Mr ZAMMIT(12.17 p.m.) —I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). This is a very straightforward bill. It has the support of the opposition. It is very much a housekeeping bill. I want to make some general comments on it.

Prior to the May budget, all the members of the House of Representatives have been approached by constituents, associations and organisations who feel that some changes have occurred to their funding. One of the first things they noticed was that the defence budget was virtually untouched. They seemed to home in on that. They said, `We're not under threat as a nation. No-one has demonstrated in any way, shape or form that we are under threat, either in the short term or the medium term. Why not cut the defence budget and assist us in continuing to provide the services that we believe our supporters and our friends are entitled to?'

I feel very strongly that the defence budget should not be touched. In fact, I think it should be enhanced. We are a nation that is surrounded by water. We have a huge coastline. In many respects, the external problems we have in Australia come not through the general ports—not through the airports or the seaports—but through the coastline that is not protected sufficiently, and it cannot be with the limited budget that we have.

For instance, illegal immigrants come into this country. Who knows how many have come in? Who knows where they are? Who knows what they get up to? Illegal drugs do not come into Australia through the seaports; the largest amounts come through the unprotected coastline areas. The cost of a very large defence force is astronomical, but it has to be. It is part of the price that we pay to be, and to remain, a free nation.

Reading the bill, I was astounded to discover that personnel who want to transfer from one service to another actually have to resign. I could not believe that that was occurring. Mobility between the services is absolutely vital, especially now that knowledge of high technology is also vital to interchange between the services. It is a very important change that is being proposed in the bill.

I cannot quite understand why it is necessary to have the consent of a member of the service to transfer from one service to the other if it is requested by his or her superior officers. I do not see why the consent should be required. However, if that is something that is requested for the smoother operation of the services, then I suppose that has to be, but it is not something that I am too fussed about.

I note that a service chief can delegate authority to someone holding a rank above that of a brigadier or equivalent. I suppose that is to ensure that the highest authority is in place when providing for these transfers. I also note that the third set of amendments is a provision that will ensure that someone who has been promoted will continue to serve the defence forces for a period of 12 months or more. That will stop them from moving on to other pastures.

I would like to commend the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) for ensuring that, at the very least, we have the most efficiently run service with a very large budget and that it is not left, as it was in the past, to the service chiefs to do what they think is the appropriate thing to do. I think it is important that we bring in new management techniques as the cost of running the defence budget gets higher and higher because of the increase in technology. So I am very pleased to be here to support the bill and I commend the minister for putting forward something that I think is long overdue.