SPEECH BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE PROCUREMENT TO THE ADM CONGRESS

 

Subject: Keynote address held at the Hyatt Hotel, Canberra on 26 February 2008

 

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

 

Thank you Mark and Greg.

 

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

 

I am honoured to be here in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement and also as the representative of the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP. 

 

I am pleased to see that your event has drawn so many Defence and Industry luminaries. 

 

Not only does this forum bring us all together, but I hope it will provoke some new thinking in the areas of strategic policy and capability development, which may also help inform the Government in the development of its White Paper.  

 

With the range of Defence and senior industry spokespeople taking this podium at this year’s ADM Congress, it at the very least promises to be an informative and stimulating forum. 

 

Role of Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement

Today I want to spend some time outlining exactly what my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement is going to entail.

 

As the Parliamentary Secretary in this area I am formally responsible to the Minister for Defence for the following areas:

• The Defence Materiel Organisation;
• The efficiency and effectiveness of major capital equipment acquisition;
• Detailed analysis of and advice to the Minister on acquisition and sustainment issues generally;
• Contracting matters;
• Defence industry policy and maximising Australian industry involvement;
• Defence exports, and
• A number of programs run through DMO including the Skilling Australia Defence Industry (SADI) Program.

 

These were the administrative instructions received by me from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence.  As you can see these are some broad ranging responsibilities.  The Minster for Defence will be the decision maker at the end of the day but I will be advising him in relation to all of these areas. 

 

All of this fits within the wider strategic objective to deliver to the ADF the capability it needs, while at the same time delivering value for money for taxpayers.  In order to fulfil my roles I have developed a work program in my office comprising five keys categories.

 

·     Significant projects which are over budget and/or schedule

·     Current projects

·     Future procurement and sustainment projects

·     Ongoing reform of DMO

·     Enhancement of Australian industry capability

 

The first of these is the monitoring of projects that are suffering from slippages in schedule and/or cost.  I am sure many of you here today will be aware of some projects that would fall into this category.

 

I am conducting, in conjunction with the DMO, a review of these projects and providing advice to the Minister for Defence on the best way forward.  Top of my list for this review process are the Seasprite Helicopters. These helicopters are already six years late and there are still a number of issues that need to be worked through.

 

There are also a number of other projects suffering from similar problems. Basically my job here, and it is an early priority of my work, is to get across the detail of the projects so that I can provide advice to the Minister for Defence, who is the ultimate decision maker in these areas.

 

I have seen some fairly radical reporting of some of these projects within the media and today I just wanted to inject a bit of realism into the public debate surrounding them. 

 

Firstly, it is important to note that these are generally what we call legacy projects.  By this I mean that are projects that predate important Kinnaird reforms that have been made within the procurement process.  For example, after the commencement of many of these projects we have seen the implementation of improved cost and schedule estimation, a reduction in ‘scope creep’ and the introduction of the two-pass system of Government approvals.   These reforms have clearly made enormous progress in the efficiency and professionalism of procurement decisions and management.

 

Secondly, a lot of the projects where there are problems are also developmental and involve some leading edge technology.  Military forces and many corporations worldwide have been challenged by the high technical risk and cost/schedule uncertainty associated with such projects.

 

This of course is not to say that I believe the performance of some of these projects should be excused. They should not be.  I am however keen to inject some reality into the some of the media reporting on these projects and some perspective to the DMO’s performance. 

 

The fact is that DMO delivers the vast majority of its programs on budget and on time. I think sometimes DMO receives a lot of negative media attention when something happens that is not to plan, but little attention for projects it has successfully pursued and implemented.

 

In many of these problematic acquisitions the Government is faced with complex legal and commercial arrangements that bind the Commonwealth and limit our options, but we are considering of the issues.

 

We also are dealing with many projects that remain critical to the ADF’s future war-fighting ability.

 

Therefore I want to moderate some of the more fevered media speculation that the Government will be cutting a large number of projects.

 

I noted with some interest a report in the Sun Herald in NSW just last Sunday, the 24 February, in which it was speculated that the following projects would be cut:

• Super Hornets
• Abrams Tanks
• Air Warfare Destroyers
• Amphibious Ships
• Seasprite
• FFG Adelaide Class Frigates 
• JSF

 

And a host of others were all subject to speculation that the Government was going to chop the lot.  And I want to state clearly to you this is not the case. And please take that message. We will be reviewing these things where there are issues of concerns, but in many of the projects I have just identified there are no immediate issues of concern. 

