Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into the review of the Defence annual report 2013-14. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report: Review of the Defence Annual Report 2013-14

November 2016

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Jobs Families Project be further developed to incorporate accurate assessments of both qualifications and experience that are required for a given role. The Committee further recommends that, in its implementation of the First Principles Review, the Department of Defence develop its strategic planning and appointment process to ensure employees have task-specific competence for their role, and that opportunities are actively created for personnel to obtain this relevant experience.

Government response

Agree.

The Defence Australian Public Service Job Families Project was completed with the establishment of 20 job families and over 2,100 occupation profiles. The evolution of job families is now part of business as usual. Development of the Defence Strategic Workforce Plan is progressing, which will include consideration of the Australian Public Service workforce. The Defence Strategic Workforce Plan will inform job family workforce plans that will drive workforce management including recruitment, learning and development, performance and talent management.

In preparation for the job family workforce plans, occupation profiles are being reviewed and amended to reflect changing Defence business and to identify key capabilities, key technical and core knowledge and skills, and other requirements such as qualifications and licenses.

Skills censuses of Australian Public Service staff are to be conducted during 2016 as part of the Defence census, which will enable assessment of individuals' capabilities against those of the occupation that they are engaged in. This information will provide significant input to workforce plans and subsequent initiatives including learning and development.

The Defence census and workforce planning will be part of a regular business planning cycle enabling Defence to monitor progress and adjust plans to address areas of workforce risk. This work is being undertaken, reported and regularly reviewed as an element of the Workforce Work Stream of the First Principles Review.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence collate and periodically publish figures on the effect of Project Suakin, including statistics on:

Government response

In close consultation with the Services, Project Suakin (Suakin) has established a comprehensive evaluation framework based on a broad range of quantitative and qualitative data. The framework has been designed to measure the effectiveness of the Total Workforce Model in generating and sustaining Defence capability, and specifically determining the extent to which the benefits identified in the original case for change and subsequent design activity have been realised. This data would be reported externally via the Defence Annual Report.

With respect to the various components of Recommendation 2:

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence develop more innovative ways to recruit, especially in the science, technology and engineering fields. The Committee further recommends that the Department, together with the Service Chiefs, utilise the following initiatives to better attract people with science, engineering and technical skills:

Government response

Agree.

Defence agrees that further attention to attracting personnel in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields is required and intends to build on existing programs. Defence notes the recommendations of the Committee and advises the work to date in this area is as follows:

o collaboration with the Australian Business and Community Network through its Influence-Her program for high performing Year 10 female students studying culturally and linguistically diverse to improve awareness of technical careers for women in the Defence Australian Public Service;

o implementation of a dedicated science and technology recruitment and development stream in 2016 for Defence Australian Public Service graduates, to attract and train high performing university students for careers in research and innovation in Defence Science and Technology and for technical roles in the Defence Intelligence Agencies; and

o sponsored university study through the Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Female Students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales and the University of Adelaide; and the Defence Civilian Undergraduate Sponsorship for engineering students to study for free through the University of New South Wales, Canberra, currently comprising 13 students, seven of whom are female.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that, whilst maintaining physical standards, the Department of Defence ensure the standards are fit for purpose and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.

Government response

Agree in principle.

Defence continues to explore ways to enhance and increase the participation of diverse groups in the Australian Defence Force while recognising the unique nature of Australian Defence Force requirements, sometimes under strict parameters.

The aim of the physical employment standards is to identify appropriate physical tests for entry and continued employment in employment categories in order to select personnel best suited for the demands of that employment group. As a second order effect this may reduce injuries, with a consequent increase in personnel availability for operations and training and reduction in costs of health care and compensation.

The physical employment standards for combat roles recently opened to women were reviewed to ensure they are scientifically based, occupationally relevant and do not discriminate based on age or gender. The physical employment standards will be reviewed annually to ensure the assessments still meet the requirements of each employment category. These standards apply a fit for purpose methodology, therefore Defence agrees with the recommendation that the physical standards are fit for purpose.

Defence will apply flexibility with the physical employment standards on a case-by-case basis for specific medical circumstances only. All personnel will be required to pass the physical employment standards in order to be fully qualified in their specific employment group.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs report the progress and results of their mental health programs, including the Longitudinal Australian Defence Force Study Evaluating Resilience.

Government response

Agree.

There are a range of mental health programs which are conducted jointly and separately by Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The Departments will report on the progress and results of these mental health programs through the following reporting mechanisms.

Defence programs., Defence provides a comprehensive range of mental health programs that are available across the career lifespan of a member from enlistment through to operational deployment through to transition from the military. These include programs which are designed to: increase mental health awareness; provide skill-based training to Defence personnel on the management of mental health in Defence; provide clinical up-skilling to Defence health professionals on the assessment and treatment of mental health conditions; and the delivery of mental health and psychology services to Australian Defence Force members. The progress of these initiatives are reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review.

In addition to the above, progress against mental health research projects are reported to the relevant approving ethical review bodies and results are disseminated through specifically designed communication strategies. For example, a comprehensive communication strategy will be developed for the final Longitudinal Australian Defence Force Study Evaluating Resilience report and actioned upon receipt and acceptance of the report by the Commonwealth.

Joint programs. Since 2013, Defence and DVA have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the Cooperative Delivery of Care and Support to Eligible persons. Collaborative projects are managed under the MoU, with Defence and DVA maintaining a strong joint approach to mental health programs and research including the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme, Defence referrals of Australian Defence Force personnel to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) for counselling, and the development of a range of e-mental health smart phone applications. The progress and results of these programs are reported to the Defence / Department of Veterans' Affairs Executive Committee as well as other relevant groups such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs Research Board or the Joint Health Command and VVCS Agreement for Services Steering Committee. Progress and results of joint programs are also reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review where relevant.

The Government also notes that Defence and DVA already provide annual reports to Parliament and are accountable to Parliament, including through the Budget estimates process, for supplying any reasonable request for information.

DVA programs. DVA purchases and provides a range of mental health services for its clients: online mental health information and support through the At Ease mental health portal at

www.at-ease.dva.gov.au, GP services, psychologist and social work services, psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, posttraumatic stress disorder programs, and hospital services for those who need it. VVCS also provides counselling and group programs to veterans, peacekeepers and eligible family members. VVCS is a specialised, free and confidential Australia-wide service and may be contacted 24 hours a day by calling 1800 011 046. DVA can pay for certain mental health treatment whatever the cause (whether or not the condition is related to service), and the conditions covered are PTSD, anxiety, depression, alcohol use disorder and substance-use disorder. From July 2016, eligibility for these non-liability mental health arrangements is available to anyone who has had permanent service in the ADF, no matter what the service or how long.

The Government has committed to an annual Ministerial statement to Parliament on key issues impacting upon the veteran community and the performance of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This will be a transparent process which will measure the performance of the Department and increase accountability to the veteran community. Tackling the mental health challenges for veterans and their families is a pillar of the Government's plan for veterans' affairs and will feature in this annual Ministerial statement.

The Government announced on 11 August 2016 that the National Mental Health Commission in conjunction with clinical experts and a reference group comprised of current and former members of Defence, will analyse the effectiveness of existing suicide and self-harm prevention services.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence develop methods to collect and collate data on the On Base Advisory Service to measure its effectiveness.

Government response

Agree in principle.

The On Base Advisory Service is administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the support of Defence. On Base Advisory Service activity data is reported to the Defence Links Steering Committee, a joint Defence and Department of Veterans' Affairs committee. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is in the process of refining the On Base Advisory Service performance framework. This work will enable the Defence Links Steering Committee to more effectively monitor the performance and effectiveness of the On Base Advisory Service.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends the reporting to Parliament on the Joint Strike Fighter Program be more comprehensive and equivalent to that made available to the United States Congress.

Government response

Disagree.

As a partner in the United States led global F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, Australia gains insight into the Program through a range of mechanisms and forums. While we are a partner with a level of influence, the United States leads the F-35 Program and is directly responsible for the conduct of the global F-35 Program.

In the United States context, the delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter capability attracts a high level of scrutiny as the largest global Defence acquisition project to date. Reports by the Director Operational Test and Evaluation and United States Government Audit Office are produced by organisations independent of the United States F-35 Joint Program Office and are made publicly available. Defence analyses these US reports and includes specifics as it relates to the Australian JSF Program.

As part of the Major Projects Review, the Australian National Audit Office conducts an annual audit and report of the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program. This report is equivalent to the reports produced by the United States organisations. In addition, Defence reports to Government annually on the status of the F-35 Program and regularly provides evidence to Senate Estimates and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The Joint Strike Fighter Division of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group is also required to provide annual advice to the Australian Government as an update on the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program, including specific briefings on the more classified elements of the Program.

Defence believes the current level of reporting of all major programs, including the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program, closely mirrors United States congressional reporting, with some exceptions like the Director Operational Test and Evaluation report which has no equivalent organisation or report in the Australian context.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that, to aid transparency and accuracy, the Department of Defence record and periodically report the quantum of unfunded liabilities held by Defence, including:

The Committee does not expect this reporting to form part of Defence's annual financial statements.

