I already suggested Billy Hughes becomes PM again in the late thirties and through the simple expedient of signing off on ready to go projects like the Beaufort and beginning full mobilisation two years earlier when we actually entered the war sees us far better prepared than we were in 1942.
The cost of building the two County class cruisers locally was seen to be prohibitive so they were ordered from the UK and Albatross was ordered locally to prevent the closure of Codoc at greater expense than the premium to build the cruisers locally. Easy solution, do without Albatross, which common sense then and hindsight now tells us was pretty much a waste of resources, and build the cruisers locally, that way the replacements for the WWI town class cruisers could have been built locally as well from an established and experienced local yard. Same money as spent in reality in the late 20s early 30s but with the advantage doing more to build and support local industry during difficult economic times as well as ensuring industry has more experience and infrastructure in place for the often predicted and by the mid 30s pretty much inevitable coming war. No extra money, maybe less actually, but more people in jobs, more people trained and experienced, more people earning good money paying tax and also through spending, supporting other local industries.
Instead of importing aircraft have CAC licence build everything we need, Wapitis, Demons, Bulldogs, Seagulls etc. CAC existed and the RAAF used these types so go for local manufacture. Slightly more expensive but again more people employed in gainful work, developing skills, paying taxes and spending their money locally. Maybe add Hawker to the local picture too and order Furies, Harts / Hinds, Demons from them as the war clouds gathers before switching to Hurricanes and Henleys. Yes that would cost more but blind Freddy could see war was on the way so justified. Same with the Beaufort, well actually the Blenheim, which is what the Australian government was looking at initially for the RAAF and possible licence manufacture, just progress the project as it reached each milestone instead of the constant political (as opposed to technical) delays.
A huge bottle neck for Australian industry in WWII was machine tools, brought about by a shortage of toolmakers among other things. With the appropriate machine tools unskilled workers could be trained and used effectively for wartime production. Political delays in kicking off projects resulted in machine tools not being ordered until after the onset of war when the UK was unable to provide them, had the original schedule been followed the tools would have been available and production could have been started between twelve and twenty four months earlier. Had the Blenheim been selected instead of waiting for the Beaufort production could have been started even earlier and then switched to the Beaufort and finally the Beaufighter later.
This is all simple stuff, nothing earth shattering and while the effect on Australia's preparedness for war would have been considerable, not one thing I have suggested is unaffordable, let alone unrealistic. As I have already stated the pieces were in place, the money was there, the only problem was the decision makers didn't! (i.e. didn't make decisions in a timely manner) everything I have suggested is the sort of stuff that people not in the know would have said "I wish we did that", those in the know said "I told you so", and those who ignored advice and warnings said "nothing to see here move along, there wasn't the money, no one could have known, Australia isn't capable of doing stuff like that, it wasn't me it was him, there were circumstances beyond our control, there wasn't the need.....) and every other excuse incompetent, lazy, ignorant leaders and mangers make when their stuff ups come back to haunt them. It still happens today, I have seen many examples myself and there are many many more that I haven't seen but do not doubt are out there.
The premise of this entire topic is that Jellicoe conducted a detailed review of the defences of the Dominions, outlined the perceived threats and options to mitigate those threats and the plan be adopted. The entire report was not just ignored but the Australian government complained to the UK government about the report and demanded it be rejected, the government of the day was in active opposition to the most accurate and insightful assessment of the nations security of the age. The Washington treaty would have derailed the BC part and the great depression would have reduced money available but had the core threat assessment been retained and planning conducted accordingly we would never have been as unprepared as we were.
I honestly don't see the reason for, or point of your objections, I mean seriously I could suggest that the League of Rights gain control of Australia and we become a Fascist state spending 25% of GNP on the military, a time traveller goes back and briefs Menzies, or aliens land at Kirrabilli and give Australia ray guns to use. FFS all I am trying to do is come up with a reasonable, believable alt history that uses as much of what really happened as possible that would let me tie some long delayed builds together with a common back story. By developing the back story I can actually work out what is in service when and where, or sometime I have a particular platform I want in service somewhere at a specific time so I tweak the story to fit. We are talking what if and you are telling me "you cant do that", "that wouldn't have happened" etc etc as if I am drafting an actual history paper! please please please remember that this is a what if site and continued nit picking and criticism, knocking of my ideas and lecturing me on what I should read to better understand.....is just BS that completely misses to point.
Nothing I have written is factually incorrect, you may disagree with my conclusions but it doesn't make me wrong, it just means we have different opinions on pretty much the same reading. Just because you would have done the alt differently doesn't mean I need to discard what I am thinking and adopt your ideas, it is my alt after all. As I have stated previously my POV is from the perspective of working in engineering, particularly product development, testing and continuous improvement for over two decades. I know what key mile stones are needed, I understand lead times, I understand the effect of government and management delays.
I have seen first hand the effect of an incompetent or indecisive manger, the effect of changing government policy or priorities or perhaps worst of all a dissenting party gaining control or veto over a project they had been forced out of previously. This is the sort of stuff I am seeing as I read the histories of projects and even entire industries and campaigns, the unnecessary, usually personality driven, road blocks, small things that cause unbelievable delays. For example the first major delay to a big project I was on was the retirement of the owner of a key subcontractor before steel was even cut on the first ship that eventually resulted in the replacement of the contractor and an initial three to six months delay. The follow on was the replacement contractor made major errors the original contractor would very likely not have made resulting in an additional twelve months or more delay, so lets say the owner decides to stay on for another twelve months to get the project up and running, that's fifteen to eighteen months of delays prevented. That sort of stuff happening in 1938 or 39 was the difference between having capabilities available in early 1940 and not having them at all.
I have written a lot again, you probably wont read it all and may miss read some of it but that life.