Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue my contribution on the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. As I began with my short contribution at the end of last year, I want to put on record my support for this bill, which has been brought before the Senate by my colleague Senator David Fawcett. I know that Senator Fawcett put an incredible amount of hard work into developing this bill, which seeks to improve the processes by which defence equipment and materials are procured for use by the Australian Defence Forces.

Following its introduction to the Senate last year, the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 11 May 2023. Both Senator Fawcett and I sit on this committee, and the committee heard evidence from witnesses across two public hearings, including from the Department of Defence, the International Test and Evaluation Association and Nova Systems. Following the hearings and taking into account evidence from written submissions made on the bill, it is the view of coalition senators that this bill be amended and passed today. I will briefly address our amendments to the bill and foreshadow them later in my contribution.

The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee tabled its final report on 24 November last year. It was disappointing that government members of that committee have recommended that the bill not be passed, despite the fact that a majority of submitters and witnesses were supportive of the bill. Of the submissions received from individuals with considerable knowledge and expertise in test and evaluation, many raised concerns with Australia's defence capability assurance system. In fact, despite recommending that the bill not be passed, the report of the committee itself notes:

Defence has itself acknowledged that it has 'sometimes failed' to live up to its commitment to ensuring adequate T&E is performed in the context of capability acquisition and sustainment decisions.

It is encouraging that Defence has acknowledged these shortcomings in relation to test and evaluation and, as the committee report notes, is working to address these deficiencies.

However, coalition senators do not believe that the views expressed in the majority committee report reflect the extent of the concern raised by expert witnesses in regard to the current state of defence test and evaluation capability and practice. As coalition senators don't support the findings in the majority report, we tabled a dissenting report in support of the bill, which would establish a defence capability assurance agency and related oversight bodies. The coalition recognises that there are many dedicated and hardworking people within both the Australian Defence Force and the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, all working to upgrade and modernise Australia's defence capabilities to meet current and future challenges. The adoption of this bill that we're debating here today would only enhance their ability to assess risks and make timely decisions when it comes to investment in and acquisition of defence capabilities.

This bill proposes a number of important reforms that should be considered in relation to Australia's future defence procurement and capability. The bill creates an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the complex risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment, including but not limited to technical risks pertaining to performance and certification. This will expedite the procurement of defence capability by providing capability managers and government a high degree of confidence in the veracity and completeness of the information that they use to make timely, risk informed decisions. It will also provide assurance to capability managers, the Australian government and the parliament that weapons systems will be available for use when required and effective against extant and emerging threats. This bill will make existing defence procurement processes and requirements more effective and more efficient. The explanatory memorandum states that the bill seeks to address the root cause of past failures and ensure that defence acquisition and sustainment decisions are well informed by test and evaluation based on four core principles: independence, task-specific competence, transparency and accountability.

As I flagged earlier, coalition senators, in our dissenting report, flagged a number of amendments informed through the public hearings and written submissions which take into account the views and expert evidence from witnesses. Coalition senators recommend the bill and explanatory memorandum be amended to: remove the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence and require the government to include oversight of the defence capability assurance agency that this bill would establish by the joint statutory committee on defence which was announced in August last year in response to work by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; require the defence capability assurance agency to benchmark test and evaluation qualification and practice standards with relevant professional associations and peer organisations to ensure they reflect international best practice; and clarify that the defence capability assurance agency, as a Commonwealth agency, will be responsible for the award of contracts for T&E services and require the board to engage with industry stakeholders during its establishment to ensure that there is an effective mechanism to provide open and fair competition. All of these amendments will be dealt with in the committee stage by my colleague Senator Fawcett.

Of course we recommend that the bill be passed. There is no doubt this bill should be amended and passed. Like I said, my colleague Senator Fawcett has put significant time and effort into this private senator's bill which we have now before the Senate. The Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 proposes a number of important reforms that should be considered in relation to Australia's future defence procurement and capability including by creating an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment. It has gone through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and, as I said, written submissions and testimony from witnesses during the public hearings have further developed and refined this bill, which is once again a sign of this Senate and our Senate committees doing their work incredibly well, with feedback informing the amendments that Senator Fawcett will table later in relation to this bill. It is imperative that this bill be amended and passed by the Senate today to improve Australia's national security. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. This bill isn't perfect; they never are. I note the concerns by contributors to the inquiry. But I will be supporting this legislation because it does go some way towards improving our defence procurement processes. I can tell you they desperately need improvement, and that's putting it politely. Defence is an absolute basket case when it comes to procurement, and a very, very expensive basket case at that.

Here are just a couple of examples. There's the Future Submarine project—$4 billion wasted on not getting a submarine—and the replacement nuclear submarine program, which is going to suck $368 billion from the defence budget. That's at the expense of other capabilities, and it will not deliver a sub until at least 2035, and I'm estimating it won't be delivered even then. It'll well and truly be over by then. The US military already predicts that China will seek to take back Taiwan in the next five years. Getting nuclear powered submarines halfway through the next decade is like putting together a great footy team after the grand final has actually been played. If conflict occurs in the Taiwan Strait and the government commits Australian forces, our submariners will be asked to go into a highly intense battle space in Collins class submarines that were supposed to be decommissioned from 2025. I know that the government is planning to extend the life of the Collins by upgrading its diesel engines, main motors and other platform systems. But recently, at Senate estimates, Defence conceded that it would not be possible to make the upgrades in the original two-year time frame and it's likely to take three or more years. Why does that not surprise me? Of course, that means the costs to the taxpayer out there will increase. Welcome to defence procurement, eh? You couldn't make this stuff up on Neighbours.