Government response

Disagree.

Defence's actual and contingent liabilities, as defined by Australian Accounting Standards, are accounted for and disclosed in the annual financial statements. Underinvestment in Defence capabilities is considered in the preparation of the annual financial statements when identifying whether assets may be impaired in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board notes that an essential characteristic of a liability is that an entity has a present obligation. A decision by management to acquire assets in the future does not, of itself, give rise to a present obligation.

As part of the White Paper process Defence has rebalanced the funding assigned to Defence in the budget and over the forward estimates against the Government's future requirements. This rebalance has allocated funding to Defence capability, including major capital equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and information and communication technologies. This rebalance has been rigorously cost assured by external assessors. Any future variations to the funded commitments in the White Paper will be considered through the mechanisms developed in accordance with the recommendations of the First Principles Review. As such, any additional commitment will be managed transparently in an enterprise-wide approach across the Defence portfolio, with in-year commitments managed by the Enterprise Business Committee, and future commitments managed by the Investment Committee. Any changes in planned expenditure across Defence programmes which may result in unfunded capabilities will subsequently be detailed in the Portfolio Statements which are open to scrutiny through the Senate Estimate Committee process.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the Defence Annual Reports include appropriately detailed information on the Fuel Services Branch, in particular the progress of fuel farm remediation and remaining work to be done. The Committee further recommends that the Department of Defence actively explore options to engage and collaborate with industry on fuel management and security.

Government response

Agree in principle.

Future Defence Annual Reports will provide more detail on the reform of the Defence Fuel Supply Chain and initiatives to enhance its operational resilience.

The establishment of the Fuel Services Branch in early 2015 was a key recommendation of the Wraith Review (commissioned by the Secretary of Defence in late 2013) to support the appointment of Commander Joint Logistics as Head of Defence Fuel Supply Chain, creating a single point of accountability for the on-time and in-full delivery of fuel to meet the needs of capability managers. This replaced a fragmented and dysfunctional management structure that did not have clear roles or lines of responsibility.

Throughout 2015, Fuel Services Branch focused on remediating the issues identified by the Wraith Review as being of greatest concern, notably the asset integrity of Defence fuel installations, working relationships between facility operators and maintenance contractors, safe work practices, staff training, and capital estate management for existing and new fuel infrastructure. An extensive Hazard Risk Assessment program commenced in mid-2014 to identify key risks and issues across the primary Defence fuel installations, leading to these now being managed in a more coordinated and structured way with key stakeholders across Defence. The Hazard Risk Assessment program has also assisted in focussing specialist fuel engineering expertise on the asset integrity of the Defence Fuel Supply Chain, which will be further assisted by the design and development of a centralised Defence Fuel Supply Chain Engineering Management System during 2016. The Hazard Risk Assessment program will be completed by 30 June 2016.

Commander Joint Logistics promulgated the Defence Fuel Supply Chain Strategic Plan 2015-2022 internally on the Fuel Services Branch intranet site in November 2015. The Plan sets out the key strategic goals for Defence to develop end-to-end management within the Defence Fuel Supply Chain and also to optimise the safe, effective and efficient delivery of fuel to meet capability. A complementary Defence Fuel Supply Chain Operational Plan for 2015-16 has also been promulgated internally that will address all of the key recommendations of the Wraith Review.

Key to both the Defence Fuel Supply Chain strategic and operational plans is the roll out of the Defence Fuel Management System during 2016 and 2017. The Defence Fuel Management System will provide a comprehensive and integrated system for identifying and managing all Defence Fuel Supply Chain related risks. It describes what controls are to be implemented for Defence Fuel Supply Chain functions and minimum requirements related to those controls. System level requirements also describe key roles and responsibilities for each function (aligned to the Defence Fuel Supply Chain organisation) and related performance measurement and evaluation requirements.

The Defence Fuel Management System is designed so far as possible to operate seamlessly with whole-of-Defence, Joint Logistic Command and single Service safety and environmental management systems. It seeks to contextualise the requirements of those systems into one set of documents focussed exclusively on Defence Fuel Supply Chain related activities and operations. An important element within the Defence Fuel Management System is performance monitoring and governance, which is being designed to provide a multi-layered and robust performance monitoring and governance framework to ensure risk control performance is monitored at all levels.

Chief of Defence Force in July 2014 and seeks to identify opportunities for greater industry participation through reduced costs of ownership, reduced enterprise risk and rationalisation of certain military-specific fuels in favour of commercial grade products. The Fuel Network Review is focusing on bulk fuels only and is due to be completed by December 2016.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence, in partnership with Defence Housing Australia, prepare an effective consultation and communication framework with the community for use in ongoing and future redevelopments.

