Chair's foreword

Now in its sixteenth year, the Major Projects Report (MPR) continues to be an important tool for Defence accountability and transparency. In 2022–23, the twenty projects contained in the MPR constitute around 31 per cent ($58.6 billion) of Defence’s total acquisition budget.

In adopting the annual MPR inquiries, the Committee establishes expansive terms of reference that allow it to consider any matters contained in and associated with the MPR. This year, the Committee paid attention to growing secrecy and the need to maintain transparency; the lessons learned process; Australian Industry Capability plans; the implementation of Defence’s risk management system; contingency statements and the continuing misalignment of contingency allocation with identified risks; and the use of terminology.

Further, the Committee examined scope creep in the context of the relationship between capability managers and delivery managers; discipline in the inclusion of off-the-shelf options in Defence procurements; the accuracy of the Battlefield Command System project data summary sheet (PDSS); and the future of the MPR itself. Two of these matters were the subject of the Auditor-General’s qualified conclusion (Battlefield Command System PDSS and lessons learned), and one the subject of the emphasis of matter (secrecy).

The Committee made four recommendations, which when implemented, will result in important corrections and introduce evolutions to the MPR process to improve its transparency and Defence’s accountability to the Parliament and the Australian public for what are large amounts of public expenditure.

Broadly, these recommendations deal with the reinstatement of lessons to PDSSs; reporting on improved governance and assurance processes; assessments of the full project costs of each project, including fundamental inputs to capability; and more clearly identifying scope, schedule and budget changes, both in-year and life-to-date for each project.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the previous chair, Hon Julian Hill MP, for his dedicated and skilled leadership of the Committee, and also the Deputy Chair, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC, for her commitment to the importance of public scrutiny and for the collegiate manner in which she actively participates in the work of the Committee. I also acknowledge the work and professionalism of the Committee secretariat in supporting this inquiry.

Hon Linda Burney MP
Chair