Mr RUDD (2:27 PM) —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Acting Prime Minister, given the Prime Minister's statement that war against Iraq is probable and that an American request for Australian military assistance is also probable, is the government in any way concerned about statements by a former SAS commander challenging the state of Australian military preparedness, about unprecedented turnover in the leadership of the defence department and about today's report of mismanagement, corruption and sexual misconduct in Australia's premier defence intelligence agency? Acting Prime Minister, at a time when your government, by its own admission, is planning for a possible war, why isn't it acting on such fundamental concerns that go to the heart of the readiness and capability of Australia's defence forces?

Mr ANDERSON (Acting Prime Minister) —I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not think it can really be seriously challenged that the government, from the Prime Minister down, take very seriously the nation's defence and strategic interests. I do not think it can be seriously challenged that we take seriously the morale, the equipping, the resourcing and the training of our defence personnel. I do not think, either, that you can take seriously any challenge to the credibility of those people who ultimately command Australia's forces.

I—and, I think, most Australians—view the current CDF, Peter Cosgrove, as a veritable rock of Gibraltar in uncertain times, with a proven track record. I acknowledge Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie as a man whom I respect enormously, and also Lieutenant Peter Lay of the Army. In the case of the Air Force, I know and have worked quite closely with Air Marshal Angus Houston. They are a group of people in whom I have enormous confidence. Any suggestion that they are not capable of providing sound advice, strong leadership and enormous stability at a time when the nation looks for those things ought to be dismissed as what I can only describe as the opportunism I see it to be.

I am asked a question about impropriety, which I presume is in relation to the claims made in the Daily Telegraph today and the dossier on the Courier-Mail web site that senior DSD staff have acted improperly. I do not take those claims lightly. I do make the observation that there are channels for staff from the intelligence agencies to have any grievances dealt with. I have touched on it very briefly with the Minister for Defence and I will undertake to touch on it again with him. If it is appropriate for the government to take any further action in regard to referring those matters, then we will do so. But I do make the point that there are normal channels through which these matters can be pursued.

Let me recap: I believe that we have every reason to believe that the processes put in place by the government for the management of defence strategic and intelligence matters through the NSC, by the leadership of the defence forces themselves and by the commitment of the government from the Prime Minister down ensure that our troops and our serving personnel are well equipped and well trained and are not sent into theatres—I have made the point in the previous answer that we cannot equip our people for every theatre across the globe; the globe is a big place. Australia is not the biggest of countries and we cannot do that. We carefully assess our personnel and the assets they have and where they might be able to make a contribution when we have to make a contribution in the national interest. We do not send them to areas where we believe their health and wellbeing would be exposed to unnecessary risk. We do not do that to our serving personnel in this country.