Government response

Agree.

Defence Housing Australia has a strong record of establishing and maintaining relationships with the communities in which Defence Housing Australia developments are constructed. In addition, Defence Housing Australia continues to review its practices to ensure they are tailored to meet the specific needs of each development.

Defence Housing Australia aims to make information about development projects publicly available wherever possible, in line with the requirements of the applicable local council or authority. Community engagement can occur in various forms, from listening to the community in the early stages of planning through to keeping local residents and community groups informed as the project advances. Community engagement is conducted in line with Defence Housing Australia process instructions for Development Marketing and Defence Housing Australia Development Marketing Community Engagement guidelines.

Defence Housing Australia has well practiced and successful procedures in place to engage with the community and stakeholders regarding its developments. These involve communication strategies such as letter drops, internet sites, newsletters and community meetings. Consultation with the community is broad and feedback is considered as part of the planning process for every development.

The ways in which Defence Housing Australia consults and communicates with the community for developments, as per Defence Housing Australia Development Marketing Community Engagement guidelines, are shown as follows:

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

In respect of the government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into the review of the Defence annual report 2013-14, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I am pleased to see this response. It is a response to an inquiry that was conducted some time ago. The inquiry was post that annual report being delivered. With the fluxion of time, and an election in between, clearly the response had taken some time to come. But I am pleased, as I read through it, to see a number of the recommendations agreed with. There are a couple that are not that I would like to comment on.

For a start, recommendation 1 goes to the skill sets, the competence and the experience of people in Defence. The recommendation was:

… the Job Families Project be further developed to incorporate accurate assessments of both qualifications and experience that are required for a given role.

This is important. If you look at other safety-critical areas, such as the oil and gas industry, they normally work on quite a strict matrix of both qualification and experience before somebody is delegated a certain level of authority to make decisions.

What we have seen too often in the past is that, where Defence feels it has been constrained by the posting cycle, or by the people who are available, whether they are in uniform or the Public Service, people are put into a role even if their qualifications or experience are not necessarily the most appropriate or, in some cases, I would argue, even adequate for that role. Over a number of inquiries, I have been making the point that, whether we are talking about somebody who is a contract negotiator, somebody who is working in a force development area or somebody who is engaging with industry, the competencies required for the role—that mix of qualification and experience—should be clearly defined.

The concern I have had with the Job Families Project in the past is that, for example, if you needed neurosurgery done, the job family for the person that would do that is somebody in the health stream of Army, somebody who is qualified and senior enough to be a surgeon. So the Job Families Project identifies such a person. They are available, so they get posted. But if the person happens to be an orthopaedic surgeon—they are still in the medical family and they still have that level of training with good qualifications—the actual task-specific competence may not be there for the job you want. Neurosurgery should not be done by an orthopaedic surgeon. It is a very simple example.

Defence has some areas where it does this well. In aerospace engineering, for example, the regulator—the Directorate General Technical Airworthiness—will look at the person whom the Chief of Army, Navy or Air Force wants to post into a position and will assess their qualifications and experience and say what level of authority they will delegate to them. Within that airworthiness framework, Defence has a model that works well, but across many areas we see people posted into positions where they do not actually have the requisite experience to do those roles. I welcome the fact that Defence has agreed to this recommendation, or has looked to further involve the Job Families Project so that they actually do an audit of the qualifications and experience that any given role might need so that they can identify the gaps and help those people achieve the goals.

There is also a link with this recommendation in the Defence Industry Policy Statement and the first principles reviewwhich look at the kinds of programmatic capabilities that Defence requires. Again, I will come back to aerospace engineering, because it is one that I think is a good example to work with. For many decades Australia has had that quite robust system of taking graduates from university, training them in aerospace engineering or in structures or systems engineering and giving them hands-on experiences with maintained aircraft, and then they get posted to various parts of the organisation, whether they are maintaining or procuring equipment—being that classic smart buyer of equipment. What we are seeing as we have more and more of our aircraft purchased off the shelf is that the cost case that is often used to justify buying something off the shelf is that a lot of the design support network and the through-life engineering support is done by the providing country. If we buy something from the United States then either the US Navy or Air Force or the original equipment manufacturer will provide that engineering. What that means is that we have less opportunity for graduates here to actually get their hands dirty, so to speak, and get the competence—the experience as well as their qualification to do the role.

