Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
Why has Defence chosen not to publish some information in this report?
For reasons of national security, Defence has not published some detailed project
performance information on some projects.
The Australian National Audit Office was supplied with all information that was deemed
not for publication so that they could conduct their assurance review.
It is important that the spending of public money remains transparent and accountable
but this must be achieved through processes that protect our Australian Defence Force
capability and people.
The Government will carefully consider future public reporting and ensure that it is
transparent and in the national interest.
Defence continues to publicly report on key acquisition and sustainment projects in the
Portfolio Budget Statements; Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements; and the
Defence Annual Report.
Has there been a ‘cost blowout’ for these projects?
Budget variations occur as a result of endorsed changes by Government to scope, real
cost changes, scope transfers between projects, and foreign exchange adjustments.
There have been no real cost increases in the 2021-22 financial year for the 21 projects
in the report.
Budget increases for some projects in previous financial years primarily related to
approved scope increases, including an additional 58 Joint Strike Fighters and an
additional 34 MRH90 Helicopters.
Why have some projects not reported forecast dates?
Some forecast dates were withheld on security grounds. Additionally, four projects did
not have forecast dates to be published as at 30 June 2022:
Future Submarines and the Hunter Class Frigate projects did not have Final Operational
Capability milestones approved by Government as at 30 June 2022.
The Final Operational Capability forecasts for the Medium and Heavy Vehicles project
and the Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement project were under review as at 30 June 2022
but will be available to support the 2022-23 Major Projects Report.
Why has Defence not addressed the audit recommendations outlined in the report?
Defence has addressed and closed a range of audit recommendations in the 2021-22
financial year, as recognised by the Australian National Audit Office in the 2021-22
Major Projects Report.
Defence continues to work towards addressing a small number of audit
recommendations that were identified in the 2021-22 Major Projects Report.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
Project Achievements in 2021-22
The Report highlights key achievements for Defence including:
The Maritime Operational Support Capability declared Initial Operational
Capability for the first Supply-class replenishment ship, HMAS
Supply, and
commissioned the second ship HMAS Stalwart in the Royal Australian Navy.
The gifting of two Guardian Class Patrol Boats to the Pacific Island Countries of
the Federated States of Micronesia and the Cook Islands.
The first Arafura Class Offshore Patrol Vessel NUSHIP Arafura was launched on 16
December 2021.
Treatment of Classified Information
The need to balance transparency, accountability and security is necessitating a change
in mindset and practice in the communication of Defence capability given the current
strategic environment.
It is important that the spending of public money remains transparent and accountable
but this must be achieved through processes that protect our capability and people.
Defence and the Government will carefully consider future public reporting and ensure
that it is transparent and in the national interest.
Defence continues to publicly report on key acquisition and sustainment projects in the
Portfolio Budget Statements; Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements; and the
Defence Annual Report.
Background
The 2021-22 Defence Major Projects Report was tabled in Parliament by the Auditor-
General on 9 February 2023.
The Report indicates that nothing has come to the attention of the Auditor-General to
suggest that the information provided by Defence in the Report has not been prepared
in accordance with the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit Guidelines.
The Major Projects Report is an annual Limited Assurance Review conducted by the
Australian National Audit Office in accordance with guidelines endorsed by the
Parliament’s Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit each year.
The 2021-22 Report focuses on 21 major Defence capital acquisitions being delivered
by the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and the Naval Shipbuilding and
Sustainment Group.
The Australian National Audit Office has identified the Civil-Military Air Traffic
Management System (AIR 5431 Phase 3) project as a Project of Concern in the Report,
as at 30 June 2022, as a result of the former Government’s direction to elevate the
project. However, the announcement strategy was not settled prior to the change in
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
Government. The Report does, however, correctly identify the Government’s
announcement of the elevation of this project to a Project of Concern in October 2022.
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit led an inquiry into matters contained
in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Major Projects Reports on 19 May 2023. Discussion
focused on COVID-19 impacts to project schedule delays; the timeline for the
announcement of the Civil-Military Air Traffic Management System project as a Project
of Concern and the overall suitability and format of the Major Projects Report.
Background - Treatment of Classified Information
In accordance with the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit Guidelines, the
Vice Chief of the Defence Force is accountable for assuring the security classification of
the project information within the Report is at the ‘unclassified’ level, including in
aggregate.
The review took into account the risk to national security should information disclose
an Australian Defence Force capability or identify a gap that could be used by foreign
agents or adversaries.
Defence assessed that some project information should not be published on security
grounds, which has resulted in the Australian National Audit Office not publishing a
complete analysis of schedule performance and including commentary to suggest that
Defence has reduced the level of transparency of performance information.
The Auditor-General has included an ‘Emphasis of Matter’ in his Independent
Assurance Report signifying that this element is significant for the reader’s
understanding.
Four of the 21 projects had some dates or schedule-related information withheld from
publication:
Offshore Patrol Vessel (SEA 1180 Phase 1) — some forecast dates and schedule
variances.
Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare
Capability (AIR 555 Phase 1) — original planned dates, forecast dates and
schedule variances.
Short Range Ground Based Air Defence (LAND 19 Phase 7B) — some current
contracted dates, forecast dates and schedule variances.
Jindalee Operational Radar Network (AIR 2025 Phase 6) — current contracted
dates, forecast dates and schedule variance.
Limited technical information was also withheld from publication for the New Air
Combat Capability (AIR 6000 Phase 2A/2B) project and the Maritime Communications
Modernisation (SEA 1442 Phase 4) project.
While the information is not published, it has all been reviewed by the Australian
National Audit Office.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate Estimates Hearing: 15 February 2023
In
QoN 32, MPR Costs Senator David Shoebridge (Australian Greens, New South Wales)
asked to be provided the table that identifies the different projects as against the ‘$6.5
billion cost blowout’? Item has been tabled.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
None identified.
Division:
Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
PDR No:
SB23-000388
Prepared by:
Cleared by:
Suzanne Kerrigan, Assistant Secretary,
Tom Brennan, Acting First Assistant
Independent Project and Portfolio
Secretary, Strategy, Planning and
Management Office
Independent Assurance Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 22 May 2023
Date: 22 May 2023
Consultation: Force Design Division
Date: 5 April 2023
Major General Anthony Rawlins, Head Force Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Design
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
N/A
Cleared by: Chris Deeble
Date: 22 May 2023
Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition and
Sustainment Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Estimates Question, 15 February 2023
2021-22 Major Projects Report
Senator David Shoebridge
Question
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Can you provide that table that identifies the different projects as
against the $6.5 billion cost blowout?
Mr Deeble: I can't provide that today but I can take that on notice and I can provide you with
that data.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Looking at it again this morning, I'd understood it to mean that the
$6.5 billion were cost blowouts not associated with increasing scope of projects but
associated with additional costs to meet the original scope of the projects. Is that how we
should view that $6.5 billion cost blowout?
Mr Deeble: Yes, there are aspects in there. I will just try to explain where the differences sit.
That $6.5 billion did include exchange rate and variation aspects to it.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We might call them 'somewhat blameless elements'?
Mr Deeble: I would accept that as a reasoned explanation of that, yes.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: But the balance involved costs that are not explained by either
increasing the scope of the project or the number of items being purchased or exchange
rates; they are costs that have come about throughout the course of delivering the project.
Mr Deeble: I'm happy to take that on notice and we can provide you with an explanation of
those costs more specifically.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: If you would, against each of the projects, I would appreciate that.
Answer
The Government’s announcement of 10 October 2022 relating to the performance of
Defence projects identified “at least $6.5 billion of variations from the approved budgets.”
There are 22 projects that contribute to the reported variation, identified across the 2019-20
and the 2020-21 Major Projects Reports. The variation amount is the difference between the
current approved budget and the budget at Second Pass Approval by Government (as
reported in the 2019-20 or 2020-21 Major Projects Reports).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000388
Last updated: 22 May 2023
21-22 Major Projects Report
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Chris Deeble; Vice Admiral David Johnston
Document 1
The below table lists the relevant projects that contributed to the $6.5 billion variation.
