Mr CADMAN (10:37 AM) —The House is debating the defence white paper Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force and the government's response to it. The white paper is a function of government to arouse public discussion on an issue and to gain input and contributions from experts and the public alike. This has been a wide-ranging process by the team led by the Hon. Andrew Peacock, relying to a large extent upon the expertise within the defence forces of Australia but also consulting broadly with the public. The two main outcomes of the inquiry—and the government's decision—have been a large funding increase and a commitment to long-term capacity improvement and a modest increase in people in uniform.

This is one of the most successful defence processes ever undertaken by any government, and one that I have not seen undertaken before. It took into account not only the immediate defence needs but also a long-term vision of 10 years. It also built upon what I consider the exceptional work that has been done in our region and, more broadly, by our Foreign Minister. The team considered our multilateral relationships and our bilateral relationships, but the self-reliance factor of Australian defence was given a broader consideration in that we continue to realise that self-reliance is not the complete answer—that is, we must have a mix of self-reliance and strategic alliances.

I want to compliment the former minister, John Moore, and the current Minister for Defence, Peter Reith, on their capacity to drive the reform and to move ahead. I felt that, during the Labor administration, while the current Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Defence, he had a liking for defence, but he was more interested in the esoterics on the one hand and the toys on the other. I do not think he had a particular commitment to defence in the way that was needed by Australia, because during the period when he led Defence there were consistent reductions in expenditure and a falling capacity.

The self-defence aspect of the white paper means that the government wants an integrated and balanced joint force that is capable of serving Australia. That will mainly depend on a sea-air relationship. We need also to consider our role in the region. We need Australia to be secure in order to have a secure region. The involvement of Australia in a wider field than its immediate shores is seen by some as an outreach to assert some sort of superiority in the region. I do not see that as part of the Australian character or the implementation of foreign affairs or defence roles for Australia. However, a secure region does mean a secure Australia, and that must be a goal so that we can successfully promote peace and security in our region.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you, in particular, are aware of Australia's specific involvements. Of course, during the last two years that involvement has risen to a peak not previously reached outside a direct confrontation or war situation. But there are several regions in which Australia needs to be involved. I refer to the South Pacific area, and we are active in that area. There is the area to our immediate north, Papua New Guinea and West Irian. I refer also to our South-East Asian responsibilities where, in cooperation with others, we have been called on to fill a strategic role.

There is also a world role with the United Nations that Australia needs to acknowledge that we have, as a global citizen. The Australian reputation is high in that area. The rule of law and the respect for human rights are something that Australians hold dear. They are at the forefront. They do not like to see somebody crushing somebody who is weaker. They are quick to spring to the defence of somebody who is being abused. We cannot always take up causes that strike the heart of the Australian people. Whether it be in the Sudan or in areas of Indonesia, it is not always possible for us to take an active role.

The first aspect of a successful defence policy is to have an active foreign affairs policy, because the answer is not to go to arms in order to get a military resolution; we should try to prevent that where it appears it is going to happen. That is a matter of working through the global organisations, our aid programs, our advice programs, our assistance programs of all types. Our role in refugee settlement is not insignificant in that regard.

When it comes to the bottom line, we have, I suspect, an ascending scale of involvement. It starts with disaster relief. That is an area in which the military can be involved. We have a role in the evacuation of Australian nationals where there is a threat to their safety. We have a role in unarmed peace monitoring processes. Of course, we have the full-scale involvement through the United Nations, where our defence personnel are requested to maintain a full peacekeeping requirement. Ultimately, I suppose, the recent test was East Timor.

We are currently involved in East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands. As a nation, we have conducted a surveillance and supporting role in things such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and, of course, the Olympic Games. Australia is also contributing personnel to UN operations around the world. Australia is a middle-ranking power. We have to rely on both self and others. Australians are not so self-interested or so puffed up with our own significance that we want to dominate our region, but we must adopt a balanced approach, so there must be alliances as well as self-reliance; there must be the defence of Australia as well as a regional commitment. We face the prospect of conventional war and non-combatant military operations. We have to deal with the current situation and we have to plan ahead. That is what this white paper does and that is the way the government has responded to it. An unpredictable future for our region means that the planning needs to be broad. The government has responded to the process of the white paper. The response involved consultation with a large number of people and went through a large number of processes.

