Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 40:00 to 44:27
Officials discuss the re-prioritization of defense projects within the Integrated Investment Program, addressing potential delays and budget shifts for major platforms.
Topics: Government spending, National security
Speakers: Robert Chipman, James Paterson, Meghan Quinn, Mark Hammond
supply chain constraints and the like. Um so it's impossible to rule out any change in uh timing and schedule um because there's plenty of things that intervene uh along the way.
>> Right. So you can't rule out further cuts to the hunter program.
>> I I can't rule out changes to any of the programs in the department.
>> Right. Um infantry fighting vehicles.
It'll be the same answer if you go through a list of the of the many hundreds of programs and projects >> orus. So we are working very hard to make sure that we don't have uh shifts in deliverables and milestones but we do not control all elements that affect the delivery of projects.
>> Right. Um what about the LHDs? What will there be retirement be brought forward?
>> So the same answer we go through all the projects we look at how they're tracking. We look at what the deliverables are how industry partners are managing uh and we assess uh what's happening and then we respond to the circumstances that we face. Okay. Uh I
may need the VCDF for the following questions which are in relation to the um I think what you call prioritizations uh what I call cuts in the IIP.
>> Senator, I will ask the Adel Hammond the chief defense force. I will ask um the vice chief to come forward to discuss the integrated investment program. I would note the article you refer to doesn't even get my rank right. It is not the only error. It is speculative. Uh and I fully support the secretary's comments. This is as you know this is my EO time of year here. Of course we are reviewing our budget and uh finalizing budget submissions this time of year.
>> Okay. I think journalists gave the government opportunity to comment and I'm not sure they uh took that opportunity to deny that but anyway um so BCDF when you last testified you told me that uh in the IIP there were 22 projects which had been either cut, descoped or delayed in the 2026 IP. Of those you said there were four that have been cut and we talked about one of those which is the Spartan and 18 which had been descoped or delayed. Can you now tell me which which of those four what are those four programs?
>> Uh Senator Air Marshall Rob Chipman vice chair of the defense force. I don't think I did use the term cut. We did use
the term it's my terminology. Use whatever terminology you prefer.
And can I say of the $5 billion that we were talking about over the forward estimates that we were seeking to free up through adjustments in our programmed activity, uh the vast majority of those were delays and rescoping of projects, reprofiling of their budget so that we could that that we could bring that money forward to higher priority investments. That was the intention of those adjustments. of that $5 billion about $500 million was realized through projects where we sought to uh divest those capabilities. Some examples of this which we have provided on notice acknowledging that that did come to you late uh was that we had a a couple of projects related to deployable infrastructure that we needed to support expeditionary air operations. One of those was a an a deployable hanger which in fact um we were not even in contract for. We had not even spoken to industry. It was an activity that we had programmed beyond the forward estimates. And as we look at the the priorities and the things that we seek to invest in, the nature of the way in which we will operate from Northern Australia, we have just come to the conclusion not that it's not necessary, not that it's not a capability that would bring value, but it's that it's a capability that is a lower priority than other things that we seek to invest in. And we made similar judgments around some deployable air traffic control facilities. The other discussion that we did have uh to an extent at our last hearing was around the C-27J Spartans and this is not a cutting capability. This is a transition from a platform that in our experience has not been value for money that that despite the fact that we have achieved extraordinary outcomes with that capability and and you know to the team at 35 squadron and Northrock Grman that are sustaining that capability. They are achieving wonderful things with that aeroplane, but is it an expensive airframe to operate for the outcomes that we get from it? And we are seeking to transition that to a more cost-ffective outcome.
>> Okay. So, I've got Spartans, hangers, and deployable uh air traffic control. I I do have specific questions about each of those, but that's only three.