Then there's the Multi-Role Helicopter Program, another $3.8 billion wasted, and it was doubly wasted. Then there was the SkyGuardian, another cancelled program that has wasted 1.3 billion bucks and gone nowhere, and the Army's Battle Management System—there goes another billion bucks of taxpayers' money. The Spartan aircraft cost another $1.4 billion. The Tiger helicopter program cost another billion. But wait. There's more. I know. I really feel for you Australian taxpayers today. Then there's the Future Frigate Program, the program price of which went from $30 billion to $45 billion, and it looks like that may well be cancelled or scaled back. These are capabilities that either have not been received by us or have not met expectations. All this money has been wasted on capabilities that our frontline service men and women now have to do without. By the way, Defence has been asked to significantly increase the number of Defence Force personnel, but over the last five years those numbers have been going backwards.

Perhaps the best overall description of the waste in defence procurement comes from the Auditor-General's major project review. It's a shame it's not tomorrow, because tomorrow the Auditor will table his next Major projects report, and we'll be able to take a close look at his update. But in last year's report he detailed the fact that there have been 1,321 months of delay in major Defence programs. We often spend days in this chamber arguing over measures designed to save a few hundred million dollars, while over at Defence they're just shredding—and I mean shredding—billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. We have a rogue organisation—there is no nice way to put that—across the lake at Russell Offices. They take taxpayers' money and simply throw it away, with no accountability for their actions. What's new? There is no accountability for their actions, whether they are Defence or senior public servants, on waste of taxpayers' money. By the way, they still stay in their jobs. God! In fact, the truth is they're over there patting themselves on the back, saying what a great job they've done in wasting your money.

Also, while they're doing that, they're going: 'Whoa-ho! Let's nominate each other for the Order of Australia and other honours.' They love doing that stuff. Look at the Secretary of the Department of Defence. He just got one. He's responsible for the debacle I just described. Instead of punishing him, we give him medals. That's what we have done: we've given him medals. He, along with people like Major General Kathryn 'Robodebt' Campbell and Michael 'Political Text' Pezzullo, is devaluing the currency of these awards. That's what they're doing. These awards are worth—

There you go. Just give them awards. These awards—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, please take your seat. Senator Ciccone?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm always reluctant to interrupt Senator Lambie, but I would insist that she refer to the two individuals by their correct titles.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As much as it's going to kill me with Mr Moriarty—

It is killing me because, quite frankly, that's not how I feel.

This bill does something. It's a bill that introduces both technical oversight, like the very well respected US Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and a bit of—a bit of—political oversight of Defence, not nearly enough. You just don't learn, you people in here. In relation to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, or the DOTE, as they are known, the reports they do are honest and publish the real state of US projects, not the snow job which—I'm putting it politely—we get at estimates. When I want to know what's going on with US equipment used by the ADF, I go to the DOTE reports. How embarrassing! I've got to go to their reports instead of our own. But it's better than nothing, I guess.

This bill, as much as it does not go nearly far enough, is about as good as it's going to get at this present time. I thank the committee for doing this inquiry, but what is really needed here is a major rethink; it is a major rethink. I cannot believe how many people that are in these major parties here at times are comfortable with a billion dollars being wasted, because, quite frankly, it is absolutely shameful. But what's even more shameful is that you are putting at risk our service men and women if they have to go to war, let alone the national security of this country.

What is needed is a hell of a lot more transparency. Defence is another organisation that is overly secretive for no reason but to cover its own behind, and it's secrecy that serves to hide all manner of all the projects since. All too often we see a project that is working perfectly one week being cancelled the next on account of long-term failures. I'll be supporting Senator Fawcett's bill and I congratulate him for doing it.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the short time that I have to speak, I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2024, and I commend my colleague and friend Senator David Fawcett for his initiative on this matter. There is no-one, I think, in Australia that has more passion for test and evaluation and is more knowledgeable on the military requirements for this.

The bottom line is that the ADF, after 20 years, have still failed to implement their test and evaluation policies. For those who are not familiar with the expression T&E, it is a structured process for obtaining objective information on both the risk and the quality of the materiel, the equipment and the armaments that our Defence Force use. In plain English, it means ensuring that the complex and dangerous equipment that our ADF personnel use are as safe as we can make them for our personnel on operations, on deployments and also in training.

As formerly both the Minister for Defence and Army adjutant general with responsibility for capability assurance processes, I know that there is nothing more important than getting this right. I also know that the current system is chronically underfunded, it is often performed in a perfunctory way and, we heard in the inquiry, staff often pulled their punches for fear that the answers they got might impact on the schedule and perhaps the cost.

The bill creates an independent statutory body responsible for these processes, the details of which are in the bill. This approach of having risk assessment conducted independently, I think, is a very sound one, and it is an approach that our AUKUS allies have adopted. In particular, in the United States this process and having this independent assurance agency have actually made capability decisions faster, more reliable and more secure, and it is for these reasons I support this bill.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the bill has expired. The question is that the private senator's bill on defence capability assurance and oversight be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.