 

What is important is that the Government examines these projects in a thoughtful and considered manner, which is one of my key roles.  One thing that has struck me is that the previous Government appeared to be unwilling, or perhaps unable, to get across the detail of many of these so called problem projects.

 

With projects of the size and importance that we are talking about the Rudd Government is keen to make sure we are engaged and provide the necessary direction and support.

 

That is why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence felt it was wise to have, for the first time, a Parliamentary Secretary who was tasked with the issue of Defence Procurement.  I certainly know that the Minister for Defence is very committed to ensuring this area is handled professionally and I am keen to provide him the necessary advice and support he needs for this task.

 

I believe it is also important that we not only work towards a resolution of some of the problem projects but also learn from some of the mistakes of the past.

 

From my examination of these projects so far I can say that much of the delays and cost pressures are due to the following factors:

·       The technically challenging nature of the capability being sought;

·       Incorrect or inadequate cost/schedule forecasts;

·       Failure to deliver against agreed schedules by both domestic and foreign contractors;

·       Increases in the cost of labour and materials;

·       Delays in project approval or contract formation;

·       Variations to scope, or

·       Delay in platform upgrades due to the heightened ADF operational tempo.

 

Therefore it is part of my role to devise reforms to the procurement process to ensure, where possible, that we avoid making the same errors in the future and much of that work has been done due to the reforms already enacted.

 

Another lesson that I have learnt, and which now seems obvious, is that it is incredibly difficult to integrate very modern military systems into old and dated platforms.  This is something that the Government will be considering when we approach our future procurement projects. 

 

So that is part one of my work plan.

 

The second category of work I will be involved with is the monitoring of current projects. I want to get across the detail of some of the larger projects that are currently being engaged in by the DMO, including the acquisition of the Air Warfare Destroyer and the Amphibious Ships.  I will also be monitoring the acquisition of the New Air Combat Capability, which I will touch on a little later.

 

The third task is to monitor forthcoming projects.  I again will be familiarising myself with the details of major upcoming projects so that I can report to the Minister for Defence.  Some of the projects that I am currently examining include the proposed new submarine capability and some of the future projects in the Land Domain.

 

My fourth task, as I have already foreshadowed, is to continue the reform process within the DMO.  One of the key elements I see in any future reform program is the current CEO of DMO, Dr Stephen Gumley. In my short time as Parliamentary Secretary I have already grown to greatly admire his talent, capacity and the contribution he has made.  Therefore I will be keen for him to play a central role in a future program of reforms.

I will be consulting widely as I possibly can on a program of reforms that I will take to the Minister, however one area that I am interested in hearing more about is the capacity to consider and utilise private public partnerships. I do not come with a pre-formed opinion on the use of PPPs or private finance in this area but I am willing to at least examine the options.  I was surprised to see that the former Government and Minister never gave any serious thought to this issue.

 

As many of you will be aware, Labor committed at the previous election to a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of reforms to the DMO that were implemented following the 2003 Review of Defence Procurement.

 

I will be writing to the Defence Procurement Advisory Board seeking their evaluation of the effectiveness of the reforms to date. This evaluation will help the Government form a future reform program for defence procurement. I have met with the head of the Defence Procurement Advisory Board, David Mortimer, on this issue and he has indicated that he will be pleased to receive from the Government.

 

The final key task within my office will be in the area of Defence Industry, especially the promotion of Australian industry in acquisition, sustainment and exports.

 

This will obviously be one of the topics I will be covering in depth here today but first I would like to touch on some broader issues.

 

Defence Budget

Fulfilling the future capability requirements of the ADF will require a lot of money.  This is why the Government is committed to maintaining the Defence budget at its current level of approximately $22 billion and continuing three per cent real increases until 2016. 

 

Having said that, it would be wrong to think that the Government will not be demanding a lot of Defence in terms of performance, and we will be looking to ensure efficiency in all programs.  Every dollar wasted is a dollar not available to support the ADF. As a Government we cannot allow that to happen on our watch and will be a lot more proactive than the previous Government in dealing with issues of waste and inefficiency.

