Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment (First Principles) Bill 2015 to amend the Defence Act 1903. In 2013 the government made an election commitment to deliver a first principles review of Defence. The report on this review was released on 1 April 2015. The review determined that, while Defence has an outstanding operational record, it is clear that there needs to be a better balance between operational excellence and organisational effectiveness. To achieve this better balance the government has begun one of the most significant reforms to ensure Defence delivers the capabilities we need to ensure Australia is safe and secure.

The government engaged a number of prominent and experienced individuals to conduct the 'first principles' review. The review made 76 recommendations, 75 of which were agreed or agreed in principle by the government. The coalition and the Defence senior leadership are committed to delivering on all of these recommendations. This requires Defence to move from its current inefficient federated approach into a single integrated organisation that delivers enhanced joint capability.

A key recommendation of the review was to establish a strong strategic centre to strengthen accountability and top-level decision making in Defence. As part of the focus of the joint force, this review highlighted the need to update legislation to formally acknowledge the key role played by the Chief of Defence Force, the CDF, and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the VCDF, in a modern Australian Defence Force.

The bill amends the Defence Act to formally recognise the authority of the CDF and the VCDF so that the CDF will have full command of the Australian Defence Force by removing the legislative limitations on the CDF's command power. The VCDF will be recognised as the deputy of the CDF. This amendment will clarify that the VCDF has command responsibility as well as administrative responsibilities in relation to the Defence Force, as directed by the CDF, and that the service chiefs will be explicitly subject to the direction of the CDF.

A legislative amendment removing their statutory authority will ensure absolute clarity of the CDF's command and authority. This bill seeks to make some other changes to streamline the legislative foundation of the Australian Defence Force. In addition to strengthening the command roles of the CDF and VCDF the bill also streamlines the statutory treatment of the components of the Australian Defence Force in the Defence legislation, repealing the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923, incorporating substantive provision of these acts into the Defence Act 1903.

These provisions include the recognition of the Regular Army, the permanent Air Force and the permanent Navy together with the reserve components of each of the services and the ability of the Governor-General to call out the Australian Defence Force reserves, under certain circumstances. These circumstances include wartime, peacekeeping operations, support to community activities of national or international significance, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Finally, the bill also consolidates the statutory treatment of the Defence Force Cadets, making provision for the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force cadets in a new part of the Defence Act. The bill also modernises the existing provisions to ensure the relationship between Defence Force Cadets and the Defence community is interlinked. The bill also makes it clear that the Defence Force Cadets are a volunteer, community based youth-development organisation. These provisions include the stipulation that cadets and their instructors and officers are volunteers and not members of the Australian Defence Force, not officials for the purpose of the public governance and performance act 2014, and are administered by the CDF.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (First Principles) Bill 2015 and to express my and Labor's support. Labor supports the bill that enacts certain recommendations from the first principles review and will, ultimately, instil a stronger whole-of-organisation approach within Defence.

Our support for this legislation is in line with our often expressed position that we will take a bipartisan approach on national security matters when we are satisfied it is in the national interest. The first principles review was released on 1 April this year and made 76 recommendations that it considered would make Defence the most effective and efficient organisation to enable it to deliver the outcomes desired by government. The first principles review made a range of recommendations about roles and responsibilities and structures within Defence, with an overriding goal of achieving a more unified and integrated organisation that has a stronger strategy-led approach and clearer leadership arrangements.

The primary purpose of this bill is to give legislative force to one of the recommendations of the review—namely, that the legislative changes I am quoting here formally recognise the authority of the Chief of the Defence Force and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, including removing the statutory authority of the service chiefs. While removing their statutory authority, the bill ensures recognition of the service chiefs as an integral part of each of their respective services. This bill also introduces a number of measures intended to streamline the legislative foundation of the Australian Defence Force. They are: to recognise the Australian Defence Force as an entity, to clarify the status of the Australian Defence Force Cadets and to recognise the role of Australian Defence Force reserves.

Labor supports the provisions of this bill that are designed to implement two specific recommendations of the first principles review. The first clearly establishes the role of the Chief of the Defence Force as the commander of the Australian Defence Force. The removal of the statutory authority of the service chiefs is also reflective of a broader longstanding trend towards a more holistic integrated approach within Defence, with a greater focus on a joint force—one Defence—rather than three distinct service organisations operating in isolation. We are aware that some in the Defence community regard the changes to the role of the Chief of the Defence Force and the statutory authority of the service chiefs as undesirable. In particular, some have expressed concern that these changes could affect the service chiefs' capacity to do their jobs, including their right of access to the Defence minister.

