Mr BEVIS (8:50 PM) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Defence annual report 2005.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr BEVIS —Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I appreciate the call and your assistance this evening to enable me to stand here on behalf of the committee. This review of the Defence annual report of 2005-06 was undertaken by the Defence Subcommittee in the 41st Parliament—that is, the previous parliament. Due to the 2007 election the committee’s deliberations on this report were interrupted and its finalisation has occurred since the election as part of this, the 42nd Parliament. The current committee did not feel it was therefore necessary to seek new evidence or to conduct additional hearings prior to considering and tabling this review, although I should point out that the committee did in fact consider the draft at its meetings to satisfy itself of the contents.

The committee in this, the 42nd Parliament, is now focused on the review of the Defence annual report 2006-07, which has been adopted as an inquiry and for which public hearings are set down in June and July. Given, of course, that much of the work was done in the 41st parliament, it would be appropriate for me to acknowledge the work of the members of that committee—in particular, the member for Maranoa, who chaired the committee in the last parliament, and a number of our former colleagues who are no longer in parliament for one reason or another. At the risk of offending some, I single out Graham Edwards, who was a very active member of the defence committee in the previous parliament, and indeed the one before that, and a Vietnam veteran who was well respected on both sides of the chamber.

This report provided the opportunity for the committee to look at a number of the major areas of defence operations. There were five major topics reviewed by the committee during the course of the inquiry, particularly in the previous parliament. Those five areas were the Proliferation Security Initiative—the PSI—the Navy’s patrol boat capability, the Remuneration Reform Project, the Army’s current and future projects, and Army aviation.

The report includes two recommendations. The first is that the committee recommends that an invitation be extended to Defence Subcommittee members to observe and/or participate in the next Pacific Protector exercise hosted by Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that Defence has traditionally been very reasonable in extending to members of this parliament and the committee the opportunity to participate in exercises of that kind, and I am sure that the Defence Force would welcome the opportunity to extend to members of the parliament the opportunity to observe and, where appropriate, participate in these exercises as well. The committee also recommended that Defence report to the Defence Subcommittee on the implementation of the HNA and ELF programs, with a focus on the delivery schedule of the additional battalions. Those two acronyms stand for Hardened and Networked Army and Enhanced Land Force. Both of those are particularly important initiatives that have been undertaken. The hardening of the Army was an issue that I know the outgoing Chief of Army had strong motivation for. General Peter Leahy was certainly very keen to pursue that agenda over his tenure as Chief of Army.

Although that was a recommendation of the committee in the last parliament, as chair of the Defence Subcommittee in this parliament, I am quite sure members would want to maintain an involvement with those areas, and I anticipate that during the hearings we have on the 2006-07 annual report we will hear a little bit about the hardening of the Army as we conduct those inquiries (Extension of time granted). I will take a little bit of the additional time to make a couple of extra comments. At the outset I acknowledged the contribution of the member for the Maranoa, particularly in the previous parliament. I understand he is unable to participate in the debate—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr BEVIS —I see, he is in the other place. The inquiry into the Defence annual report 2005-06, which is the subject of the committee’s report that is tabled here today, was assisted by the ready availability of senior Defence personnel. The Chief of the Defence Force has cooperated and made himself available, for which the committee is very grateful. I know that Angus Houston has, over the many postings he has had in Defence, been very supportive of the defence committee and willing to assist wherever he can. The Acting Secretary of Defence and a range of other senior Defence personnel also made themselves available. The committee has enjoyed the cooperation of senior Defence personnel and, I have to say, the committee has also enjoyed the bipartisan nature with which defence inquiries of this kind are conducted.

I look forward to sometime, perhaps later this year, tabling the annual report review for 2006-07. The committee has been some time in delivering the 2005-06 report. That can be a factor of the sittings of the parliament and the workload on the committee. On this occasion it was exacerbated by the timing of the election. Nonetheless, it is an important part of the parliamentary process for key department annual reports to be reviewed by bipartisan committees. Although it has taken some time for the 2005-06 report to find its way here, I am very pleased to be able to present it to the parliament on behalf of the committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for statements has concluded.