Project Name
Project Number
ANZAC Air Search Radar Replacement
SEA 1448 Phase 4B
Battlefield Airlift – Caribou Replacement (C-27J Spartan)
AIR 8000 Phase 2
Battlefield Command System
LAND 200 Phase 2
Battlespace Communications System (Land)
LAND 2072 Phase 2B
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS)
AIR 5431 Phase 3
Collins Class Communications and Electronic Warfare
Improvement
SEA 1439 Phase 5B2
Collins Class Submarine Reliability and Sustainability
SEA 1439 Phase 3
Defence Satellite Comms Capability – Indian Ocean UHF SATCOM JOINT 2008 Phase 5A
EA-18G Growler Airborne Electronic Attack Capability
AIR 5349 Phase 3
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Future Naval Aviation Combat System Helicopter – MH-60R
Seahawk
AIR 9000 Phase 8
Jindalee Operational Radar Network Mid-Life Upgrade
AIR 2025 Phase 6
Maritime Communications Modernisation
SEA 1442 Phase 4
Maritime Operational Support Capability – Replacement
Replenishment Ships
SEA 1654 Phase 3
Maritime Patrol and Response Aircraft System – P-8A Poseidon
AIR 7000 Phase 2B
Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (Boxers)
LAND 400 Phase 2
Multi-Role Helicopter
AIR 9000 Phase 2/4/6
Night Fighting Equipment Replacement
LAND 53 Phase 1BR
Offshore Patrol Vessel
SEA 1180 Phase 1
Overlander Medium Heavy Capability Vehicles
LAND 121 Phase 3B
Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement
SEA 3036 Phase 1
Protected Mobility Vehicle – Light (Hawkei)
LAND 121 Phase 4
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Measure 3 – Establishing formal processes and “early warning” criteria for placing projects on
the Projects of Concern and Projects of Interest lists.
A revised policy on the Projects and Products of Interest and Concern regime was
published on 28 February 2023.
This includes more vigilant line management oversight of performance and the
identification, management and mitigation of risk in project and product delivery.
There is now a tiered process of placing projects and products with significant risks,
issues, or challenges on a Group Watch List and possible subsequent elevation to the
Projects of Interest or Projects of Concern lists.
For more significant risks, issues or significant actual or anticipated breaches of project
parameters (scope/capability, schedule, budget), consideration is given by the Group
Head to placing the project or product on the Project/Product of Interest List, or
recommending to the Minister of Defence Industry that the project or product be
placed on the Project/Product of Concern List.
Measure 4 – Fostering a culture in Defence of raising attention to emerging problems and
encouraging and enabling early response.
The updated policy reinforces the need for honesty, openness and transparency in
reporting on performance, providing visibility of current and emerging issues, and
elevating matters, as necessary, for senior level or external assistance – whilst also
reinforcing the primary responsibility of accountable line managers for performance
and delivery.
We are seeking to foster a stronger culture of trust, sharing of issues and concerns, and
confidence in support from senior managers.
Whilst positive steps have been taken, this is a longer term journey.
An education campaign is being developed to support this measure.
Measure 5 – Providing troubled projects with extra resources and skills.
The revised policy reinforces the willingness of senior managers to assist and the
availability of specialist resources and skills, such as the provision of expertise from the
Independent Assurance Review team.
The IPPMO support and assurance processes will also look more explicitly at the need
to provide additional support or specialist skills to project and product teams.
Measure 6 – Convening regular Ministerial summits to discuss remediation plans.
Two Projects of Concern Summits have been held (2 December 2022 and 31 March
2023).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate Estimates: 15 February 2023
In QoN 6 (Portfolio Question Number 8), Senator Linda White (Australian Labor Party,
Victoria) asked several performance reporting questions. Tabled 17 May 2023.
In QoN 75 (Portfolio Question Number 46, 2022), Senator Jim Molan (Australian Liberal
Party, New South Wales) asked several performance reporting questions. Tabled 16
December 2022.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 22 May 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry issued a media release, Update on
Projects of Concern, regarding the elevation of Satellite Ground Station East and
Wideband SATCOM Network Management System to a Project of Concern.
On 31 March 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry issued a media release, Projects
of Concern Update, regarding the Projects of Concern Summit in Canberra on the same
day, about the Civil-Military Air Traffic Management System (OneSKY-CMATS) project.
On 2 December 2022, the Minister for Defence Industry issued a media release,
Projects of Concern Summit Held in Canberra, regarding the Projects of Concern
Summit in Canberra on the same day, about the Civil-Military Air Traffic Management
System (OneSKY-CMATS) project.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Division:
Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
PDR No:
SB23-000389
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Suzanne Kerrigan
Tom Brennan
Assistant Secretary
Acting First Assistant Secretary
Independent Project and Portfolio
Strategy, Planning and Independent
Management Office
Assurance Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 23 May 2023
Date: 05 April 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 23 May 2023
Chris Deeble
Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition an
Sustainment Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Estimates Question, 15 February 2023
Capability Sustainment Reporting
Senator Linda White
Question
Senator WHITE: I guess what you've described is similar to what many private industry big
projects would have, so it's surprising it's taken such a long time to get to that point. But
thank you for that comprehensive answer. Can Defence confirm, from June 2022, how many
project and sustainment reports on the major projects were published?
Mr Deeble : I would have to take that on notice.
Senator WHITE: The projects and sustainment report was only an interim report. Is that
right?
Mr Deeble : We're looking at the whole reporting regime. Part of the work that we're doing
with the Minister for Defence Industry is looking at how to best report, whether that's done
on a monthly basis for all projects, or whether we provide an aggregate quarterly report. To
date, we have been reporting on a monthly basis on all post second pass projects.
Senator WHITE: Is that because of the difficulties that were highlighted by the ANAO-the
underspends and the time drifts et cetera? Is that the reason you're doing it more
frequently?
Mr Deeble : Yes. It was raised by both DPM and the Minister for Defence Industry in that
announcement in October last year.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Senator WHITE: Just in relation to the project and sustainment report, was this replaced by
the acquisition sustainment update in late 2021? Am I understanding that correctly, or have I
missed something?
Mr Deeble : I will take that on notice and I'll be able to give you the chronology of the various
reporting regimes.
...
Senator WHITE: How many reports have been produced in total? There's quarterly, sort of
monthly, or not monthly.
Mr Karo: Quarterlies were quarterlies, four a year. Regarding the acquisition sustainment
update, I would have to give you an on-notice answer for exactly how many were produced,
but we went through a couple of iterations of those. We also know that the layers here are
really important. We have the public layers, so the MPR is a really important public layer. The
annual report is a really important public layer. The ANAO project performance reports are a
very important public layer. What we're trying to do is make sure that we get the insights,
internal to the department, to act, but keep an appropriate layer of external reporting as
well. The monthlies since October have been going to the ministers. We're finding that
frequency a little bit draining, so we do have to get the right balance on how often we need
to keep the updates to the ministers and the department versus the analytical effort to
actually get the insights.
CHAIR: Thank you very much for that response.
Answer
The last
Quarterly Performance Report was produced in June 2020.
The next report, known as the
Project and Sustainment Report, was produced in February
2021.
The following report, known as the
Acquisition and Sustainment Update was first produced in
September 2021, and three were produced in total.
Monthly performance reporting to the Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence
Industry commenced in October 2022, and cover Projects of Concern, and Projects and
Products of Interest.
Consolidated reporting has grown to cover most delivery groups, namely CASG, Naval
Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group, Chief Information Officer Group, Security and Estate
Group, Defence Science and Technology Group, and the Defence Intelligence Group.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Senate Estimates Question, 18 November 2022
Program Governance
Senator Jim Molan
Question
The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry made announcements about
the Department of Defence (Department), defence spending, project budgets and delays on
10 October 2022
1. Further to the Ministers' announcements, what steps has the Department taken to address
the concerns raised in those announcements?
2. Please provide an update on the concerns raised and what progress to address the
concerns has been made since 10 October 2022
3. Has the independent projects and portfolio management office within the Department
been established, and can the Department explain how it will be independent of the
Department?
4. How much additional cost is required to fund the activities of this office?
5. Which staff are being redeployed or hired to comprise this office, assuming its
independence from other parts of the Department, including those engaged in program
delivery?
6. Please provide copies of the recent monthly reports on Projects of Concern and Projects of
Interest to the Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Industry, and provide details of
briefings. How much additional cost and resource is required in order to implement this
measure?
7. Provide details of the new formal processes and "early warning" criteria for placing
projects on the Projects of Concern and Projects of Interest lists
8. Please provide details on progress toward fostering a culture in the Department of raising
attention to emerging problems and encouraging and enabling early response. Please
provide details of problems and responses identified
9. Which projects considered 'troubled' have been provided extra resources and skills?
10. Provide details of the costs and benefits of providing such extra resources and skills
11. Provide details of the regular Ministerial summits convened to discuss remediation plans,
and what remediation plans are in development or in progress, and the Department's role
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000389
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Implementation of Government Priorities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Chris Deeble
Document 2
Answer
1, 2. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry announced six
measures to strengthen and revitalise Defence’s projects of concern process. Those
measures are being addressed within a holistic effort to strengthen delivery management
and performance reporting within Defence. Options and measures have been developed and
are currently subject to senior level consideration within Defence.
3. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry announced that the
independent projects and portfolio office will be established inside Defence. Options have
been developed and are currently subject to senior level consideration within Defence.
