continues the way it goes, clients will continue to be clueless, and you can either strive to understand it, perhaps make some effort to improve it - or try to feel superior by misguided platitudes.