 

The next decade will see more than $100 billion worth of business being undertaken in the procurement and sustainment areas, with approximately 65 to 70 per cent of this to be spent in Australia. 

 

Also over the next 10 to 15 years, 80 per cent of the ADF’s war-fighting equipment will need to be either replaced or upgraded.  The DMO and Defence industry will have a major role to play in this ADF transformation. 

 

This is a pivotal period in the strategic development of future capabilities of the ADF.  The decision taken over the next two years will set the pace for some considerable period of time. It is very important that we get the strategic context right and that the funding is there to support the decisions taken.

 

Recognising the importance of this area the Government will play a key leadership role in ensuring that our capability requirements are realistic and aligned with our strategic guidance. 

 

And that is one of the reasons for the need to review our strategy in a new Defence white paper.

 

White Paper

As the Minister for Defence has made clear this is one of the Government’s highest priorities.  We are absolutely committed to reviewing and redefining Australia’s strategic direction. 

 

As many of you would be aware the Minister outlined the process that the Government will be proceeding with for the White Paper last week.

The Defence Deputy Secretary, Michael Pezzullo, has been appointed as the principal author of the White Paper. The Minister has also appointed an Advisory Panel to provide him with external advice on key issues associated with the White Paper, and to work with Mr Pezzullo. The Panel, will comprise three leading Australian strategists, Professor Ross Babbage, Major General Peter Abigail (Retd), and Dr Mark Thomson.

 

I have great respect for both the author and the panel members and I am looking forward to their production of this vital and much needed document for the Government.

 

You will know that Australia’s security environment has changed so much in recent times, but that the last Defence White Paper was developed in the late 1990s and released in 2000.

 

That’s eight years ago and I’d invite you to consider the changes that have occurred in that time. There have been many shifts in the global distribution of power, not to mention the events of September 11; subsequent terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali and Jakarta; the increasing volatility in the Middle East including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; widespread international concern at the proliferation of nuclear weapons; the emerging fragile states in the South West Pacific; as well as the rising tensions in the Taiwan Straits. 

 

This changed security environment, as well as the developing technologies and the evolving nature of military operations generally, demands that we reassess Australia’s strategic outlook in order to determine the future role of the ADF. 

 

The Government’s priority is to develop the new Defence White Paper, which, in turn, will guide the ADF’s force structure and its capability requirements. 

 

In this context, while we are developing the White Paper, there will be no public version of the Defence Capability Plan released this year.  The Government is, in the first instance, primarily focused on defining Australia’s strategic direction. 

 

However, I want to assure you, that this will not lead to – and nor should it be used as an excuse for – a hiatus or pause in the current level of activity in terms of defence capital equipment projects and in supporting equipment that’s already in service.  Sustainment programs will continue, and current pre-first pass work will continue. 

 

The Air Combat Capability Review

As part of our determination to ensure that capability and our strategic direction are properly aligned the Minister has announced an Air Combat Capability Review.

 

The review will examine the adequacy of plans for the development of Australia’s air combat capability to 2045 and it will feed into the new Defence White Paper.

 

It will assess current plans for the transition from the F-111 and F/A-18 to the F/A-18 Super Hornet and Joint Strike Fighter and

consider a range of issues including costs, capability and support. 

 

The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will assess;

·       Australia’s Air Combat Capability requirements in the period 2010 to 2015;

·       The feasibility of retaining the F-111 aircraft in service beyond 2010;

·       A comparative analysis of aircraft available to fill any gap that may be left by the withdrawal of the F-111; and

·       The status of plans to acquire the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

 

The second stage of the review will consider trends in Asia-Pacific air power until 2045 and the relative capabilities of current and projected fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter. The review will also examine the case for and against acquiring the F-22 Raptor.

 

A senior Defence civilian, Mr Neil Orme, First Assistant Secretary Policy Development, will lead the review.  A steering group comprising senior officials from key Government Departments will oversee the conduct of the review.

 

This review is critical for the new Government as we need to make sure that the right decisions have been made.  Many of you would be aware of the controversy that surrounded the former Minister for Defence’s decision to purchase the Super Hornet. This is not the way these decisions should be made.

 

The Government is therefore keen to ensure that we perform the rigorous evaluation of our air combat capability that the former Government did not. 