We have a bipartisan approach to national security issues if we are convinced they are in the national interest. In satisfying ourselves that the proposed changes are in the national interest, Labor sought and received assurances from Defence's leadership that these changes codify existing arrangements in Defence. We also sought and received public assurances from all three service chiefs that they are supportive of the changes. We have been reassured that this legislative change makes no substantive difference to the very real and continuing traditions—and very proud traditions—of each of the services of Navy, Army and Air Force.

While we are supportive of the bill, we note that some of the proposed changes, though minor, will require careful handling. For example, one of the consequential changes to the Defence Housing Australia Act removes the ability of the service chiefs to each appoint one member to the Defence Housing Australia Advisory Committee. Under the new arrangements, the CDF will instead have the power to appoint three people to the committee. It will be important to ensure that in implementing this change appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that each of the three services continues to have input into the process. I want to underscore the point that we have each of the three services providing advice on the Defence Housing Australia Advisory Committee.

The bill also implements a second recommendation of the 'first principles' review—that is, to amend the Navigation Act to allow for consolidation of geospatial information functions into the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. We have no objection in principle to these two recommendations and we offer our bipartisan support for the bill. But, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, this introduces a number of measures that in all but two cases are not directly related to specific recommendations of the 'first principles' review. As a result of this bill, relevant parts of the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923 are being incorporated into the Defence Act 1903, and these acts are being repealed as they will no longer be necessary. This is intended to streamline the legislative framework for the ADF and reinforce the concept of 'one Defence' as opposed to separately administered services. It is in many ways a continuation of the long-term trend towards a more collaborative, integrated and joint Australian Defence Force. 'Joint' is the direction in which the ADF is going. This in a way just reinforces and underscores the approach that has already been rolling out for many years.

As a result of the repealing of the Air Force Act and the Naval Defence Act, this bill incorporates flexible service arrangements across the ADF, with the CDF able to make or appropriately delegate flexible service determinations. This is incredibly important. It builds on the work that Labor did in government, as part of Project Suakin, to deliver a contemporary workforce with a range of full-time and part-time service categories and options—to deliver a flexible workforce that reflects the modern reality of the working environment today for men and for women.

The bill also proposes changes that will see the legislative coverage of the Defence Reserves amalgamated into a single Defence Act. This is a welcome step and continues, in legislative terms, the integration of the Reserves into the total force concept that Labor initiated through Project Suakin and Plan Beersheba.

The bill also provides a clearer definition for ADF cadets, by establishing new provisions as part of the Defence Act, which we welcome—I particularly welcome that. These provisions emphasise that the cadets is a volunteer-based youth development organisation; that cadets are not part of the Australian Defence Force; that instructors are not members of the Australian Defence Force by virtue of their role; and it will also require the preparation of an annual report on the cadets by the Chief of the Defence Force.

There is a lot of confusion about this, and I speak from experience here. For the 10 years before I entered parliament I consulted with Defence across a broad range of areas, primarily in what was then the Defence Materiel Organisation, but in a broad range of areas—the environment and equity and diversity areas—with the secretary. I also had the great pleasure of consulting with the Australian Defence Force Cadets organisation and, most importantly, the cadet policy branch. I was with the branch for three or four years, and it was a great joy, particularly meeting with the cadets and seeing how participation in cadets actually transforms the lives of young Australians. It gives them enormous skills—it builds their self-esteem, gives them discipline, develops their teamwork skills, builds their confidence, and gives them an understanding of structure. I remember that we did a surveys of both the cadets and the staff. I will never forget a little guy I interviewed in Nowra. In the interviews we conducted as part of the surveys he said that prior to his joining the cadets he was a straight D and E student and after joining the cadets he became a straight A and B student. That transformation occurred in just one year as a result of the time he spent with the cadets.

One thing I was disturbed by at Nowra was the fact that for some of the young people who came to cadets every Saturday the hot meal they had in the mess that day was quite often the first hot meal they had had all week. It just underscores the vital role the cadets play in building self-esteem and self-confidence skills, as a youth development organisation, and also just in terms of providing a sense of wellbeing. It provides support and advice and, for some of them, food in their belly.