4, 5. The office will be funded by the reallocation of existing resources on a prioritised basis.
6. Defence reports publicly in accordance with Government directions and legislative
obligations. Reports on Projects of Concern and Projects of Interest contain both
commercially sensitive and classified information and are not released publicly. There is no
additional cost or resources required to provide monthly reports to Ministers.
7. Revised processes and criteria are part of the measures being developed and being
considered by Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry.
8. Increased emphasis is now being placed on reviews and reporting being conducted by line
managers to drive a culture of identifying and addressing problems early. Projects are also
assessed independently and assessed by Group Heads, with advice subsequently provided
through monthly reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Industry.
When additional issues are identified, a project may be added to the Projects of Interest or
Projects of Concern lists. Most recently, the Civil Military Air Traffic Management project (AIR
5431 Phase 3) was identified as Project of Concern, announced by the Minister for Defence
Industry in October 2022.
9. Remediation plans for the Projects of Concern and Projects of Interest are tailored to the
type of support required to get performance back on track. The most common support
provided is independent advice and support via the conduct of Independent Assurance
Reviews, and specialist skills (for example project or commercial management) that the
independent reviewers provide to assist the project managers. Additional resources will also
be identified through the remediation plans and prioritised accordingly.
10. This support will be provided using existing resources.
11. Ministerial Summits, which include Defence and industry representatives, will consider
plans to respond to and remediate the Projects of Concern problems. The first Summit under
the strengthened Projects of Concern regime was held on 2 December 2022 to address the
most recent addition to the Projects of Concern list, the Civil Military Air Traffic Management
project (AIR 5431 Phase 3).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Suzanne Kerrigan
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Assistant Secretary Independent Project and Portfolio
Position: Deputy Secretary
Management Office
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition an Sustainment Group
Division: Strategy, Planning and Independent Assurance Division
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
This will be partially offset by the existing $24 billion provision for the Attack class
submarine program and includes funding to support the industrial base,
workforce, infrastructure, rotational presence of the United States and United
Kingdom, and procuring the Virginia class submarine to ensure Australia has no
capability gap.
Government currently estimates spending to amount to around 0.15 per cent of Gross
Domestic Product per year, averaged over the program.
This will contribute to the Government’s commitment to lift Defence spending to
over 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product per year.
If asked: Why is such a significant portion of funding allocated to contingency?
The contingency component falls within the cost estimate of 0.15 per cent of GDP – it is
not in addition to it.
There are a range of complex variables that will affect costs over the life of the program.
The costs of the program reflect not just the acquisition of SSN-AUKUS, but also a range
of measures to ensure we are ready and capable of building, operating, sustaining and
regulating this platform.
Investment in the program will support industry, workforce, infrastructure and other
critical components which contribute to the delivery of this capability.
If pressed: How much will each Virginia/SSN-AUKUS cost?
The whole cost is $9 billion over the forward estimates, then $50-58 billion over the
decade.
We are providing whole of life costs so we can be transparent with the Australian
community about what they are getting and what the cost estimate is.
If asked: If the Virginia Class is seen as a suitable solution for the Royal Australian Navy from
the early 2030s, why not build Virginia submarines for Australia so we have just one class of
submarine?
The Virginia class submarine is projected to cease production in the United States in the
2040s which will see the United States reorient its supply chain and production for its
next generation fast attack submarine (SSN-X).
If Australia were to be building Virginia class submarines long after the United States
has finished and reoriented to SSN-X, we could be facing supply chain, industrial base
and design upgrade challenges.
Australia will follow the United Kingdom in its production of the first SSN-AUKUS and
both countries will be building the same submarine for several decades thereby
realising efficiencies in supply chain, industrial base and design for upgrades as
required.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
If pressed: How much will Government spend in Australia?
Over the Forward Estimates $6 billion will be invested in Australian industry and
workforce.
Government will invest at least $2 billion in South Australia infrastructure alone
and at least $1 billion in infrastructure in Western Australia over the Forward
Estimates.
Government estimates $30 billion will be invested in Australia’s industrial base
alone out to 2055.
If pressed: Why are we investing in the United States and United Kingdom?
The contribution to the United States industrial base is a down payment on securing
the early delivery of three Virginia class submarines. The United States will be
expanding production to accommodate us.
The contribution to the United Kingdom will be a targeted investment as we partner in
the production of SSN-AUKUS.
If pressed: How much is Australia investing in the United States and United Kingdom industrial
bases?
Negotiations are still underway.
It is premature to release figures at this stage as we would jeopardise Australia's
negotiating position.
s33(a)(iii)
Industry and Workforce
Over the next 30 years, our nuclear-powered submarine program is expected to
support around 20,000 direct jobs across industry, ADF and APS.
We are working with our AUKUS partners on ways to build the nuclear skills of our
industry, submariner and public service workforce to be sovereign ready for Australia’s
first nuclear-powered submarines as soon as the early 2030s.
A further 4,000 to 5,500 direct jobs are expected to be supported to build the nuclear-
powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak in 20-30
years.
This almost double the workforce forecast for the Attack class program.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Australian industry will have the opportunity to become participants not just in the
build and sustainment of Australia’s SSN-AUKUS fleet, but also contribute to a robust
and resilient trilateral supply chain.
Work is already underway to develop the education and training pathways needed to
support the enterprise. We are working directly with Australian universities to expand
the offerings available for Australians who wish to study nuclear science and
engineering and will work closely with the vocational sector to deliver technical and
trade offerings.
If asked: What does the cooperation arrangement with South Australia involve?
The Cooperative Agreement, co-signed by the Premier for South Australia and Deputy
Prime Minister on 15 March 2023, seeks to guide the negotiation and realisation of
activities related to Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
Under this agreement, the Commonwealth and South Australian Government will
progress an exchange of land to facilitate the development of a new Skills and Training
Academy and the future nuclear-powered submarine construction yard.
The exchange of land will include exchanging Defence-owned land at Smithfield
and Keswick to support South Australian urban renewal projects, in consideration
for the land required at Osborne.
The Skills and Training Academy will be co-designed by the Commonwealth and
State Governments and developed in consultation with industry and unions. We
will start training people before the Academy is actually built - leveraging existing
facilities and tailored training programs to support the initial growth and
development required to respond to the demands of the optimal pathway.
The agreement will increase Commonwealth Supported Places to South Australia
Universities over the next four years, focused on STEM disciplines in professional
engineering (mechanical, electrical, chemical), computer science, mathematics,
chemistry, physics, psychology and management. The Commonwealth will
allocate an additional 800 places to South Australia Universities over the next four
years, with the first 200 places commencing in 2024.
Non-proliferation
Australia’s submarines will not carry nuclear weapons. The only nuclear aspect of the
program will be the power source for the submarine propulsion system.
Australia is a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and will remain so, as has been consistently made clear by the
Government.
Naval nuclear propulsion was foreseen by the drafters of the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and Article 14 is the specific provision that was included in the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
International Atomic Energy Agency’s draft Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to
facilitate it.
If pressed: Will Australia be in breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga?
No. Naval nuclear propulsion is consistent with Australia's obligations under the South
Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga).
If pressed: How can you say Australia is committed to non-proliferation when we have decided
to use Highly Enriched Uranium?
The nuclear fuel Australia receives cannot be used in nuclear weapons without further
chemical processing, requiring facilities that Australia does not have and will not seek.
International engagement
Australia conducted significant diplomatic outreach ahead of the AUKUS Optimal
Pathway announcement.
Over 75 calls were made by ministers and senior officials in the days leading to
and following the announcement.
Radioactive Waste
As a responsible nuclear steward, Australia will manage all radioactive waste from its
nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, including:
Low-level, operational waste generated by day-to-day submarine operations and
sustainment, and spent fuel and intermediate-level waste that will be produced
once Australia’s submarines reach end-of-life.
Operational waste will be stored at Defence locations until a disposal pathway is
identified.
Over 2023, Defence, in consultation with relevant agencies including the Australian
Radioactive Waste Agency, will conduct a review of the current or future Defence
estate to identify possible locations suitable for the storage and disposal of
intermediate and high-level radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel.
If pressed: Will Traditional Owners be consulted?
The Government is firmly committed to consulting affected communities after the
results of the technical review are known.
Regulation and Legislation
[Handling Note: This section needs to be reviewed subject to introduction of legislation to
Parliament in the Winter Session (commencing the week of 8 May)]
If pressed: What legislative arrangements need to be pursued within Australia to ensure the
Optimal Pathway remains on-track?
Defence anticipates legislative action will be necessary over the coming years to
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
support the acquisition, delivery, operation, sustainment, disposal and specialised
regulation of nuclear-powered submarines and relevant facilities.
