This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Defence & foreign affairs
Australia would get a new independent Defence Capability Assurance AgencyThe new body the bill would create to independently test major Defence projects and report on risks before and after purchase. to test major Defence equipment and assess risks before and after it is bought, upgraded and kept in service.
Repeated audit and parliamentary reviews exposed Defence's poor, inconsistent use of testing and evaluation, leaving procurement risks poorly identified and managed as capability demands grew faster. The bill creates an independent assurance agency and inspector-general to require risk checks and audits across projects so problems can be acted on earlier.
As Australia shifted to a more urgent national defence posture and repeated scrutiny kept exposing weak, inconsistent testing and risk reporting in Defence procurement, pressure grew for earlier independent checks on major projects. The bill answered that by proposing a standalone assurance agency and inspector-general to assess capability risks across acquisition and sustainment, but despite passing the Senate with amendments it stalled in the House and lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in March 2025.
The main case against the bill was that it would create extra Defence bureaucracy, cost and red tape by setting up new oversight bodies on top of reforms already under way. That criticism was mainly raised by the government, while other senators mostly backed the bill but sought amendments to tighten how the scheme would operate.
Senator David Fawcett introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
688 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would get a new independent Defence Capability Assurance AgencyThe new body the bill would create to independently test major Defence projects and report on risks before and after purchase. to test major Defence equipment and assess risks before and after it is bought, upgraded and kept in service.
Defence decision-makers would have to receive independent risk reports throughout a project, so weapons buys can be changed, delayed or cancelled earlier when problems appear.
The bill would set up an Inspector-General of Defence Capability AssuranceThe audit office the bill would create to check whether the new agency and Defence are using the assurance system properly and reporting risks openly. to audit whether Defence is using the new agency properly and openly reporting procurement risks up the chain.
The bill would let the new agency use an Australian industry partner for training and standards, but that partner could not use those standards to shut out rival defence suppliers.
This Bill creates an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the complex risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment, including but not limited to technical risks pertaining to performance and certification. This body will be established as the Defence Capability Assurance Agency (DCAA). The purpose of the DCAA is to:Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight explanatory memorandum
Not only must reports be created and shared, the Bill requires that the DCAA is integrated into meetings where decision-makers for Defence capabilities are considering matters relating to the capability so that it may provide recommendations or advice relating to capability assurance directly, preventing inadvertent or deliberate interpretation of advice and recommendations. It is intended that decision-making committees within Defence will include on their agenda briefings by the DCAA to highlight identified risk where relevant and to answer questions related to the efficacy of any proposed mitigations or other risk treatments. DCAA participation will provide confidence to the decisions-makers regarding the independence of reporting and the freedom from overt or unintended bias or influence.Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight explanatory memorandum
The Inspector-General of Defence Capability Assurance (IGDCA) is established to inspect and to provide assurance of the timely and effective engagement by Defence with the DCAA. The IGDCA also provides assurance that defence has incorporated rules and adopted practice such that there is timely and transparent disclosure of identified risk to all levels of decision-makers involved in capability development and procurement activities and that risk has been appropriately managed.Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight explanatory memorandum
… in maintaining, developing and regulating workforce and infrastructure standards as mentioned in subsection 11(2), does not inhibit effective competition for the defence industry sector to deliver services required by the agency in the performance of its functions.Second reading speech
Context
As Australia shifted to a more urgent national defence posture and repeated scrutiny kept exposing weak, inconsistent testing and risk reporting in Defence procurement, pressure grew for earlier independent checks on major projects. The bill answered that by proposing a standalone assurance agency and inspector-general to assess capability risks across acquisition and sustainment, but despite passing the Senate with amendments it stalled in the House and lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in March 2025.
Defence Strategic ReviewThe review that argued Australia needed a faster, sharper defence posture, which raised the pressure to improve how major projects are checked. calls for a major defence pivot
The review said Australia faced a more volatile strategic environment and needed a sharper, faster national defence posture, raising the stakes for getting major capability decisions right.
Australian Financial Review ↗Bill introduced in the Senate to create independent capability oversight
Senator Fawcett introduced the bill to set up a new assurance agency and inspector-general after concerns that Defence was not consistently identifying and managing procurement risk.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate debate centres on Defence procurement failures and oversight gaps
During the second reading debate, supporters argued independent test-and-evaluation was needed to catch problems earlier while the government said the proposal would duplicate existing functions and add complexity.
