The move to end the Major Projects Report is seen by critics as a reduction in public transparency, with ex-Defence official Marcus Hellyer warning that underreporting of performance and risks could go unchecked.

Defence policy analyst Marcus Hellyer calls it the end of transparency and accountability in Australia’s Defence Department, suggesting ministers and officials may avoid reporting poor performance.

Defence industry experts warn that ending the Major Projects Report signals less transparency and accountability in defence acquisition oversight.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) plans to work with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence to maintain scrutiny over the Defence portfolio using its statutory powers to pursue accountability for major public expenditures.

Historically, defence projects have run over budget and behind schedule; in 2024, the twenty biggest acquisitions were collectively more than 37 years behind schedule, underscoring ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability.

The committee intends to shift oversight toward detailed Auditor-General performance audits and develop a structured program that requires Defence to disclose information for examination.

Specifically, oversight will focus on the Auditor-General’s performance audits and require Defence to provide information for committee scrutiny, signaling a broader shift in scrutiny.

The opposition accuses current leadership of failing to uphold commitments to transparency, framing the changes as a setback for parliamentary oversight.

The Albanese Government defends the change as a structural adjustment, while opponents warn it could bypass public accountability by keeping deliberations out of public view.

Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson argues that Defence scrutiny will be weakened and calls for more oversight in a potentially riskier strategic environment.

Oversight of large defence projects may move to the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, centralizing scrutiny under a different body.

Dr. Marcus Hellyer contends the new arrangement could close public scrutiny by centralizing discussions within a closed committee, undermining accountability for big, costly projects.