Background
Timeline of Significant Events
15 March 2024 – Federal and South Australian Governments sign cooperation
agreement outlining commitment to support construction of nuclear-powered
submarines.
14 March 2023 – AUKUS leaders announced the Optimal Pathway for Australia’s
acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, San Diego.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate: 3 March 2023
QoN 65, Workforce demand and skill requirements, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds
(Liberal, Western Australia) asked for details regarding the department’s plans for
acquiring the skilled workforce needed to support the nuclear-powered submarine
program.
Supplementary Budget Estimates: 15 February 2023
QoN 10, ADM Richardson, Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western Australia)
asked questions focusing on the specifics of the contract entered into between the
commonwealth and VADM Richardson.
QoN 11, ADM Consultants - Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western Australia)
asked questions focusing on US Defence consultants.
QoN 45, Nuclear capability, Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western Australia)
sought assurances on nuclear weapons and Australia’s non-proliferation obligations.
QoN 22, AUKUS Report, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South Australia)
asked when the Optimal Pathway was provided to the government.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
On 25 January 2023 an individual sought access to documentation provided by the
Department to the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry and/or the
Secretary of the Department of Defence that relate to the implementation in Australia
of administrative arrangements arising from the Technical and Security Annexes of the
Agreement for the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information.
Status: Released
to applicant on 10 March 2023, nil documents exist.
On 8 November 2022, an individual sought access to copies of any advices, reports,
emails, cables, WhatsApp messages, notes, documents, briefs, talking points from
and/or to the Minister Dutton, his office or the Dept between the timeframe 1 January
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
2021 - 30 September 2021 in response to AUKUS announcement on 16 September
2021.
Status: Released to applicant on 5 January 2023 with full access to one
document, partial access to a second with redactions applied on the grounds of
adverse impact on international relations.
On 26 July 2022, an individual sought access to documentation relating to Deputy
Secretary Strategic Policy & Industry Group communications relating to the decision to
acquire nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS agreement.
Status:
Released to applicant on 12 December 2022 with partial access.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 24 March 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared on the Today Show and
defended Australia’s decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines after Paul
Keating criticised the move.
On 22 March 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister provided a statement to the House of
Representatives reiterating the importance of the Optimal Pathway to maintaining
Australia’s national security.
On 19 March 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared on interview with ABC Insiders
where he explained the rationale behind acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
On 14 March 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister released a media statement explaining
the significance of the announcement of the Optimal Pathway.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 16 March 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
“State premiers disagree over
who should host nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines.” Journalists Eugene Boisvert,
James Carmody, Leah MacLennan, and Lucas Forbes reported that there was growing
discontent among premiers about where nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines will be
stored.
On 15 March 2023, Paul Keating released a statement titled,
“AUKUS Statement by PJ
Keating, The National Press Club.” Mr Keating criticised the AUKUS agreement as an
unnecessary provocation of China and an affront to Australian sovereignty.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Division:
Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
PDR No:
SB23-000390
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Leisa Craig, Assistant Secretary Media &
Megan Lees, First Assistant Secretary
Communications
Executive, NPSTF
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 18 April 2023
Consultation: Nil
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy
Ph: s47E(d)
DSR Task Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 10 May 2023
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, Chief, Nuclear Powered
Submarine Taskforce
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Supplementary Budget Estimates 15 February 2023
VADM Richardson
Senator Jordan Steele-John
Spoken Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Beyond that provision-of-advice role, does the former admiral have
any other roles with the department?
Vice Adm. Mead: If you're talking about the Department of Defence, not that I'm aware of—
not in a formal, contractual sense. He has obviously established many strong relationships
with Navy people in Australia, and they would make contact, I assume, but not in a formal
sense.
Mr Moriarty: I'm not aware of any other contractual arrangements, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Could you take that on notice and just provide us a clear answer?
Mr Moriarty: Certainly.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: When was the admiral hired by Department of Defence to take on this
advice role?
Vice Adm. Mead: Quarter 3 last year, but I can get the exact dates for you.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, if you could take that on notice or provide them by the end of the
session, that'd be really good. Prior to being employed by Australia, what was the admiral's
role in the United States?
Vice Adm. Mead: He was retired from his work in the US Navy, and I understand he was
serving on a number of board positions with some US companies.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Do you know which US companies he was serving on the board of?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Vice Adm. Mead: We did have a list of that. We sought legal advice on Admiral Richardson.
We got him to fill in probity forms and non-disclosure agreements as well, and we've been
very careful to make sure his advice is very specific to the questions that remain within the
guidelines.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Can you provide us with the list of boards that Admiral Richardson was
on prior to his commencement with the department?
Vice Adm. Mead: We'll seek to do that, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: It's my understanding that the admiral was Chief of Naval Operations
in the United States from 2015 until 2019. That'd be the highest ranking position in the US
Navy. Can you confirm this?
Vice Adm. Mead: That's correct, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Prior to this he was the director of naval propulsion, meaning he
oversaw basically everything nuclear related within the US Navy. Can you confirm that was
his role?
Vice Adm. Mead: That's correct, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Was the admiral paid through a consulting firm as part of his
employment with the department?
Vice Adm. Mead: He was paid via a company which he had set up himself.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Which company was that?
Vice Adm. Mead: I would have to get back to you on that, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: He is currently still an employee of the Department of Defence; is that
right?
Vice Adm. Mead: We have him on a contract not to exceed a number of days per year. We
have not employed him in 2023. This calendar year he has not been on service.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: So is it part time or full time?
Vice Adm. Mead: Very much part time. When we have specific tasks, questions or complex
problems which come our way that we don't have the subject matter expertise for, we reach
in for his assistance.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Is it like a number of days he's contracted for?
Vice Adm. Mead: Correct. I think it's not to exceed a hundred days over a two to three-year
period, but I can get those details for you.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Not to exceed a hundred days over a two-year period?
Vice Adm. Mead: It's akin to that, but I can get you the details.
Answer
Admiral John Richardson USN (Retd) has provided advice to the Department since November
2022. Admiral Richardson is engaged on a 12-month contract. The contract includes two 12-
month extension options at the Commonwealth’s discretion. Admiral Richardson’s only
contractual arrangement with the Department of Defence is for providing advice to the
Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce. Admiral Richardson was required to declare his other
relevant interests at the time his contract commenced with the Department of Defence.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Supplementary Budget Estimates 15 February 2023
ADM Consultants
Senator Jordan Steele-John
Spoken Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: In the answers you provided on notice in relation to Rear Admiral
Thomas Eccles, Vice Admiral William Hilarides and Admiral Kirkland Donald, the combined
total of the payments made to those three individuals was some $5.3 million. Can you
confirm that was the answer you gave to us?
Mr Dalton: The response we gave you in that question on notice is the maximum amount
they could be paid if they worked all of the days they were allowed to work under their
contract, so their individual payments will be a total less than that sum.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: How much have they been paid to this point?
Mr Dalton: I'll take that on notice, Senator
Senator STEELE-JOHN: In that context, then, I'm very keen to know how much Admiral
Richardson has been paid by the department to this point. What is the value of his contract
those 100 days over two years?
Vice Adm. Mead: I'll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: And what's the duration of the contract that former Admiral
Richardson is under?
Vice Adm. Mead: I believe it's approximately two to three years, but I'll take that on notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Given it is a structure to exceed no more than a certain period of time
over a certain number of days, if you break it down, how much are we paying these
individuals per hour for their advice?
Vice Adm. Mead: I'd have to take that on notice, Senator.
Answer
Admiral John Richardson USN (Retd) has provided advice to Department since November
2022. Admiral Richardson has been paid $33,476.64 (excluding GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Admiral Richardson is engaged on a 12-month contract. The contract includes two 12-month
extension options at the Commonwealth’s discretion.
Admiral Kirkland Donald USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department from December 2017
to 2022. Admiral Donald was paid $297,319.97 (excluding GST).
Vice Admiral William Hilarides USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016.
Vice Admiral Hilarides has been paid $1,582,430.82 (including GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016. Rear
Admiral Eccles has been paid $699,118.68 (including GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Individual payment rates for Admiral Richardson, Admiral Donald, Vice Admiral Hilarides and
Rear Admiral Eccles are commercially sensitive.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Supplementary Budget Estimates 15 February 2023
AUKUS report
Senator Simon Birmingham
Spoken Question
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I'd just add to the earlier comments and thank the retiring officials
who are present for your service—some of whom I'm sure we haven't heard the last of
today. I'd like to turn to the AUKUS task force. Has the AUKUS task force reported in relation
to future nuclear-powered submarine capabilities and recommendations?
