Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

Can I just say that the measures you have outlined are in fact all accurate. We have, under Colonel Jason Blaine, Diggerworks—which I am sure the shadow minister is aware of—which is a program designed to ensure that we have got the best possible equipment for our men and women who are on deployment doing the business for us in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It has proven to be a very successful program which has led to changes, which largely you have outlined.

You asked me about further research. There is a partnership between the department generally, the army in particular and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, for which I am responsible. That sort of work is ongoing. Whilst I am not at liberty to talk about the sorts of developments that have been produced directly as a result of their research into looking after our troops in Afghanistan, you can rest assured that as a result of the work which is being done by DSTO, particular items have been introduced into the theatre which have provided additional protection in terms of electronic countermeasures for our troops. They are very, very important to us. They are doing a huge amount of work along with those over in Russell involved with the IED taskforce, which is looking at how best to exploit the information we receive from IED events; translating that into methods of operation and providing greater protection for our personnel.

I am very proud of the work which is being done across the defence force, including across the department and all its agencies, in doing all we possibly can to provide for the protection of our personnel. You mentioned the Bushmasters; they are a case in point. A lot of the work which has led to the changes in the way we actually provide these vehicles is a result of research which has been done in the first instance through DSTO. It is very important work. Unfortunately, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation is not widely known outside of the defence community; indeed, in some parts of the defence community even then. It is a real treasure for us. It provides enormous capability advantage to us, unrecognised in the wider community—as I say—and is something which we should all applaud. I thank you for your observations about the work we are doing.

I just want to come back to the opposition shadow minister's question on strategic reform. As you know, the strategic reform program was announced as part of the defence white paper in 2009. It is an ambitious reform program that aims to find $20.6 billion in cost reductions across the decade, 2009-2019, for reinvestment in defence capability. We expect to meet our $1.284 billion target for the 2011-12 financial year. This comes on top of our meeting the $797 million target in 2009-10 and the $1.016 billion target in 2010-11.

But I do want to make clear and have it really understood that the SRP is not just a cost reduction program. It is a decade-long program of reform that is driving a greater understanding of defence business. Its cost drivers have started a culture shift in the organisation. Now the SRP is three years old, and the substance underpinning that program of course change and as a result of changes to the defence-funding profile and further detailed examination of proposed reform activities over the intervening years. The SRP, although achieving its targets, does face challenges. When it was agreed, it was the only major reform initiative within defence. Circumstances have evolved dramatically since. The effects of the global financial crisis, as I said earlier, have been a significant driver for us. At the time of the 2011-12 budget it was determined there would be a $1.6 billion underspend for 2010-11 and $1.3 billion of capital funding to be reprogrammed. This represented significant failure in defence's planning and advising process. (Extension of time granted).

In addition, the defence reform agenda has been expanded to include a number of new and important reforms, including the review of the Defence Accountability Framework, the Black review—as a result of that defence is strengthening its personnel and institutional accountability arrangements; expansion of the use of shared services in defence to increase efficiency; the plan to reform ship repair and maintenance, the Rizzo review; the review into Collins class submarines, the Coles review; the Pathway to Cultural Change, which is enhancing defence culture; and a range of important procurement and capability reforms to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition of new equipment for the Australian Defence Force have also been implemented. These include reforming defence planning, decision-making processes and performance management; substantially reducing the number of committees in defence; increasing the rigour, contestability and expertise within capability development; and strengthening the Projects of Concern process. We remain committed to the SRP, notwithstanding the $1.9 billion target in 2012-13. We will continue with the strategic reform program activities underway in the lead-up to the 2013 white paper. Defence reform, including how the range of existing reform initiatives will be integrated, will be a major theme of the Defence white paper which was announced by the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence on 3 May. This is something that we are looking at right now. Further details of future strategic reform in defence and how the range of initiatives will be integrated will form part of the 2013 white paper.

I think that adequately deals with the issue of the SRP, and I hope that the opposition understand that we remain committed. I am not sure about you—and that is the question. I go back to what I said originally. We need to understand whether or not the opposition are committed to the savings which we have identified. If not, why not? What are they going to change and how are they going to get the money if they are not? I ask whether or not you are committed to the strategic reform program, as we are, and if not, why not?

I thank my colleague for his question and I say again that we will do all we possibly can to enhance the protection of our troops on overseas operations. That is our first obligation, and it is an obligation which we will continue to meet.

See this speech in context