 

Also I am sure that many of you would be aware of the controversy over the debate between the purchase of the JSF Strike Fighter over the F-22.  Indeed given some of the meetings that I have already had since beginning in this role I know that not only are you aware of this debate but that you all have very strong views on it.

 

Again the former Government did not engage in this debate in an appropriate manner. It did not apparently even ask the United States if the F-22 Raptor would be available to Australia.

 

As a new Government we need to ensure that a rigorous and considered process is conducted.

 

I of course am not directly involved in the review and do not in any way claim to be an expert in this area.  However, I would like to make a few comments from observations I have made.

 

Firstly, on the Super Hornet, I want to be clear today that the Government is not engaged in this review in order to attack the capabilities of this aircraft.  We have ordered the review due to the process that led to the decision being taken.

 

However, the Super Hornet itself is a very capable aircraft and if the Government was to proceed with the decision to purchase it, it would make a very worthwhile addition without doubt to our air combat capability.

 

As you are aware, the Foreign Military Sales contract for the acquisition of this aircraft and associated equipment was signed by the previous government.  Therefore the review is also going to have to consider exactly how far the previous Government has already committed us to this purchase.

 

On the issue of the JSF versus the F-22 Raptor, I reiterate that this review was not called to attack the capabilities of the JSF.  Instead the new Government, especially given the magnitude of this decision, wants to ensure that correct procedures have been followed and the best possible capability attained.

 

On the JSF I see a lot of misinformed commentary. It is a highly sophisticated aircraft possessing stealth technology, significant payload capability and the capacity to link with other force capabilities operated by the ADF and our allies.  It is also a true multi-role aircraft that is capable in both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions.

 

One of the current prohibitions of purchasing the F-22 Raptor is US legislation that prohibits its export. The former Government does not seem to have broached this issue with the US instead citing that as a reason not to consider this issue.  This again was an error in process. You can not seriously claim to have made an informed decision as a Government without at least making sure you have the widest list of options available to you. 

 

This is why the Minister for Defence has on the weekend discussed with the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates the availability of the F-22 Raptor to Australia.  As you are aware Mr Gates has provided some information to the Minister on the most appropriate way for Australia to request this access.

 

I do note comments made by Senior Defence Officials in Senate estimates last week that even if this information is gained Australia would likely be required to fund an expensive development program to meet US-F22 export requirements. This is something we as a Government will need to consider within this review along with the other arguments that have been made about their relative capabilities. 

 

That is dealing with some of the issues in a brief manner, but I hope it gives you some guidance into the Government’s thinking on this issues and the review that has been ordered by the Minister.  We look forward to the considerations of Mr Orme.

 

Australian Defence Industry

If I could now turn to Australian Defence Industry.

 

Maintaining a strong and effective ADF will require growth in both the capacity and capabilities of the Australian Defence industry sector.  The Government wants to ensure that Australian industry, including Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are given every opportunity to compete for work, based on open, transparent and accountable processes. 

 

We should acknowledge that there have been some good news stories and successes on the procurement front.  I’m very pleased to see many representatives of local Defence industry here today.  Many Australian companies – large and small – have made crucial and positive contributions to major Defence projects. 

 

Of particular note, are Australian companies that have delivered on the rapid acquisition of new equipment and services in support of our deployed forces, at a time of high operational tempo. On behalf of the Government I thank you for that. The Government acknowledges the timeliness and responsiveness of industry in supporting these rapid acquisitions. 

 

I also want to acknowledge the many companies that work tirelessly away from media spotlight that tends to fall on the bigger purchases of ‘defence kit’ - companies that provide through-life support for our equipment, companies that provide specialist engineering and other ‘smart’ technology services.

 

It is also notable that some of the equipment provided to the ADF by Australian firms is now capturing the attention of military forces and planners worldwide – the Bushmaster is just one example of the export potential of Australia’s Defence industry.

 

To recognise this potential, at last month’s Pacific 2008 event, I launched with Terry Whelan the Defence Export Unit, within the DMO.  This initiative has been designed to assist and facilitate Australian Defence industry companies to enter into the global Defence supply network. 

 

Defence Industry Policy

The new Government will be examining the current defence industry policy settings over the coming year but it is worth re-stating some of the basic tenets of our defence policy as it relates to industry. 