Vice Adm. Mead: The task force has worked with our partners, and we've provided continual
updates to government on the nuclear-powered submarine program, including the Optimal
Pathway.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: You have now provided a recommendation in relation to the Optimal
Pathway, or a report in relation to the Optimal Pathway?
Vice Adm. Mead: We have.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: When was that provided to government?
Vice Adm. Mead: Earlier this year.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Was that yesterday, last week, a couple of months ago—well, a
month ago?
Vice Adm. Mead: Earlier this year.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Vice Admiral Mead, I appreciate there are elements of this that are of
course confidential, but the timing of provision of a report to government rarely is and is fair
game for estimates questions. So let me ask again: when was the report with
recommendations in relation to the Optimal Pathway provided to government?
Senator Wong: We'll take that on notice.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Wong, I do get the impression that Vice Admiral Mead—I'm
happy for him to answer in the general, whether it was yesterday, last week or last month.
He said earlier this year. I get the impression he knows. I'm pretty sure this is a fairly
significant thing he would remember.
Senator Wong: Yes, and we will take it on notice.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: It doesn't need to be taken on notice.
Senator Wong: The minister has the discretion to do that. I will take it on notice.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: On what basis are you seeking to take it on notice?
Senator Wong: So I can ascertain what we can tell you. If we can be helpful, we will. I would
anticipate that there will be engagement with the opposition at an appropriate time. You
know these are sensitive matters. These are highly classified matters. You know that before
you made the announcement the then opposition was briefed by the Prime Minister on the
day of the announcement or maybe the day before. So we'll probably do a bit better than
that. I'm not trying to be difficult, Senator Birmingham. I don't want the official put in a
difficult position. I'd like to take it on notice.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Answer
The recommendation on the Optimal Pathway was provided to Government earlier this year.
Supplementary Budget Estimates 15 February 2023
Nuclear capability
Senator Jordan Steele-John
Written Question
1. Can the government confirm that any Australian nuclear-propelled submarines would not:
a. Carry nuclear weapons owned by another nation, under any circumstances?
b. Be capable of carrying nuclear weapons?
2. Can the government confirm that Australian nuclear-propelled submarines would not be
engaged to assist with the use of nuclear weapons by another country?
3. Can the government confirm that it will abide by its obligations under the Rarotonga
Treaty not to station nuclear weapons in Australia under the Rarotonga Treaty?
4. Will the government confirm that any B-52 aircraft that are stationed in Australia will only
be conventionally-capable, and not nuclear-capable?
5. Will the government confirm that any other possible future US aircraft stationed in
Australia will not carry nuclear weapons?
Answer
1. a-b.)Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will not be armed with nuclear weapons. As a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, Australia does not – and will not – seek to acquire nuclear weapons. The only
nuclear aspect of the program will be the power source for the submarine propulsion system.
Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines will proceed in a manner that is fully
consistent with its non-proliferation obligations and commitments.
2. Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will be owned and operated by Australia, under
sovereign Australian command and subject to Australia’s non-proliferation obligations and
commitments.
3. Stationing nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free
Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed.
4. See response to question 3.
5. See response to question 3.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000390
Last updated: 10 May 2023
Nuclear Powered Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 3
Supplementary Budget Estimates 03 March 2023
AUKUS Workforce
Senator Linda Reynolds
Written Question
1. Does the Department of Defence believe there are sufficient qualified, skilled and
experienced workers in the Australian labor market to support the Nuclear Powered
Submarine program development and maintenance without relying on increased skilled
migration? If so, why?
2. Has the Department undertaken any modelling on the labor force requirements for
AUKUS submarines and what proportion of that labor force might need to come from
overseas in the first instance to provide the experience with nuclear powered submarines
and their associated ecosystems?
3. A) If so, when will this be released to industry to include SME to understand the scale of
the gap and where they might access this labor force and what steps the government is
taking to ensure access to these people?
4. B) If not, how does the department believe it will ensure access to appropriately qualified,
skilled and experienced people to provide the breadth of industrial capabilities around the
NPS ecosystem?
5. Has the Capability and Acquisition Sustainment Group updated relevant industry panels to
integrate new skillsets, like nuclear power qualified expertise required for the NPS
ecosystem?
6. Does the government believe that the NPS ecosystem labor force will have enhanced
mobility across the AUKUS partners to avoid the “zero sum” risk of protectionism and/or
“poaching” between nations?
7. A) If so, what steps have been agreed between the partners to allow this mobility to
service all the AUKUS partners NPS ecosystems?
8. B) If not has agreement been reached on how Australia will access these knowledge Skills
and experience without affecting partners NPS plans?
9. Has the department developed a faster system to provide appropriate visas to AUKUS
partners working on the NPS? If not, have the current excessive delays in processing
skilled visas been factored into the planning for how long it will be before Australia can
build a NPS?
Answer
Workforce demand and skill requirements for the nuclear-powered submarine program are
being developed by the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce in collaboration with our
AUKUS partners. Education and skilling pathways are also being identified and created to
support the acquisition and sustainment of nuclear-powered submarines, and the greater
Australian nuclear enterprise across industry, Navy and government. We are working closely
with our AUKUS partners to identify where skilled and technically expert personnel from our
partner nations can best support the workforce growth required. Administrative
arrangements to support the workforce requirements will be developed across government.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Leisa Craig
Name: Megan Lees
Position: Assistant Secretary Media & Communications
Position: Chief Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Branch: Parliamentary and Governance
Group: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
13 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000391
Last updated: 11 May 2023
East Coast Nuclear-Powered Submarine Facility
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead; Vice Admiral Mark Hammond
Document 4
HMAS
Stirling remains home to Australia’s submarine capability, supporting the
operation of the Collins class, future nuclear-powered submarines and visits by partner
navy nuclear-powered submarines.
Following the announcement of the AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine Optimal
Pathway, HMAS
Stirling will support an ongoing rotational presence of United Kingdom
Astute and United States of America Virginia class submarines from 2027.
Infrastructure works at HMAS
Stirling are planned to support the increasing submarine
workforce and the rotational presence required by 2027.
Over the next decade, the Australian Government will invest up to $8 billion to expand
HMAS
Stirling.
Work continues to confirm and intensively examine the full suite of requirements that
underpin nuclear stewardship.
Background
In 2017, Navy conducted a Strategic Review of Submarine Force Disposition to assess
future options, given the submarine force was planned to expand from six to twelve
conventional submarines.
The Review recommended a two-ocean basing concept be further considered to
ensure the larger submarine force would continue to meet Government needs in a
sustainable and safe manner.
In 2018, a submarine facilities scoping study considered basing options, including
two-ocean basing, which informed the Submarine Capability Transition Plan.
Project SEA1000 Phase 6 Undersea Warfare Support Facilities and Infrastructure was
established to support transition from the Collins class submarines and introduction of
the expanded Attack class fleet.
SEA 1000 Phase 6 was merged into SEA 1010 Phase 1 Undersea Warfare Support
Facilities and Infrastructure through the October 2020 Integrated Investment Program
Biannual Update.
On 16 September 2021, the former Government announced cancellation of the Attack
class submarine program and the intention to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered
submarines with the assistance of the United Kingdom and United States of America.
On 07 March 2022, the former Prime Minister announced a future east coast base,
along with three options for the final location of the base:
-
Port of Newcastle;
-
Port of Brisbane (on or around Fisherman Island); and
-
Port Kembla.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Pat Sowry
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Estate Planning
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Page
2 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000391
Last updated: 11 May 2023
East Coast Nuclear-Powered Submarine Facility
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead; Vice Admiral Mark Hammond
Document 4
The three sites were selected as options following a Defence review which considered
19 sites against a range of basing criteria:
-
Queensland - Cairns, Townsville, Gladstone, Brisbane;
-
New South Wales - Port Stephens, Newcastle, Broken Bay, HMAS Penguin, HMAS
Waterhen, Cockatoo Island, Bays Precinct, Garden Island Defence Precinct,
Botany Bay, Port Kembla, Bass Point, Jervis Bay, Twofold Bay;
-
Victoria - Western Port; and
-
Tasmania - Hobart.
The basing criteria used for assessing the sites included access to exercise operating
areas, proximity to industrial infrastructure, and proximity to significant population
centres to support personnel and recruitment.
The analysis was based on a desktop assessment only. The engagement process is
allowing for a full feasibility assessment of all sites.
Defence has completed an independent review of the east coast base site assessment
criteria to validate and ensure accuracy in site determination.
Formal engagement with the Queensland Government commenced on 5 July 2022 and
with the New South Wales Government on 15 July 2022.
In response to the Defence Strategic Review, the Government has committed to
developing a process to consider all feasible options for an east coast facility with a
decision on the location to be made later in this decade.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In January 2023, a request was made to access documentation relating to Defence’s
Estimates briefing folder used at the November 2022 Senate Estimates hearings.