I really enjoyed my time working in the cadet policy branch. As a result of working there for that time, having travelled right across Australia—to Thursday Island, to Nhulunbuy, to Bamaga and various other parts of Australia—meeting with cadets and seeing what had happened with the Indigenous cadet program, I know there is a lot of confusion, particularly amongst cadet staff, about their role in the ADFC—the Navy, Army and Air Force Cadets. There was confusion about what their role was, if they were employed by the ADF and how it all worked. That is why I welcome the fact that this has finally been clarified. It has taken while; it would have been nice if it had happened sooner, but I am very grateful that it has now been clarified.

I am also very grateful that the message of this being a youth development organisation has been underscored through the review, because there is a misperception among some in the community—and among some of the staff, too—that this is essentially training junior generals and future soldiers. Yes, there is a very strong pathway between the Australian Defence Force Cadets and moving into ADFA and RMC. So that pathway is there. You will find that a number of the top brass in Defence and also senior civilians had been cadets when they were younger. But it is not designed to train junior soldiers; it is a youth development organisation that gives cadets a broad range of skills, like with other youth organisations. The beauty about this one, however, is that you get access to the base experience and the mess experience. You also get access to going into the field and eating ration packs. There are some unique benefits from being part of a youth development organisation that has a connection with the Australian Defence Force. So I really welcome the changes that are being made on the Australian Defence Force Cadet front, because it does clarify the positioning of the organisation and the positioning of staff. There has been a great deal of confusion on that.

Labor and I also particularly support the introduction of an annual report on the cadets from the CDF. That will enhance accountability. What I found when I was working with the Cadet Policy Branch was that the Navy cadets, Army cadets and Air Force cadets all had different approaches—and naturally—to rolling out this youth development program. But, of course, in this modern era we must have a uniform set of regulations and guidelines for how we actually go about that. I recall that quite often the Cadet Policy Branch would implement a particular approach and then there would be a reluctance by some in one of the services or two of the areas for it to be applied across their organisation, or there would be a degree of argument which would end up causing delay. It is fantastic that now there is a recognition that it is essentially one Australian Defence Force Cadet organisation, with one approach, and that the accountability for that will be through one annual report from the Chief of the Defence Force.

The bill also puts into legislation the nature of the employment relationship between the government and the ADF, which is currently covered by regulation 117. The nature of the ADF employment relationship and the unique nature of military service has not, until now, been expressed in regulation. This bill seeks to enshrine this relationship in legislation through the Defence Act. The relevant provision states that no civil contract of any kind is created with the Crown or the Commonwealth in connection with the member's service in the Defence Force. We believe that such an important item should be in legislation in the interest of transparency. It is one more sign of the unique nature of military service.

While discussing the First Principles Review and this government's response, it would be remiss of me not to mention the cuts to civilian personnel. There are recommendations about it in the review. Labor is always supportive of well-directed reform and efficiency measures, but such reforms should not be used as an excuse for yet more job cuts in Defence. This government has already slashed a massive 2,406 civilian jobs from Defence.

In April, when the First Principles Review was released, the then Defence minister flagged that the implementation of the review could lead to the loss of at least another 1,000 jobs. This is something that Labor has been highly critical of, as civilian Defence personnel are a vital element to the overall success of our military operations and our capability. Just this month we learned of more job cuts at the Department of Defence, with Defence's executive level workforce to be slashed by 10 per cent in the latest round of redundancies. Some of Australia's most highly-skilled and highly-specialised federal public servants are civilians in the Defence department. They include project managers, engineers, scientists and IT professionals. I am really concerned that this huge reduction in staff at the Department of Defence has the potential to significantly erode capability. I am particularly concerned about losing significant national security capability and a specialist skill set from the public sector.

This government is determined to make short-sighted cuts at a time when Australia should be investing in critical Defence roles. Losing such large numbers of staff could increase the risk of higher project costs and schedule overruns, and it could risk significant damage to workplace morale. I have been calling on the government—as I have been since I became the member for Canberra, and particularly since this government came in—to use this opportunity to go back on those plans for cuts and to explain how it plans to maintain capability after yet another round of job cuts.

In conclusion, while we support this bill, we will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the First Principles Review, particularly when it comes to job losses. We are pleased to support this bill which will ultimately instil a stronger whole-of-organisation approach within Defence. The bill updates the Defence Act to clarify the control and administration of Defence in line with the First Principles Review's first principle—that is, that Defence should have clear authorities and accountabilities that align with resources. In doing so, the bill seeks to ensure that the Defence Act is brought up to date with the way Defence is actually controlled and administered today. We believe it will go some way towards achieving 'One Defence'.