Hansard ↗Senate passes the bill with amendments
The Senate agreed to the bill at third reading after adopting amendment packages, sending the proposed new oversight model on to the House of Representatives.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill introduced in the House of Representatives
The bill began its House stage, but it did not secure the further support needed to complete Parliament and become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The proposal fell away at dissolution, leaving Defence capability assurance and procurement oversight to existing arrangements rather than the new statutory bodies the bill would have created.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (11/05/2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (24/11/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it would create extra Defence bureaucracy, cost and red tape by setting up new oversight bodies on top of reforms already under way. That criticism was mainly raised by the government, while other senators mostly backed the bill but sought amendments to tighten how the scheme would operate.
Opposition was limited; most concern focused on duplication and implementation design rather than the goal of better procurement oversight.
Extra bureaucracy and cost
Critics argued the bill would duplicate existing and planned Defence testing, assurance and oversight work, adding new agencies, extra process and expense without solving procurement problems better than reforms already in train.
Scheme needed tighter safeguards
Some supporters signalled the bill should not pass unchanged, arguing the new agency needed clearer guardrails on conflicts, public interest and human rights, and a better-designed oversight structure to make the model work properly.
Further sources
Votes
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
The Senate agreed on voices to Senator Fawcett's changes, which removed references to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on DefenceThe parliamentary oversight committee the bill would have created or repurposed to monitor the new assurance system and related defence capability work., substituted a parliamentary joint statutory committee with defence oversight, and added a competition safeguard for defence industry agreements.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed on voices to the Greens' changes, which required the Agency to have regard to Australia's human rights obligations and the public interest, and to take reasonable steps to avoid contracting with people or entities whose interests could conflict with proper performance of the Agency's functions.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The parliamentary record also shows 7 Senator Fawcett amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
David Fawcett supports the bill and says Australia needs an independent defence capability assurance agencyThe new body the bill would create to independently test major Defence projects and report on risks before and after purchase. because internal reform has not worked consistently and current procurement risk advice is not reliable enough.
Read in Hansard ↗Brown says the government will not support the bill because it would add duplication, cost and red tape to Defence capability testing and oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge says the Greens will support the bill, but only with amendments, because Defence procurement badly needs an independent, accountable test-and-evaluation process.
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock supports the bill and says stronger independent oversight, risk checks and transparency would help stop wasteful defence procurement and give Australian companies a fairer chance.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“That is why the government will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“I look forward to the contributions of other senators to this second reading debate. Obviously, we don't have time today to bring this to the second reading vote and the committee stage, but I have distributed amendments that reflect this supplementary explanatory memorandum and I look forward in the New Year to being able to complete this debate and bring forward this change for the benefit of Australia's national security.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I can't wait to vote for this. There is only upside if this is supported. The only reasons this wouldn't be supported are vested interests and pressure from the same groups that pressure the people who are doing testing and evaluation at the moment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill proposes a number of important reforms that should be considered in relation to Australia's future defence procurement and capability. Senator Fawcett and I both sit on that Senate committee which inquired into this bill, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and, following the evidence heard in the committee hearings, it is the view of coalition senators that this bill be amended and passed. Like I said, this is an excellent bill, and the Senate should be agreeing to it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“The Greens have amendments to this bill which will put in human rights considerations, public interest considerations and more thorough conflict-of-interest provisions. We would hope for support for those provisions, which should be contained in defence procurement. Of course they should. But if you want to think of just one reason in the current political debate to support this bill, I give you the Hunter class frigates. It is now a $45 billion contract. It's probably gone up to $50 billion. They didn't assess risk. They didn't assess value for money. They're still trying to work out how to build the thing so it doesn't topple over in a heavy sea. It's likely to be almost unusable in any kind of modern conflict, because it's undergunned and underpowered. It's meant to be an antisubmarine warfare vessel, but it's now a bit of everything. It's like a modern-day Bradley fighting machine, brought to you by the Australian defence procurement process. The Hunter class frigate program in itself and the most recent independent review that I've spoken about before in this chamber are a case study in, 'If not this bill, then what?' So, yes, we'll support the bill. We can't bear the prospect of seeing more hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds going into this big dark hole to produce the kind of appalling results we've seen to date.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“We need procurement reform to give our sovereign defence industry greater certainty and to help local firms build with confidence into the future. I thank Senator Fawcett for his work on this and for bringing this bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (24/11/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (11 May 2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (24 Nov 2023)
APH bill page notes