The
brief related to East Coast Basing was released without redaction.
In January 2022, a media organisation sought access under the
Freedom of Information
Act to documentation relating to the selection of the three locations for a new east
coast base.
An exemption was applied and documents were not released.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 16 August 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister said Australia is a two-ocean nation and
we need to ensure the ability to operate right around the nation.
Relevant Media Reporting
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Pat Sowry
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Estate Planning
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Page
3 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000391
Last updated: 11 May 2023
East Coast Nuclear-Powered Submarine Facility
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead; Vice Admiral Mark Hammond
Document 4
On 04 April 2023, ABC News published an article titled
East coast nuclear submarine
base decision likely to be made after next federal election. Journalists Andrew Greene
and Kelly Fuller reported on the Assistant Minister for Defence’s comments that no
future east coast naval base site had been identified yet, and that a new east coast
base is “not needed” until the 2040s.
Multiple media articles across multiple platforms speculating on the location and port
access for the future nuclear submarines at the time of the nuclear-powered
submarine announcement.
On 17 March 2023, the Guardian published an article titled
Wollongong residents react
angrily to reports Port Kembla will be east coast base for AUKUS submarines. Journalist
Paul Karp wrote that there were Maritime Union, local council and community
concerns about reports of Port Kembla being the preferred site for a new east coast
base.
On 13 March 2023, ABC News published an article titled
Concerns Port Kembla could
be a military target if it becomes an Australian nuclear submarine base. Journalist
Jessica Clifford reports that the Chief Executive Officer of NSW Ports, Marika Calfas, has
no details on Defence’s potential needs for an east coast base at Port Kembla.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Pat Sowry
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Estate Planning
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Page
4 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000391
Last updated: 11 May 2023
East Coast Nuclear-Powered Submarine Facility
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead; Vice Admiral Mark Hammond
Document 4
Division:
Infrastructure
PDR No:
SB23-000391
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Pat Sowry, Assistant Secretary, Estate
Dan Fankhauser, First Assistant Secretary
Planning
Infrastructure, Infrastructure Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 31 March 2023
Date: 27 April 2023
Consultation: Navy
Date: 31 March 2023
CDRE Nathan Robb, Director General
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Logistics
Consultation: Navy
Date: 31 March 2023
CDRE Thomas Phillips, Director General
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Submarines
Consultation: Nuclear-Powered Submarine
Date: 31 March 2023
Taskforce
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
AIRCDRE Jacqueline Churchill, Director
General Nuclear Power Submarine
Capability Support
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 28 April 2023
Alison West, First Assistant Secretary Integration,
Defence Strategic Review
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 11 May 2023
Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary Security and Estate
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Pat Sowry
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Estate Planning
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Phone: s47E(d) , s22
Page
5 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
The first submarine to be life-extended will be HMAS
Farncomb from mid-2026.
The Government approved scope for the Life of Type Extension project is for the design
and acquisition of long lead items that will be installed during the life-of-type extension
full-cycle dockings.
What work will be delivered through Life of Type Extension project and what is the cost?
Long-term assurance of the Collins class Submarine capability is dependent on the
successful implementation of the life-of-type extension involving the Collins Life of Type
Extension project, integrated with effective ongoing sustainment, and selected
capability enhancements.
-
The Life of Type Extension project will remediate the highest technical risks to
extending the service life of each submarine by one 10 year operating cycle.
-
Effective ongoing sustainment underpins the availability of the Collins class
Submarine.
-
Selected capability enhancements are designed to assure the Collins fleet retains
a capability advantage.
The Life of Type Extension project will involve changes to the equipment in the
submarine within the original design parameters for the Collins class Submarine.
The Life of Type Extension core work package includes updates to diesel generators,
the main motor, power conversion equipment and optronics.
At the time of first pass approval, the total cost estimate of the Collins Life of Type
Extension project was within the $4.3 to $6.4 billion public cost envelope. The detailed
cost estimate developed with industry will be considered by Government at second
pass.
What is the risk profile of the Collins Life of Type Extension project?
Defence assesses the risks of extending the life of the Collins class Submarines to be
significant, but manageable. This assessment has not changed since first pass.
The core work package to extend the life of each Collins class Submarine is planned to
be inserted during scheduled full-cycle dockings commencing from mid-2026. This will
include treatments for the highest risks.
Within the planned docking periods, life extension work has risk associated with scope,
cost and schedule. Defence is working closely with ASC Pty Ltd to manage the planned
activities within the approved resources and docking windows.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Is Collins class availability being met?
Recent Collins class Submarine availability is marginally below agreed targets due to the
impacts of COVID-19, the repair of damage in HMAS
Waller from a one-off fire and to
allow time for capability enhancements.
Demonstrating the robustness of the current sustainment system, even during the
pandemic, Defence was able to remain above 85 per cent of the key availability
benchmark, regaining agreed availability targets in early 2023.
Why was HMAS Collins in dock for five and a half years last decade?
As a consequence of the 2012 Coles review, HMAS
Collins was kept in extended
maintenance from mid-2012 until mid-2018 to key into the new usage and upkeep
cycle recommended by the review. That decision resulted in a fundamental
transformation in how Defence maintains it submarine capability and led to the fleet
consistently exceeding international benchmarks of availability from 2016.
Is there an increasing number of incidents occurring in Collins class Submarines?
No. Fire is a constant threat for all classes of ships and submarines and this incident is
not an indication of any broader problems in Navy’s Submarine Force.
The Collins class Submarines remain a highly capable and safe platform.
Our submariners have responded swiftly and appropriately to all incidents, in line with
their rigorous training.
Does an aging submarine have more incidents?
Robust in-service sustainment coupled with a rigorous safety system is designed to
reduce the prevalence of age related defects and prevent them from compounding to
create an incident.
It is erroneous to automatically link an aging platform to an increased rate of incidents
without consideration of the maintenance and safety systems in place.
What is Defence’s approach to the Collins Life of Type Extension project?
Defence has adopted a risk-based approach to the Collins Life of Type Extension
project.
Initial project scope was selected to treat the highest technical risks to achieving the
amended planned withdrawal dates and includes updates to diesel engines, main
propulsion, and power conversion equipment.
The projects core work package will be integrated with ongoing sustainment and
selected capability upgrades, and delivered through full cycle dockings (nominally two
years in duration) from mid-2026.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
If pressed: Is Saab Kockums involved in the Life of Type Extension project?
With Defence support, ASC has engaged Saab Kockums to support Life of Type
Extension project activities.
If pressed: Intellectual Property License with Sweden.
We expect to be in a position in the near future to make an announcement on Intellectual
Property developments.
Is Defence equipping Collins class Submarines with Tomahawk?
Defence is engaging with the United States Navy to explore the feasibility of fitting the
Collins class Submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
What Collins capability enhancements are underway or planned?
Defence is continuing to deliver selected capability upgrades, including for
communications, electronic warfare suite and sonar across the Collins class Submarine.
SEA1439 Phase 3: Collins Reliability and Sustainability Improvement Project –
$422.273 million.
SEA1439 Phase 3.1: Collins ISCMMS (Integrated Ship Control, Management and
Monitoring System) Obsolescence Remediation Project – $112.988 million
($112.338 million is the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group element of
approved funding. Balance of funding is for other inputs to capability).
SEA1439 Phase 5B2: Collins Communications and Electronic Warfare
Improvement – $645.220 million ($614.137 million is the Naval Shipbuilding and
Sustainment Group element of approved funding. Balance of funding is for other
inputs to capability).
SEA1439 Phase 6: Collins Sonar Upgrade Project – $864.639 million
($862.989 million is the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group element of
approved funding. Balance of funding is for other inputs to capability).
SEA1439 Phase 7: Collins Weapons and Deployables – $66.426 million.
Life-of-type extension Optronics – $376.108 million.
What is the level of Australian Industry Content for Collins class Submarines?
The Minister for Defence Industry has stated, “having a local industry is critical for
sustaining platforms and giving a key critical advantage. There are areas where Defence
should maximise local industry content as it gives us a sovereign capability that we
need to maintain within Australia.”
Based on the current contractual reporting obligations of the Collins class Submarine
industry partners, around 90 per cent of the ongoing platform sustainment budget is
spent in Australia.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Defence maintains direct arrangements with ASC, Raytheon Australia, Thales Australia,
BAE Systems Australia, PMB Defence and James Fisher Defence Australia in support of
the Collins class.
-
Each of these companies maintain their own supply chains engaging Australian
small to medium enterprises.
At 01 April 2023, the total ASC in-service support contract workforce headcount was
1,611 and the ASC Life of Type Extension project full-time-equivalent workforce was
211.