So, one of the things that I see that the Defence Industry Policy Statement leads to is that it has this concept of industry skills being a fundamental input to capabilities. The service chief now has the opportunity to look at these skill sets that are required and look at their workforces—not only uniformed but also including the Australian public servants and including industry people. Whether they are contracted, is in the services, or whether they are contracted into a defence organisation, for the workforce they are looking at, the spread of competence covers all three of those areas. So, for something like aerospace engineering, if we do not have the opportunity—because for things like the Joint Strike Fighter or the Super Hornet all that work is done overseas—if we want to have people who are competent to actually be in our technical airworthiness areas in the future and in our procurement areas and to be the smart providers, we have to look for other opportunities to give them that hands-on experience. In the past, with a program like the PC-9 replacement, we would see that as a training aircraft with no operational need to have all the back-of-house functions to support it, so we probably would have gone out to seek a power by the hour arrangement where somebody else would provide the aircraft on the flight line, ready to fly.

But the thinking of the first principles review and the Defence Industry Policy Statement is that if this is the most cost-effective way for Defence to develop its future workforce of aerospace engineers then perhaps we should actually look at taking this training platform and doing a certain amount of that design support engineering—that continuing airworthiness work—here in Australia so that we can take young graduates who have their degree and give them practical hands-on experience so that when we need people at that more senior level to interface with the US Navy, the US Air Force, British forces or the manufacturers we have people with the requisite level of competence to engage and be that smart buyer or that smart maintainer of our equipment. There is a fair bit in that one recommendation and I am pleased to see that the government has picked that up. We will look to develop that further as the Defence Industry Policy Statement is implemented.

That also goes to recommendation 3, which looks at ways to increase STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—engagement of young people. Increasingly, and it has probably ever been thus, we need to get lower down into the schools, at the year 9 and 10 type levels. This is so that when young people are making decisions about the subjects they will choose they will have a vision of what the job might entail, of the opportunities that working in an engineering type field might present to them, so that the subject choices they make at that mid-high school level are not limiting their options if they want to go on and pursue that technical type of stream. I am very pleased to see the government agree to support that.

Recommendation 7 is around the Joint Strike Fighter and a more comprehensive evaluation of project status. I have raised, in the past, the point about the conspiracy of optimism in how many Defence projects are reported to the parliament and that this has led to false expectation about the time frame and level of capability that will be delivered. Where there is any doubt or concern about the progress, through the manufacturing, testing or certification, that should be made abundantly clear in reporting opportunities, whether that be through ANAO reports, the annual report or reports on major projects.

In the past it is been disturbing to see summaries of really significant projects, like the Joint Strike Fighter, have an almost one paragraph 'It's all good, Guv' type story, when you read in open sourced American literature, through things like their Operational Test and Evaluation program, that there are significant concerns about the rate of progress.

I believe that whilst Defence, in their response, have indicated the US is the predominant builder of the aircraft and therefore it is their role to highlight if there are deficiencies in the program, our reporting should at least acknowledge and link or point to the American reporting. That is so the casual or interested reader, here, will realise it is not all an optimistic view and that perhaps there are other things they need to consider. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to comment on the Australian government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report into the review of the Defence annual report 2013-14. In so doing, I acknowledge the role of Senator Fawcett in his capacity as chair of that review committee.

The committee resolved, in that report, to focus on five principal areas: firstly, the First Principles Review; secondly, matters pertaining to personnel; thirdly, mental health; fourthly, capability development and major projects; and fifthly, Defence support. During that period 2013-14, July to June, the ADF was involved in three whole-of-government operations: Operation Sovereign Borders, which is highly successful and continuing, Operation Southern Indian Ocean and Operation Bring Them Home. During that period, the Defence Force completed two operations. It is a little while ago now but think back to operation New South Wales bushfires and Operation Philippines Assist. Both benefited enormously from the professionalism in the involvement, the speed and the rapid deployment of Australian Defence Force personnel.

During that time the Department of Defence commenced major organisational change with the release of the First Principles Review, the abolition of the Defence Materiel Organisation and its replacement with the creation of the new Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. It was a very busy period during that era.

The first principles review has been mentioned by the previous speaker. Personnel matters were a major element of the committee's review, forming some of the recommendations about which I will speak. Matters covered included Project Suakin, addressing itself to the question of the Total Workforce Model, developed by the Chief of the Defence Force and his colleagues; recruitment and employment of women; cultural reform; and military justice. In the space of mental health, areas examined included mental resilience, particularly at the stage of recruitment into the Defence Force; the culture towards mental health in the ADF; and the work being undertaken—we see a continuation of it now—with personnel transitioning out of the services. It is gratifying to see that the work we are doing at the moment in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee is picking up and continuing to look at these very areas.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report quite correctly recognised and appreciated the work undertaken by Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs, acknowledging the importance of the collaboration between the two departments in addressing mental health conditions, which are all too relevant, all too important and require the very highest level of attention by the Senate itself. I am pleased that the report acknowledged the dedication and commitment of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and commended them on the outstanding service that they provide to the nation. One should never forget the wider and extended Defence family. When a person is serving, whether they be deployed here in Australia or overseas, we know only too acutely the role of the extended family—the parents, grandparents, siblings and others—and the contribution they make.