I commend the bill to the House.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment (First Principles) Bill 2015. I know that the constituents in my electorate of Tangney are particularly concerned with matters pertaining to our national defence and security. The importance of strategic planning, and readiness has really been brought home to many in this country with the horrific images we have seen with the Paris terrorist attacks recently. It is a cliche but still holds truth that if one fails to plan then one should also plan to fail. It is reassuring to know that this coalition government puts national security and defence at the very highest priority. That is why under the leadership of previous Prime Minister Abbott the government commissioned the First Principles Review in 2014. The focus of the review was on ensuring that Defence is fit for purpose and is able to respond to future challenges and deliver against its outputs with the minimum resources necessary.

What we observe today is a world that is changing: the face of terror—the challenge—is changing. The threat is real, growing and ever-present, and this bill demonstrates an agile response to those challenges, very much like the way Prime Minister Turnbull responds to and addresses the changing and challenging economic environment we encounter. Agility is the operative paradigm for our age. This is an outlook and attitude that each of us must become attuned to going forward. Being agile is an approach and a way of thinking that in effect permits systemic review of all decisions, past and present. Here it is important to note that changing course is not always a sign of weakness. Specifically, I would like to give an example of one program, the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Joint Strike Fighter program was a result of a Howard-era decision, and it has been carried on by successive governments—a decision made in different times for a world with different needs. We should critically review why we are still staying the course. There is no nobility or value in blind faith or loyalty—just ignorance. The new government of Justin Trudeau in Canada has reviewed and cancelled that country's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program. Should our nation go down that road of nonparticipation, we would not be the first or only country to exit the program. There are a plethora of reasons we should do so today, and many of those reasons can be found in the past.

In 2002 we decided, without any capability requirement or analysis that would compare various tenders, to switch off all other options and get 100 Joint Strike Fighters to achieve initial operational capability in 2012-13. I do not see any Joint Strike Fighters in service in Australia today. No: the initial operational capability is now set for 2020, the cost is up, and we are no longer talking about 100 JSFs; we are now talking about 72. This begs the question: if 72 Joint Strike Fighters can do the job, why go to 100 in the first place? That is a waste of money. We should be purchasing only what we actually require. The simple fact is that the initial operational capability, in being eight years late, means that we are getting an aircraft that is even closer to obsolescence before we even get it in service. The aircraft is more expensive than we bargained for. We are getting less than three quarters of what we were initially going to get. And remember, this capability is arriving eight years late, which means it is going to extend out longer, so we are going to have obsolescent aircraft for longer and have fewer of them. And the aerodynamic performance is not within a bull's roar of even the threshold requirement, never mind the objective requirements it had. In fact, its performance is similar to that of the 50-year-old F-4 Phantom, which was known to not be particularly aerodynamically capable in its day.

Yet we persist. Shouldn't we be asking questions, looking at options, rather than buying at the behest of the US and Lockmart? At what point do we question? To give a ridiculous scenario, let's say it gets to the point where we can afford only one Joint Strike Fighter, and it will reach initial operational capability in 2030. Should we be asking the question then? At what stage are we going to go about looking at getting the capability that we require? At what stage are we going to go back to first principles and say, 'This is the capability we require; let's compare contenders and get what is best for Australia'?

Take cost, where Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring us that each Joint Strike Fighter would cost considerably less than $100 million. In fact, the price is well above $150 million, pretty much lineball with what independent experts at Air Power Australia said. And take schedule: Air Power Australia said it would be years late. Defence and Lockheed Martin assured parliament—and I remember being here in 2006 during these assurances—that initial operational capability would be achieved in 2013. I do not see any combat-capable Joint Strike Fighters anywhere on the planet, never mind in squadron service in Australia. Regarding aero-propulsive performance, Air Power Australia was absolutely on the money, and Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring parliament that it would at least meet its turn and acceleration performance. Incorrect decisions have been made on numerous occasions, such as when three US services purchased the F-4 Phantom without a gun because dogfights were deemed to be obsolete and it was all going to be missiles. It sounds very similar to the arguments supporting the Joint Strike Fighter. Vietnam proved the fallacy of that argument then. In fact, the end of dogfighting has been suggested for more than half the history of air combat.

The reality, when fighting peer threats, has always come back to bite. The other fact is that most JSF purchasers have other aircraft they will use for their air superiority role, but not us. Potential-threat nations are objectively testing—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Are there any statements from honourable members? The member for Fremantle.