Australian Submarine Agency
On 06 May 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Australian
Government will establish a new agency and regulator to deliver Australia’s
conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.
The new agency will be called the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA). The ASA will be
established by Executive Order and will be responsible and accountable for the
management and oversight of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program. The
Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce will transition to the ASA on 01 July 2023.
At the appropriate time, the ASA will assume responsibility for the ongoing materiel
delivery of Australia’s Collins class submarine capability to Navy including for effective
ongoing sustainment, selected capability upgrades and life-of-type extension. This
recognises that the pathway to Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine capability starts
with Collins, and that continuity of Australia’s submarine capability relies on
management of the Collins class in conjunction with the nuclear-powered submarine
pathway.
Australian submarines, both conventional and nuclear-powered, will continue to be
operated by the Royal Australian Navy.
Background
Following the decision to cancel the Attack-class Submarine Program and the
Government’s announcement (14 March 2023) on the optimal pathway to acquire
nuclear-powered submarines, the successful execution of the Collins class life-of-type
extension remains a priority.
This includes a dedicated Life of Type Extension project, integrated with effective
ongoing sustainment, and selected capability enhancements.
Early planning to extend the service life of the Collins class Submarines started in 2011.
Substantive work on the Life of Type Extension project commenced in 2016-17
supported by funding from the Future Submarine Program. This work informed
development of the program and further requirements that are being funded under
separate Government approvals.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Funding for the Life of Type Extension project has been transferred to Collins
sustainment and is listed under the sustainment funding line known as CN62.
-
The Collins class Life of Type Extension project achieved First Pass Government
approval in June 2021.
Timeline of Significant Events
Date
Action
18 April 2022
The former Government announced the Collins class Submarine
periscope upgrade (optronics) during a press conference at
Osborne in South Australia.
16 September 2021
The former Government announced the Life of Type Extension
project will be conducted on all six Collins class Submarines at
Osborne in South Australia.
June 2021
Government first pass approval for the Collins Life of Type
Extension project.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 830, Collins class Life of Type Extension, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
(Liberal, South Australia) asked to be provided with the current status of Collins life-of-
type extension planning and Navy leadership and personnel readiness for current and
nuclear-powered submarines.
QoN 8, ASC workforce, Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) asked about
ASC’s workforce for Collins sustainment and the Life of Type Extension project.
QoN 20, Collins Life of Type Extension AIC, Senator David Fawcett, (Liberal, South
Australia) asked about Australian industry involvement in the Collins Life of Type
Extension project.
QoN 99, Collins Life of Type Extension, Senator Linda White (Labor, Victoria) asked
about the current status of the Collins Life of Type Extension project.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In March 2023, an individual sought access to documents relating to Collins full-cycle
docking/life-of-type extension requirements, schedule and planning activity documents
as a result of the AUKUS announcement, as part of a broader request for documents
related to the nuclear-powered submarine pathway.
There was no in-scope Collins
class Submarine documents identified.
In September 2022, a media organisation sought access to documents relating to at
sea incidents of the Collins class Submarines over the last 10 years.
Documents were
released on 14 November 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 14 March 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister
responded to questions relating to the
Collins class Submarine life-of-type extension.
On 14 March 2023, the Foreign Minister
responded to questions relating to the Collins
class Submarine life-of-type extension.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 01 May 2023, ABC’s Four Corners aired a report
Going Nuclear: Australia’s high risk
submarine gamble. Journalist Angus Griggs investigated Australia’s nuclear ambitions.
The report criticised the availability of the Collins class Submarines.
On 20 March 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Collins class subs to pack
extra punch with Tomahawk missiles. Journalist Greg Sheridan speculated that as part
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
of the Defence Strategic Review the Government will equip the Collins class
Submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
On 14 March 2023, Naval News published an article titled,
Fate of Collins class LOTE
unclear. The article speculates that the Collins class Life of Type project may be
“cancelled or rolled back”.
On 10 March 2023, The Advertiser published an article titled,
Libs make waves but
Collins class upgrade jobs for SA are not sunk. The article reports an “uncertainty
around the future of naval programs in Adelaide” and potential job impacts.
On 28 February 2023, The Guardian published an article titled,
Mind the capability gap:
what happens if Collins class submarines retire before nuclear boats are ready?
Journalist Tory Shepherd reports on the Collins class life-of-type extension and the
acquisition of nuclear powered submarines.
On 07 February 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Unions back Collins-
submarine build. Journalist Ben Packham states the Australian Shipbuilding Federation
of Unions are pushing for six new Collins class Submarines to be built.
On 01 February 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Marles gives us
another sinking feeling on subs. Journalist Greg Sheridan reports that there is no
chance of conventionally powered submarines being acquired as a way to bridge a
potential capability gap until nuclear powered submarines are delivered.
On 27 October 2022, The Australian published an article titled,
Will upgraded Collins
last the distance? Journalise Nigel Pittaway reported work such as the Collins class life-
of-type extension hasn’t been undertaken in Australia before and there are many
unknown factors dependent on their successful completion.
On 01 October 2022, Defence Technology Review published an article titled,
Australia
gears up for Collins class LOTE. The article discusses a potential capability gap and how
the Collin class life-of-type extension will form part of ensuring there is no capability
gap.
On 22 September 2022, ABC News published an article titled,
Former navy chief fears
Australia's Collins class submarines will soon be more 'detectable' than nuclear-
powered boats. Journalist Andrew Green stated that recently retired Vice Admiral
Michael Noonan warned the ageing Collins class Submarine fleet will become easier to
detect in an increasingly crowded maritime neighbourhood because they need to
surface more frequently than nuclear-powered boats.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Division:
Submarines
PDR No:
SB23-000392
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Commodore Daniel Leraye, Director
John Chandler, First Assistant Secretary
General, Collins Submarine Program
Submarines
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 04 April 2023
Date: 23 May 2023
Consultation: Navy
Date: 03 May 2023
Commodore Thomas Phillips, Director
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
General Submarines
Consultation: Nuclear Powered Submarine
Date: 05 May 2023
Task Force
Rear Admiral Matthew Buckley, Head of
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Nuclear Powered Submarine Capability
Cleared by DFG: s47E(d)
,
Date: 06 April 2023
Acting Director Finance Navy Acquisition
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 24 May 2023
RADM Wendy Malcolm, Acting Deputy Secretary, Naval
Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate
Collins life-of-type extension implementation
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Written Question
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for
Defence on 28 September 2022:
1.
Can the Minister confirm the progress of decision-making, project and program design
and implementation, and on the governance of the life-of-type-extension for the Collins
class submarine force?
2.
What is the level of preparedness and expected capacity of the Navy’s submarine force
leadership and personnel for current requirements and also the upcoming acquisition
of new submarine technology and capability under AUKUS?
3.
What briefings and reports have been provided to the Minister, and the Government,
relating to these matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Answer
The Minister representing the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the
Senator’s question:
The Collins class Life of Type Extension project achieved First Pass Government approval in
June 2021 for the design work for the core LOTE work package, including updates and
upgrades to diesel engines, the main motor and power conversion equipment and
procurement of first of class main motor equipment.
In December 2021, the then Government approved an optronics capability to be
implemented in six submarines, as well as interrelated cooling updates. Defence is continuing
preparations for the Collins life-of-type extension. Governance arrangements are in place.
The total number of qualified submariners in Navy was 865 as of 1 July 2022. Navy is
implementing a range of attraction, retention and structural initiatives to support the
recruitment, training and retention of submariners.
A separate Workforce Transition Plan is currently under development to cater for the
emerging nuclear submarine capability. Future workforce demand and skill requirements for
the nuclear powered submarines are being developed by the Nuclear Powered Submarine
Taskforce in collaboration with our AUKUS partners.
Defence routinely briefs Ministers and Government on this matter. These briefings contain
sensitive material and may adversely impact Defence if released publicly.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
ASC’s workforce for Collins sustainment and the Life of Type Extension project
Senator David Fawcett
Spoken Question
Senator FAWCETT: I will give you two more questions to take on notice. Firstly, I asked you
before about changes to the ASC workforce. Can you take on notice, and come back to us
and let us know, how stable their workforce is and whether it has grown as a result of LOTE
or whether they're struggling to attract key skills, particularly in the engineering space.
Mr Dalton: Mr Whiley addressed some of that on Monday night, but we will take it on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: You can give me a link to his evidence, then, or you can provide it on
notice, which would be great. And you have very satisfactorily distracted me from my second
question, so I will think of that and I will come back to you!
Answer
Mr Whiley (CEO and Managing Director of ASC) provided a response that covered part of this
question at the Finance and Public Administration Committee Senate Estimates on Monday,
7 November 2022. It is recorded over pages 130 and 131 of the Committee Hansard.
Mr Whiley testified that ASC’s workforce has increased by approximately 10 to 15 percent.