In particular, having made those broad comments about the paper, the government has sought to strengthen the air and maritime capacity in a sensible way. In regard to maritime capacity, I sound a note of warning to the government and to the House. I was a member of the parliamentary accounts committee that looked at the construction of the Tobruk. That was an absolute disaster. The Collins class submarines followed the same pattern to a large extent. We need to be vigilant in telling our maritime designers and our people making commitments in the maritime area that we have a requirement for them to be accurate in their forecasting and budgeting, and to deliver the goods that they promise on time and of a type that they have promised. I will not recount the difficulties with Tobruk, but it is my understanding that she can only beach in one area of Australia—and she was supposed to be a landing vessel. The construction is such that it does not meet the design requirements. The Collins submarines have had similar problems and a huge expense overrun.

We have to be careful in these areas. It is no good when ministers or governments allow Defence to commit to something on a very low and somewhat ill-prepared cost basis with a view from Defence that, once they have captured our support in the budget, we must complete the project by paying whatever the cost may be. That is not the process that this government is looking for from the defence forces or from the Department of Defence and it is time that that culture changed. I hope it has changed. We do not want any more Collins; we do not want any more Tobruks. We need the equipment, we need the craft, but we need it to be done in a professional manner.

The neglect of the Army has been largely remedied in the white paper and in the government's decisions. The involvement of industry in Australia's defence continues and will get increased emphasis. Here again, I want to sound a warning because I consider the outsourcing of much of Defence is something that needs to be watched. I can remember a time when the Navy could not gain access to its own vessels on Sydney Harbour because the painters and dockers union were holding them up and preventing them going on board. That should never happen in Australia—that cannot happen. We cannot have the prospect of an East Timor on our backs and not being able to move aircraft, military equipment or vessels because of an outsourcing process. A great deal of care is needed in outsourcing. It should not be outsourcing for the sake of outsourcing but outsourcing because the outcome is beneficial to the overall defence cause.

The leadership role in Defence is mentioned in the white paper. The tension between civilian and military leadership is always present. I would like to see a real leadership role in Defence rather than a bureaucratic role. We have suffered from a bureaucratic role for too long. It goes back a long way. Our military people should never have good advice or proper decisions stifled by bureaucratic interference. They must feel free and confident to give advice to government in an unhampered way. I think that the leadership in Defence is now at about the right balance. The bureaucratic control of Defence and the huge number of bureaucratic members of Defence need to be constantly monitored.

Another aspect of Defence which is of concern to me is defence property. I see a theory arising that the land value of, for instance, RAAF Base Richmond is so high that the land needs to be flogged off and some alternative air transport base established. I am completely opposed to that concept, because it neither has economic logic nor a rational defence basis. I do not know of any defence air transport company in Australia that would put its base in a remote location so that it has to send its trucks or aircraft to the source of its goods and then carry those goods where they are needed. Such companies usually base their depots alongside their source of supply or as close to them as they can get. That is why Richmond was chosen as an air transport site. It should remain as such, because there is an extremely logical reason.

I would like to say a few words in regard to the reserve, because whilst the white paper deals with that only in part, the declining role of the reserve in Australia is a real concern to me. Its numbers are down. The Australian Labor Party fooled around with the Ready Reserve concept and that did not help too much. The reserve numbers started to decline and have continued to decline. The government's decisions will revive the reserve but the reserve urgently needs to be rebuilt and nurtured. Timor illustrated the significance of the reserve. If we neglect the expertise that can be drawn from our civilian community, then we are foolish. This is an enlightened step forward in defence and is something that every Australian should support.