 

The Government seeks a healthy defence industry sector because it creates highly skilled jobs, generates investment and contributes to our overall economic development and growth.  We need a healthy defence sector in order to protect our national security interests.

 

We want Australia to be as self-reliant in this area as possible.  We accept, of course, that we cannot design and manufacture in Australia all of the equipment that the ADF requires - at least not economically and efficiently. 

 

So, apart from a few critically important industry capabilities that we have to sustain in Australia where we might accept a higher cost, a competitive defence industry is what is needed - competitive because that brings with it cost-effectiveness and value for money and reduces our cost of ownership.

 

On our initial look at defence expenditure, we have some concern at where costs are heading.  Defence is not immune to inflationary pressures, but the cost of sustainment, which is running at four or five billion dollars a year is one area that we want to pay particular attention to. 

 

I have asked Dr Gumley to look at this to see if we can do better - to see if there can be savings from better managing areas such as minimum orders, level loading and production schedules, and eliminating potentially wasteful practices such as “stockpiling” in the run-up to the end of the financial year.

 

But it is not only the DMO that needs to perform.  We also want contractors to perform on cost and to schedule.

 

I am concerned with trends in the cost of sustainment and urge companies to show restraint in adding to costs, and to work openly and innovatively with the DMO on reviewing and reducing underlying drivers of cost. 

 

One of the greatest challenges facing Australian industry, which we have all heard about, is the current skills shortage.  We all currently operate in a strong labour market where competition is intense. 

 

From my conversations with some companies I realise that there are significant wage pressures, due to skill shortages, that are generating potential wage increases and settlements in the order of approximately 8 to 12 per cent at the higher skill levels.  Industry will need to understand that in relation to this issue, it is interesting for me to be in this position given my past, but you need to understand the Government will not simply wear cost blow outs of this dimension – we will do everything we can to relieve supply side of the market to support the development of a skilled workforce to take that pressure out.  But you must attend to cost control where you can and productivity improvements to alleviate raising labour costs. That is a message we mean and please take note of it.

 

As I stated earlier, while the Government has pledged to continue the three per cent annual real growth in the defence equipment budget through to 2016, this will require a corresponding growth in the workforce if we are to sustain or grow the current level of Australian industry involvement.

 

If we do not increase our professional and trade skills training, we will face the prospect of seeing more and more work going offshore and the erosion of our technological edge. 

 

I am pleased to note that many Defence companies have training programs and many have availed themselves of government assistance programs.  I intend to look closely at the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry program (or SADI as it is known) to see how we can advance and enhance its outcomes. 

 

The SADI program is an initiative designed to address the shortfall of engineers, specialist technicians, key trades people and project managers.  Basically companies can apply for the Department to contribute money towards the training and skills development of a company’s employees.  I would encourage companies here today who are interested in such a program to get contact with the DMO and to utilise that program.  If there is a need to build it further I will argue for its enhancement.

 

I have also received the report and recommendations of the Defence Joint Training Task Force and I am currently considering those proposals.

 

In the meantime, I would encourage Australian industry to utilise the assistance that is already available, as the sooner we make the investment in training, the better prepared we will be to meet the challenges. 

 

I have already mentioned the SADI program which comes under my responsibility. Another program of note for industry is the Rapid Prototype Development and Evaluation program or RPDE.  RPDE is a joint organisation formed to help Defence and industry work together to come up with solutions to problems that often appear early in the procurement process.  Registered participants are asked to consider a particular problem and work together contributing their own skill set to come up with a solution.

 

This is a great program for industry to demonstrate and harness your skills in innovative and creative design, and I encourage companies that are not registered to become involved by contacting the RPDE program.

 

Other measures the new Government will take to improve the Defence and industry relationship include the implementation of new systems to provide better access to information on minor capital projects and formalise the assessment processes for unsolicited capability proposals submitted by industry.  We will also improve the links between DSTO and Australian Defence companies to ensure better technology transfer to Australian industry.

 

SMEs

If I could now touch on the important role that SMEs play within our Defence Industry.

 

SMEs are often the drivers of innovation in this industry and a vibrant and efficient Australian Defence Industry will require a well supported base of SMEs.

 

Over 3000 SMEs are involved in supplying Defence, including many in regional areas and many are at the innovative end of the spectrum.  Many SMEs have niche capabilities that Defence relies upon.

