Mr PRICE (5:53 PM) —Whilst I enthusiastically endorse everything my colleague has said and it is true to say that this proposal was endorsed by the Defence Efficiency Review process, in fact it originated from a parliamentary report entitled Officer Education: the military after next brought down by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I was pleased to chair. The last time I spoke on this issue, the deputy speaker in the chair—who was actually a member of the committee—pointed out that I did not properly acknowledge the coalition members' contributions at the time. Please let me do so now. I have often said that I would never have got the report through without the assistance of the former Speaker, Mr Sinclair, who was then deputy chairman of the Defence Subcommittee.

I would also like to show some of my warts by saying this is the same report that the junior minister at the time—the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop—referred to as that `dreadful Price report'. It is pleasing to say that, notwithstanding that dreadful Price report, the government is spending some $28 million to implement one of its important recommendations.

I would like to reacquaint the House with a couple of the concepts behind that whole review of the professional development of officers. It is true, as the honourable member for Canberra suggests, that the committee saw the development of Canberra as being a focal point in the professional development of our 11,000-odd officers, as it was at the time, as a key recommendation. Having said that, the closure of Queenscliff—having been there a couple of times—is really a matter of great sorrow because it is one of the truly beautiful locations in Australia.

The key point is this: as we are seeing in all the operations that we mount and so many of the exercises, jointery is very important. When you get to the command and staff course level in the services, it is important that the single services should not have the unique development of those particular officers; in other words, being able to develop a cohort, whether they come from the Air Force, Navy or Army, going through a command and staff college is very important. Collocation does not just mean locating people on the same site. It also has behind it the concept that there should be a joint training in those things that are appropriate as part of the course with the other part being taken over by the single services. I think the initiative will serve the defence forces and their continuing excellent reputation well.

One of the other recommendations of the committee looked at ADFA. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the report was tabled it was costing the Defence Force $331,000 for each graduate. It is the most expensive and elite undergraduate course in Australia. The committee posed the question as to whether it might not be better to allow people to get their undergraduate degree at one of the existing 32 institutions that have as their core mission the training of undergraduates and then doing the finishing off within the Defence Force.

At the moment more than 50 per cent of the budget for the professional development of officers is spent at ADFA. I think that is a huge distortion in the expenditure equation. Had the committee's recommendations been implemented, an amount of $50 million could have been further spent on the remaining officers. It had the other advantage that, if you had selected people to do their undergraduate training at universities, instead of a small cohort of some 300, you could pick 1,000 people and subsidise them through university. For those who did not meet the full-time officer requirement, they might then go into the reserves or may even want a full-time career as other rank personnel. So you were broadening out your officer intake. I still think this is a challenge for any government to meet.

I might say that it was the intention of the committee to enhance ADFA, build on its postgraduate activities and make it a centre of excellence in military professional development. For example, the committee envisaged that a retiring CINCPAC or even a retiring CDF might be offered a year's appointment as a visiting professor so that all that experience, knowledge and expertise would not be lost to the nation.

The other recommendation that the government has ignored is an equally important one: there should be a tri-service pre-commissioning college for the development of officers once they have graduated so that again we do not have the single service institutions.

When I tabled the report Officer Education: the military after next I said that, whilst the report contained very few recommendations, it would not be the committee that would be judged by its recommendations; the government would be judged for the recommendations it chose to implement or not implement.

Last but not least, can I make it quite clear from the Labor Party perspective that this was not a reference that the committee itself sought. It was a reference that the then Minister for Defence gave the committee, keen to see reform carried out. I am pleased to be supporting the proposals put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration today as recommended by the Public Works Committee. But as to whether this subject is finished, I think not. I think it will be revisited. I do believe that as we look into the next century and the quality of the officers that we require people will again return to this report for some inspiration about what needs to be done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.