After almost two decades, the Australian National Audit Office’s annual review of Defence’s major acquisition projects appears to be at an end.
With Defence withholding more and more information on its major equipment acquisitions, the Parliamentary Joint Committee (PJC) of Public Accounts and Audit has decided to draw a line.
“The Committee has resolved not to request the Department of Defence and Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) continue to produce the Major Projects Report,” it said in a media statement on Friday 13 March.
“However, maintaining scrutiny of Defence acquisition governance and performance by the Parliament remains imperative.”
The Committee said it would transition to a process where it examines in greater detail the ANAO performance audits conducted in the Defence portfolio. These are deep dives into particular projects, with three conducted last year.
The Committee will also decide in the coming months on a structured and robust program of scrutiny that will require Defence to furnish information to the Committee for its examination, it said.
The ANAO Major Projects Report has been produced since 2008, examining Defence’s major acquisition projects in considerable detail.
In the 2024-25 MPR, that was 21 projects, worth $81.5 billion and representing 32 per cent of the total Defence acquisition budget. Of that significant sum, $37.355 billion has been spent.
Once a source of information on defence procurement, the MPR is now disclosing less useful data in some key areas, especially in relation to in-year slippage (schedule delay) and estimates of when interim and final capabilities will actually be achieved.
That’s because Defence stipulates that some data is no longer for publication (NFP). However, Defence does supply that data to the ANAO for its analysis.
Defence justifies this secrecy on grounds that releasing this data “would or could reasonably be expected to cause damage to security, defence or international relations to the Commonwealth.”
That started back in the 2021-22 MPR, with data from four projects withheld from publication. In the most recent report, data on 19 projects was withheld.
The PJC said Defence acquisition projects were characterised by their high cost and the fact that completion within budget, to schedule and according to the intended capability remained challenging.
Back in 2008, the PJC expressed a view that greater transparency in Defence acquisitions was required.
At that time, there was an absence of clear, consistent and precise information on which to make an assessment about the status and history of troubled acquisition projects, it said. That led to the MPR.
Over the last 18 years, the PJC noted some improvements in Defence accountability and project governance, including in risk management, compliance reviews, budget reporting, records management, lessons, and oversight of projects of concern and projects of interest.
“While the need for scrutiny of Defence acquisition governance and performance remains as critical as it always has been, the means by which it best occurs has to evolve in the broader context of changing strategic circumstances where information on aspects of Defence acquisitions has become increasingly classified,” it said.
“In this context, the Committee has observed a steady reduction in the number of projects that can be reported on publicly through the Major Projects Report.
“As more capability programs become highly classified, the ability of the Parliament and the public to scrutinise major Defence acquisitions through a single consolidated report has been progressively constrained.”
The Committee said this trend had reinforced the need to adapt their approach to oversight to ensure meaningful scrutiny of Defence expenditures continues, even as the nature of the information involved becomes more sensitive.
When established, the Committee expects to work with the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence to ensure appropriate scrutiny of the Defence portfolio continues.
“As a statutory committee, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has wide ranging powers to self-refer inquiries and will make use of its powers and authorities to ensure there remains accountability for what are very significant public expenditures,” it said.