 

As a Government, we are committed to encouraging SMEs in their endeavours.  In the lead up to the recent elections, we released our Plan for Defence in which we emphasised our preference for Australian content and our intention to require tenderers to develop detailed strategies for involving Australian industry to the greatest possible extent.  We intend to back this up with new reporting obligations and I will speak more about this in a few moments.

 

As the larger suppliers will be busy with the increase in demand over the next decade, Australia will need more SMEs to become involved throughout the Defence supply chain. 

 

The Government is also keen to encourage more effective integration of SMEs into the prime contracts on major projects. 

 

Australian Industry Capability Program

And on that note, today I would like to take the opportunity to launch a couple of the key elements of the Australian Industry Capability (AIC) program.

 

You may be aware the AIC program is designed to ensure that Australian industry has the capabilities and capacity needed to support the ADF’s operational capability; both now and in the future. That is the fundamental objective of the program. It also aims to help include Australian Industry’s opportunities when working with the global primes.

 

You may also be aware that at the last election Labor committed to emphasise preference for Australian content and require tenderers to develop detailed strategies for involving Australian industry to the greatest possible extent.

 

In light of that commitment, I am pleased to announce today the release of updates to the Defence Procurement Policy Manual.  These updates reflect a requirement for prime tenderers to show how they have engaged Australian industry, how they have checked the capabilities offered by Australian companies, and how they have assessed their competitiveness. That will be a requirement of the tendering process.

 

Under these changes prime contractors will also be required to show how Australian industry will be able to gain opportunities to access the global supply chains of their large prime contractors.  This again will need to be spelt out in the tender documentation.

 

If the prime contractors are successful with their tender they will be required to implement these strategies and this will form part of their contractual obligations.

 

This will help Australian industry get a fairer go, for high value acquisitions.  This is about us using the leverage available through procurement contracts to secure the right for Australian companies to bid into the global supply chains of the large primes.

 

It does not mean that we should not have a competitive and effective Australian Defence Industry. We must – that is a baseline expectation. But this is an important consideration in the tender and contracting process. 

 

We have an expectation that prime contractors will use Australian companies where they are competitive and offer value for money.

 

Furthermore, we expect these prime contractors to take competitive Australian companies into their international supply chains as well. 

 

Defence will report on performance in this area, and we will look favourably, in terms of future contracts, at prime contractors who take this responsibility seriously.

 

To complement the updates to the Defence Procurement Policy Manual, an AIC Practitioners’ Information and Tool Kit will be published electronically to assist industry and Defence to implement the objectives of the program.  These can be accessed through the DMO website now.

 

The DMO has already been working on implementing elements of the AIC program into existing projects. 

 

Outcomes have already been achieved.  For example, Boeing and the DMO have signed an agreement that will deliver opportunities for Australian Defence companies to join Boeing’s global supply chain. 

 

You may have seen that Australian Technology Information Pty Ltd (ATI) has won a Boeing contract to develop technology and provide subject matter expertise for tactical data links such as Link-16. 

 

I would like to assure you that the AIC policy is not set in stone.  It will be shaped over the next six to twelve months with further consultation, and not least by the new White Paper.  As I have said previously I do want to hear what you, industry, have to say about programs such as this.  Through open dialogue we will continue to shape Defence and industry policy.

 

Conclusion

These are early days, but the Minister for Defence and I are determined to work closely with you in Defence industry and with the DMO to ensure we can supply and support the sailors, soldiers and airmen and women who put their lives on the line in order to protect our national security.  But I would underline this by saying while we intend to continue funding Defence well, we are looking for value for money.

 

I will obviously be working closely with the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). You’ll be hearing later this morning from the Chief Executive Officer, Dr Gumley and as I have already indicated I have great faith in Dr Gumley’s leadership of the DMO and the team below him.

 

Let me close today by saying how proud I am at being Australia’s Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement and how much I look forward to working with the DMO and Defence industry to support the extremely important role of the ADF. 

 

As I have outlined, we face a series of challenges in the years ahead, but I am confident that we can move forward together.

 

Finally, I wish you a fruitful two days and thank you for allowing me to be part of this year’s ADM Congress. 

 

 

Media contacts:

Rod Hilton (Greg Combet):  02 6277 4771 or 0458 276 619

Defence Media Liaison:                     02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664