Download Fragment

Monday, 27 February 2012
Page: 832

Senator FURNER (Queensland) (17:06): On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present a report on the review of the Defence Annual Report 2009-10.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator FURNER: by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I have pleasure in presenting the committee's report entitled Review of the Defence annual report 2009-10. The review of the Defence annual report is an important task, and an opportunity for the Defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into a broad range of Defence issues as part of the process of accountability of government agencies to parliament. The subcommittee takes this responsibility very seriously.

The subcommittee took evidence from senior Department of Defence officials at a public hearing held in Canberra on 25 March 2011. The subcommittee selected a broad range of issues for examination at the public hearing. In broad terms, the focus areas were: the Strategic Reform Program; person­nel including the People in Defence Strategy, ADF pay remediation and ADF mental health reforms; justice and security, includ­ing military justice, security of vital national assets in the North-West of Aust­ralia, Border Protection Command and ADF base security; and, the Defence Materiel Organisation, including reform and procure­ment, projects of concern and specific projects.

Due to the size and complexity of the defence department, the committee secretariat offered to assist Defence in its preparation for the public hearing on 25 March 2011. Unfortunately, other than the secretary, the Chief of the Defence Force and those officers representing DMO, Defence officials seemed somewhat poorly briefed. This lack of preparedness was compounded by the delay in the provision of answers to questions taken on notice.

Answers to questions on notice were provided some five months after the hearing. The committee therefore recommends that the Department of Defence review its practices and procedures to ensure that answers to the committee's questions on notice are provided in a more timely manner

Documentation and hard evidence of the outcomes of the Strategic Reform Program were hard for the committee to find. There is a difficulty, in an organisation as big as Defence of tracking savings. The committee, therefore, spent much of its questioning of Defence on the idea of a 'cost-conscious culture.'

The committee acknowledge the difficulty in any organisation creating cultural change; however, the committee is concerned that Defence will not be able to institute the cost-conscious culture necessary not only for the SRP but for the Defence organisation long past 2030; the SRP relies more on cultural change than rigorously costed savings plans.

The committee looked into base security and is concerned that, at the time of its public hearing, some 20 months after the threats to Holsworthy Barracks, the defence department is slowly moving towards decreasing the threat level of its bases.

In relation to the Defence Materiel Organisation, whilst heartened by the establishment of the Independent Project Performance Office the committee is concerned that this not become another level of bureaucracy that hinders rather than helps the performance of DMO.

Lastly, I wish to make a comment on the Joint Strike Fighter. At the time of writing the committee had three main concerns regarding the JSF: cost; schedule; and capability. This is an issue that the committee will be pursuing in its review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11 at the inquiry next month that is currently underway. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.