I am delighted, in speaking to the Australian government's response to the report, to confirm the commitment of the Turnbull government to Australia's long-term security and economic prosperity as they relate particularly to the roles undertaken by our defence industry and Defence personnel. The review of the Defence annual report has been welcomed. As Senator Fawcett was discussing previously, the review made 10 recommendations, which I intend, if time permits, to address briefly, particularly the one or two that my colleague did not have the opportunity to comment upon.

I do want to emphasise the financial commitment the Turnbull government is making to ensure the long-term security of the country and the viability of the Defence Force. We know—it is picked up in the review and the government's response—that the government is acutely aware that Defence must be prepared for a more uncertain operating environment in the future, and that of course has been highlighted only over the last few days. We know that we have both state and nonstate actors who now have access to a range of cheaper, more precise and capable weapons systems. We know that sophisticated cyberthreats continue to evolve. Of course, my own particular area is in biosecurity and the capacity of terrorists and others to use relatively cheap organisms for devastating impact, not only within our shores but in other areas we would seek to have some involvement in in terms of protection. We know the Defence Force does operate and will continue to operate in congested environments, where the adversary is not easily identified and of course has the capacity to move quickly from tension to conflict and back again. We have seen evidence of that in the past; we are seeing more evidence of it now.

What is very pleasing is that so much of the review—the comments in it, the recommendations made in it by the committee chaired by Senator Fawcett—has now found its way into policy and procedures which we are seeing being played out. For example, the Turnbull government has increased defence spending by $30 billion over the next decade so that we will move back to a level of defence spending of two per cent of GDP, which is in stark contrast, regrettably, to the last Labor government, where, in terms of GDP expenditure on defence, we were down at levels not seen since 1938, assisted by the slashing of some $18 billion from the defence budget. The white paper prepared at that time, but not really ever announced or released to any extent, was left shattered.

I had the privilege earlier this year, and the company of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, to be at ADFA for the release of the white paper, the 2016 document that will form the basis of Defence Force activities going into the future. At the same time, the wisdom of Defence Minister Payne was evident in ensuring that the defence industry paper was released on the same day, emphasising the integral need and role of Australian industry in delivering on what will be the commitments for defence into the future. The white paper, of course, is now so readily accepted and so readily understood. Along with that, the defence industry paper is working with the white paper to deliver for the Australian community and for the Defence Force.

Central to this whole project is the concept of continuous naval shipbuilding, which will secure Australian naval shipbuilding capacity right out for the next 30 to 40 years, not just providing employment for Australians in manufacturing and construction, but providing an ongoing and integral role for Australian industry in the whole-of-life example for the vessels—we all well know of the dozen Future Submarines that will be constructed, with the oversight of DCNS, in Adelaide; the Future Frigate Program; the future offshore patrol vessels; and indeed the Pacific Patrol Vessels, which are already under construction. In observing the Australian government's response to this particular review, I am pleased to report on the strong commitment of the government in terms of personnel, management, funding and whole-of-life for our defence forces.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to commence my contribution to the discussion of the government response to the review of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade of the Defence annual report 2013-14 by congratulating the chairman, Senator Fawcett, on the work he is currently doing and the work he did in relation to this particular review. I note with some interest that four senators are intending to speak on this particular report, from the government side at least, and all four of us—Senator Cash, Senator McKenzie, Senator Fawcett and I—are actually members of the joint standing committee and were involved in the preparation of this review of the Defence annual report 2013-14. The report was tabled some time ago. Since then the government has responded to the report and in the time available to me I want to address just a couple of the recommendations and the government's response to them.

Those of us involved in and around our defence service personnel understand the importance of mental health programs. Indeed, we do understand that active service in the military forces of any country, since time immemorial almost, does have an impact on the mental health of many of the participants in combat and combat operations. I am based in Townsville, in North Queensland, the home of Australia's largest army base, Lavarack Barracks. From Lavarack, almost since its inception in pre-Vietnam war days, troops from Townsville have gone overseas to be engaged in active combat situations. They return, and very often in the community we see the results of the difficulties experienced by serving members of the Defence Force coming back from those engagements.

