Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (11.11 a.m.)—I will not trouble the parliamentary secretary with any additional questions at this stage, but in the brief time available to me I will add to the opposition’s contribution to the debate by flagging areas of concern in the appropriations. The first point is a recognition that we will spend in the order of $1.2 billion in the four-year projected period on our engagement in the war in Iraq. It has been a substantial exercise indeed, in circumstances where—I do not think I am unfairly verballing him—the Chief of the Defence Force has said that, as a result of these operational commitments, our dance card is pretty well full in terms of what further operational demands can be made on our defence forces.

I asked the question before—not in a hypothetical sense; I do not know their veracity or otherwise—about statements that Australia may be contemplating sending additional troops to Afghanistan. It just shows that in focusing on the war in Iraq to the extent of this commitment we may have restricted—or limited, at the very least—our ability to focus on what unquestionably are very significant events in our region, particularly in terms of the drug trade, which can reach our streets. Obviously, a re-emergence of the drug trade in Afghanistan has direct repercussions not only for security in our region but for law and order on our streets. All decisions have an opportunity cost, and obviously in making a decision as to where the cost is extended you need to consider the benefits from a national interest perspective. These issues obviously have to be factored into any decision-making process regarding ongoing involvement in the war in Iraq.

I raise this in the context of a number of issues that clearly have to be addressed in Australia. I asked a question about the efficiency dividend. I think we are entitled to ask those questions in the context of the nightmare, from an accounting point of view, of the defence budgets. We recognise that a lot of work has been done—but much more still needs to be done, and we are entitled to doubt whether that efficiency dividend will be obtained, given what has come before us.

I congratulate the Australian National Audit Office on their impartiality. I think it is very important that we have institutions such as that as part of our democratic system. The Audit Office asked questions with respect to equipment. For instance, pieces of equipment could not be found during the stocktake. We do not know—nor does Defence—whether those pieces of equipment are there somewhere or Defence has lost them, misplaced them or sent them off with the unit without accounting for them. When you have the Auditor-General raising such things, there are real questions as to whether the efficiency dividend is achievable.

In terms of some immediate problems that are confronting the Defence Force, the opposition have flagged in public comments our concerns about recruitment and turnover. I congratulate the defence forces for their honesty in conducting the Defence Force survey on the attitude of troops. But we saw in that survey that up to a third of our armed forces—the Air Force seemed to be doing a bit better—were contemplating their future in the Defence Force over the next 12 months. It was said in estimates that this may be a feature of generation Y, but I think it also indicates pressure. In that context, we as a community, and certainly as a parliament, may have to have regard to the salaries that we pay our defence forces. ASPI has recently done some work on how the rate of increase of defence force salaries has not kept pace with private sector salaries. These are issues that we have to address, but we also have to look in greater detail at what we are doing about our long-term capability plan. Certainly the procedures that have been put in place for approving projects are more effective but they have not been funded at the front end, so there is a delay there. We also believe that the government has not identified properly its long-term strategic priorities as to hardening of the Army, as against acquiring Joint Strike Fighters or acquiring air warfare destroyers. These things have to be done sooner rather than later and have to be appropriately funded from a long-term perspective.

Question agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio