David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The thing I love about the committee process in the Senate is that you do get the opportunity for exchange across the chamber, and I thank the minister for her comments, but I do recognise that they are largely repeating the same talking points that Defence used and has obviously provided to the government about their concerns around the bill, and I want to comment briefly on those.

In terms of the accountable officer piece, if you look at Defence's evidence to the committee, they highlight that accountable officers need accurate test and evaluation in order to fulfil their duty. History has shown that, despite numerous reform efforts under both sides of politics over a couple of decades, those internal reforms have not led to a consistent and transparent communication of risk to those accountable officers. This bill takes best practice from our AUKUS partners so that accountable officers can in fact discharge their duties consistently and effectively.

So, the objection that the minister has raised, which echoes that raised by Defence, doesn't recognise the purpose of the bill and the reality of what has occurred in Defence over decades. So Minister, thank you for the very gracious way you said that, but it's actually not technically correct. Nor do I have any confidence that yet another round of internal reform within Defence will allow those accountable officers to make informed decisions based on risk.

In terms of the duplication, that's another claim that was put forward by Defence through the inquiry process. But, as some expert witnesses highlighted, this statutory body embraces and utilises existing resources more effectively through coordination, supervision and training, and then the outcome is transparently reported. That means it's more effective than having groups spend half their time fighting for resources, trying to have their voices heard. Defence and almost all the witnesses highlighted that there is a deficit of suitably trained people in uniform. And the witnesses were united in their comment that this agency was the best opportunity for Defence to grow an experienced and sustainable test and evaluation workforce.

So the expert advice from witnesses, including some people who are very senior in Defence in terms of their careers, was that this agency, far from duplicating and making things inefficient, would actually make existing resources more effective and efficient and would be the basis for growing a more sustainable base going forward.

On the monopoly side, I have consulted with some industry players who gave evidence about what the committee is looking to put forward through this amendment, and they agree that this amendment satisfies their concerns and that they have no concerns about the potential for monopolistic behaviour given that the Defence Capability Assurance Agency is a Commonwealth agency. The standards are set as a service by a company contracted engaged to do that, but the agency is what is engaged with industry if more capacity or particular expertise is required from industry that the ADF or Defence can't provide.

Minister, thank you for your contribution, but I want to note that each of the points you've listed come from the talking points from Defence, which have been quite comprehensively rebutted through the committee process and the evidence presented. I repeat my request that the government not just adopt a static position of opposing the bill but embrace the principles and see how we can work to create something that is actually appropriately skilled and appropriately independent and that reports within an appropriately transparent effectiveness everywhere through the chain of decision-makers involved in defence procurement and materiel.