One of the recommendations of the committee, recommendation 5, was that the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs report progress and results on their mental health programs, including the longitudinal Australian Defence Force study Evaluating Resilience. The committee went through this issue at some length and made that recommendation. The government's response to that recommendation has been that the government agrees. In its agreement, the government says this in its response:

There are a range of mental health programs which are conducted jointly and separately by Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The Departments will report on the progress and results of these mental health programs through the following reporting mechanisms.

Then the response by the government goes through those. They include Defence programs, joint programs and DVA programs. The government's response indicates how that happens in each case. In relation to Defence programs:

Defence provides a comprehensive range of mental health programs that are available across the career lifespan of a member from enlistment through to operational deployment through to transition from the military. These include programs which are designed to: increase mental health awareness; provide skill-based training to Defence personnel on the management of mental health in Defence; provide clinical up-skilling to Defence health professionals on the assessment and treatment of mental health conditions; and the delivery of mental health and psychology services to Australian Defence Force members. The progress of these initiatives are reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review.

In addition to the above, progress against mental health research projects are reported to the relevant approving ethical review bodies and results are disseminated through specifically designed communication strategies.

I thank the government for its comprehensive response to that recommendation dealing with Defence programs. In relation to joint programs, the response says:

Since 2013, Defence and DVA have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the Cooperative Delivery of Care and Support to Eligible persons. Collaborative projects are managed under the MoU, with Defence and DVA maintaining a strong joint approach to mental health programs and research including the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme, Defence referrals of Australian Defence Force personnel to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) for counselling, and the development of a range of e-mental health smart phone applications—

That is an innovation which will become more and more useful as the years roll on—

The progress and results of these programs are reported to the Defence / Department of Veterans' Affairs Executive Committee as well as other relevant groups such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs Research Board or the Joint Health Command and VVCS Agreement for Services Steering Committee. Progress and results of joint programs are also reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan—

that I mentioned previously.

In addition to that, as the government's response shows, the Department of Veterans' Affairs also purchases and provides a range of mental health services for its clients. Online mental health information and support through the At Ease mental health portal is also available. There are GP services, psychologist services, social work services, psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, post-traumatic stress disorder programs and hospital services for those who need them. This program also provides counselling and group programs to veterans, peacekeepers and eligible family members. Of course, family members are an important element of these programs in the understanding of the issues faced by some of our returning and even current Defence Force members.

There are 24-hours-a-day phone lines to help with any problems that might need addressing at all hours of the day and night. DVA can also pay for certain mental health treatments, whatever the cause—whether or not the condition is related to service—and conditions covered by PTSD, anxiety, depression, alcohol-use disorder and substance-use disorder. From July this year, eligibility for these non-liability mental health arrangements will be available to anyone who has had permanent service in the ADF, no matter what the service or for how long.

The government indicates in its response as well that it is committed to an annual ministerial statement to parliament on key issues impacting upon the veteran community and the performance of the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

I have just mentioned elements of this response at length because it does show that the government, indeed, as it should, on behalf of all Australians, does whatever it can to assist those who have served their country but who may be suffering some sort of mental health issue. Sometimes in this chamber we hear about those things, but we do not often hear about the extent of the provisions that the government has developed to do everything possible to address some of these issues. I am delighted that it has done so. As I say, as a nation that is grateful for the work that our service personnel have done, they should expect nothing less and neither does the nation.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the review of the government's response to the Defence annual review. The Turnbull government is committed to ensuring Australia's long-term security and economic prosperity. I welcome the review of the Defence annual report 2013-14 by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I know I am not the only one. We have heard from Senators Macdonald, Back and Fawcett about our government's commitment to the security of our nation and additionally to ensuring that we procure as much as possible from our local market, developing those skills and providing jobs and growth right across our nation as a result of our focus on our defence capability.

I particularly welcome the recommendations, and later in my contribution I will go through those recommendations in more detail. As detailed in the 2016 Defence white paper, the government has a comprehensive, long-term plan to ensure we have more a potent, agile and innovative Australian Defence Force capable of achieving Australia's strategic objectives.

I have just left a briefing from some of the larger international players in our defence industry here in Australia. They are quite buoyant. They are excited about the opportunities provided by the government's Defence white paper and the jobs and growth that it will provide not just in capital cities and not just in South Australia, as welcome as that is, but right across our nation.

In the few minutes available to me, I will go into more detail around our ability and capacity as a nation of federal and state governments working together to build those science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills so that we have a workforce that is able to meet the demand that will be coming, growing and sustained over coming decades as a result of our government's commitment and investment in defence industry. Our commitment is based on the government's detailed assessment of Australia's strategic outlook to 2035. It is the most comprehensive defence white paper ever and it, for the first time, properly aligns strategy, capability and resources to make the Australian Defence Force more capable, agile and potent.

We are acutely aware that Defence must be prepared for a more uncertain operating environment. State and nonstate actors will have access to a range of cheaper, more precise and more capable weapon systems. Sophisticated cyber threats will continue to evolve, and the Australian Defence Force will often operate in congested environments where the adversary is not easily identifiable and contingencies move quickly from tension to conflict. Through the government's white paper, Defence will have highly capable and flexible forces. Our government has increased defence spending by $29.9 billion over the next decade, as we deliver on our commitment to increase spending to two per cent of GDP. Also, we are not just going to be throwing the money out with a lack of accountability and transparency; we are going to track this over time, which is a welcome change.

The 2016 budget delivers on the government's commitment to ensuring our long-term security and economic prosperity. Through the implementation of the first principles review, the Turnbull government is delivering on our 2013 election commitment to ensure that Defence is appropriately structured and organised and has the right business practices in place to support the Australian Defence Force in the 21st century.

It was only last week that I was joined by the Minister for Defence Industry, Minister Pyne, in my home state of Victoria at Victoria Barracks to see the first 10 Hawkei vehicles handed over to the Defence Force. The Hawkei is a responsive vehicle, a high-protection vehicle, that builds on the design perspectives and research from the famous Bushmaster vehicle, which has taken the world by storm. The Bushmaster has protected Australian soldiers in theatres—particularly in the Middle East—but it is exported to other nations and it is an incredibly useful piece of equipment in the defence arsenal.

The Hawkei protected vehicle is produced in Bendigo, in the heart of regional Victoria, and as a result of Thales Australia winning that contract 170 jobs have been able to be retained and maintained locally, in the Bendigo region. This vehicle is Australian-designed—a world class design—and we are hoping not only that we can have our own soldiers using the vehicles in theatres right across the world but also that this vehicle—as it is world class and world leading in the type of technology it employs and in its design—will be a vehicle we can export to other nations. I know Thales is working very, very hard on that.

In terms of sustainment of the vehicle over time, 30 jobs will be created, primarily in Queensland. What is unique about the vehicle is that, while it had to have the high level of protection that you get from the Bushmaster, it had to be very light. You had to be able to lift this vehicle up with a Chinook and cart it wherever you needed it, which provided some challenges in trying to marry that personnel protection aspect, which makes it very heavy, with the light weight so that it can be moved around and give that agility and capability to our defence forces. Defence signed a $1.3 billion contract with Thales Australia last October to produce 1,100 Hawkei vehicles with more than 1,000 companion trailers. It was very, very exciting to be with the minister at Victoria Barracks last week to actually see those vehicles and get to sit in them.

I want to briefly touch on the recommendations from the review. Senator Fawcett went into some detail on the 10 recommendations. The government has agreed to a number of them. Having just now come out of the briefing with the Defence primes about the types of skills we need and the level of engagement they are having with Australia universities, in niche areas, to build collaboration, and hopefully commercialisation, of that research over time, it is very exciting. Recommendation 3—that Defence develops 'more innovative ways to recruit, especially in the science, technology and engineering fields'—goes to the very heart of our government's agenda around ensuring that Australia is ready, capable and excited about an economy based on science. I remember that in his speech at the Prime Minister's science awards last year the Prime Minister said that science was going to be at the very heart of our nation's economy. It is true, and it must be so in the 21st century. So I am very proud of our government for pursuing a range of initiatives in this place to ensure that that becomes a reality.

In terms of recommendation 3, which I just read out, the government agrees around a number of initiatives to better attract people with science, engineering and technical skills into the defence field. I heard it directly from the Prime Minister that we need to be getting into secondary schools. We need to be saying to those young people that defence holds an exciting future for them and they just need to get involved in these subjects. So, recommendation 3 includes more engagement with secondary schools, at the year 10 level, such as visits, placements and work experience; ensuring that the Australian Defence Force gap year is promoted; and the implementation of a Defence university scholarship.

Defence agrees that further attention is required to attract personnel in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, and to build on these existing programs. The review notes the work that was done. I suggest to senators who are interested in this area to go to page 4 of the government response, where there is quite a detailed outline of the initiatives undertaken and where Defence can actually build greater collaboration. One of the implementation strategies was around attracting young culturally and linguistically diverse women to the APS through high school awareness programs, graduate entry-level programs, and university scholarships.

I am very proud to be part of a government that is investing in defence and in projects that will ensure supply chain jobs. Coming from Victoria, with its automotive industry closures, this is exciting news for our state.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fawcett in relation to the Defence annual report be agreed to.

Question agreed to.