Mr Whiley noted that 138 of the workers brought into ASC through the Sovereign
Shipbuilding Talent Pool were being utilised across the Collins work scope. The Department
can advise that some of the 138 are working directly on Collins LOTE activities, with the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
remainder working on more routine Collins-related tasks in order to free up experienced ASC
engineers to work on LOTE activities.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Australian industry involvement in the Collins Life of Type Extension project
Senator David Fawcett
Spoken Question
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Dalton, coming back again to Collins and LOTE, you'd be aware that
since the Coles review, one of the key successes is the whole enterprise for the Collins and
the engagement of Australian industry whether that's through reverse engineering the
Hedemora and support from companies like MacTaggart Scott with periscopes et cetera.
Having that local industry that has supported ASC and Navy very effectively—that essentially,
I think, is our baseline. In relation to the much talked figure of about 90 per cent of Australian
industry support for the through-life support of Collins—whether that's in dollar terms or
percentage terms of the number of contracts; I'm not quite sure how defence has defined
that in the past—could you, on notice, baseline that for us and the current work in LOTE?
And then forecasting forward, as we replace the power train, as we replace periscopes et
cetera with products that come from overseas, my concern is that we will potentially end up
where we were with Collins in that we'll be relying on overseas maintenance, contracts and
IP and then, down the track, have to re-create an Australian capability. So I'd like your
planning, at this stage, for where we will be at the end of LOTE in terms of the number of
contracts or percentage value that is still with Australian industry versus gone overseas,
including the OEM in that mix. Mr Dalton: We'll take that on notice and I can assure you that
over 90 per cent of the platform based Collins sustainment is work that's done in Australia.
We're not anticipating a significant change in terms of the platform support pre- and post-
LOTE.
Answer
Based on the current contractual reporting obligations of the Collins class submarine industry
partners, 92.77 per cent of the ongoing platform sustainment budget is spent in Australia.
Defence does not anticipate this platform sustainment spend percentage changing
substantively post LOTE.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Collins Life-of-Type Extension
Senator Linda White
Written Question
Senator Linda White asked the Department of Defence the following question, upon notice,
on 29 November 2022-
1. What is the current status of the life-of-type extension (LOTE) of the Collins class
submarines?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
a. Has Government approved life-of-type extension0 for all six Collins class
submarines? If so, when did Defence first recommend to government that all six
submarines be extended and when did Government approve that request?
b. What is the current cost estimate for the LOTE project? If possible, please
breakdown the headline cost between overarching project setup and
management costs and the anticipated costs of the actual LOTE work on the
submarines.
c. What is Defence’s current assessment of the risks associated with the LOTE
project? Has there been any change in Defence’s assessment of the level of risk
associated with the LOTE project since 2013?
2. In May 2016, the Study into the Business of Sustaining Australia’s Strategic Collins class
Submarine Capability (aka the Coles Review) stated that: “In undertaking the assessment
for Part B, the Review Team was advised by the Enterprise on a number of key
assumptions, including considerations relating to the SEA1000 program. These key
assumptions are […] life-of-type extensions for three Collins submarines (for their full
cycles) have been assumed. The number of submarines to undergo an extension could be
reduced or increased to match the introduction of the new submarines into service”. Is
this an accurate summary of Defence’s planning assumptions at the time?
3. On 8 November 2018, the then Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Noonan, was quoted in the
media as saying that: “If it needs to be more than three submarines, that’s the advice I’ll
provide to government. And if it needs to be all six Collins class submarines, that’s the
advice I’ll take to government.”
a. At that point in time, was Defence’s planning assumption still based on life-of-type
extension for three Collins submarines or had the planning assumption changed?
b. If it changed, please describe Defence’s planning assumption at the time on the
number of Collins submarines that would require extension as well as when and
why the planning assumption had changed.
4. On 27 October 2021, Vice Admiral Noonan told Senate Estimates that: “The life-of-type
extension for the Collins class submarines was always going to happen with at least five
boats. The decision to LOTE all six boats will ensure that, had we proceeded with the
Attack class, we would have had a very capable Collins class submarine into the 2040s.
That has not changed.” Was Vice Admiral Noonan correct when he said that the LOTE was
“always going to happen with at least five boats”?
a. If yes, on what date did Defence determine it was “always” going to be at least
five boats and how does Defence reconcile this comment with Vice Admiral
Noonan’s prior comments as well as the planning assumptions outlined in the
Coles Review?
b. If no, is it the case that Defence’s assumptions around the number of Collins that
could be subject to LOTE changed over time? When did these planning
assumptions change and what were the drivers of that change?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
5. What are the risks that the LOTE of one or more of the six Collins boats is unsuccessful
and/or takes longer than currently anticipated? a. What does Defence consider the key
risks to successful LOTE to be? Where possible, please give specific examples of the types
of risks.
6. Will LOTE completely alleviate the potential for a submarine capability gap or does that
still remain a risk?
a. Is there, for example, the risk of pressure hull or other critical issues being
discovered that cannot be overcome or mitigated?
b. Does availability of the Collins fleet still remain a concern after LOTE? If so, please
describe what the risks might be to availability as the fleet continues to age.
7. In Defence’s assessment, has the cancellation of the Attack class increased the risk of a
submarine capability gap?
a. If yes, in Defence’s assessment, would an earlier decision on the cancellation of
the Attack class have helped prevent this capability gap?
Answer
1a, b and c. The former Government provided first pass approval to extend the life of all six
Collins class submarines (SEA1450 Phase 1) in June 2021 (the first Government approval
point in the project’s life). The Government considered this project based on advice and
recommendations made by the Department to the Minister for Defence. The
Department has been developing options to extend the life of the Collins class submarine
since 2011. Consideration of the number of submarines to be extended commenced
with at least three – the actual number to be extended was refined over time as the
replacement submarine program took shape. At the time of first pass approval, the total
cost estimate was within the $4.3 to $6.4 billion public cost envelope. The detailed
executable life extension cost developed with industry post first pass will be considered
by Government at second pass. The work done by the Department since 2011 has
demonstrated that extending the life of the Collins class submarines is feasible. The
Department assesses the risks of extending the life of the Collins class submarines to be
significant, but manageable. While this assessment has not substantially changed over
time, our confidence in the assessment has improved.
2, 3 and 4. The window to decide to replace the Collins class submarine without extending its
life effectively closed in 2011. The commencement of the Attack class submarine
program in 2016 allowed the Department to develop a submarine capability continuity
model based on a range of factors, including potential exit from and entry into service
dates for Collins and Attack class submarines. This enabled the Department to adapt
planning assumptions, such as the number of Collins to be life-extended, over a range of
contingencies, including as these changed over time.
5. The Department assesses the risk of extending the life of the Collins class submarines to
be significant, but manageable. The core work package to extend the life of each Collins
class submarine is planned to be inserted during scheduled full-cycle dockings
commencing from mid-2026. Further work to extend the life of each Collins class
submarine is planned for insertion in subsequent mid-cycle and intermediate dockings.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
13 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR: SB23-000392
Last Update: 23 May 2023
Collins class Submarines
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: John Chandler
Document 5
Within the planned docking periods, life extension work has risk associated with scope,
cost and schedule. The Department is working closely with ASC to manage the planned
activities within the approved resources and docking windows.
6. Extending the life of the Collins class submarines is one of several strategies to mitigate
the emergence of a potential capability gap. The life-of-type extension program will carry
the Collins class submarines through the 2030s and well into the 2040s with a manageable
level of risk. The Government will consider the range of mitigations that may be required
in light of the nuclear-powered submarine optimal pathway being delivered in the first
quarter of 2023.
a. The Department considers the risks of managing each Collins class submarine to its
extended planned withdrawal date to be significant, but manageable. This includes risks
associated with the pressure hull and other critical systems.
b. Yes, the availability of Collins class submarines will remain an enduring focus for as long as
the boats remain in service. As the boats age, age-related risks to submarine availability
will increase.
7. No. The decision to cancel the Attack class submarine program occurred following the
United States agreeing to share submarine nuclear propulsion technology with Australia
and the former Government’s subsequent decision to pursue a nuclear-powered
submarine program. The work of the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce will
determine which platform Australia will acquire. The optimal pathway will inform when
Australia can acquire it, mitigate any potential capability gap, how Australia can continue
to meet its non-proliferation obligations, and cost.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Daniel Leraye
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Collins Submarine Program
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: Collins Submarine Program
Group/Service: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
14 of
14
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
operate effectively throughout the region. They will also have the flexibility to support
other roles such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
The Hunter class frigate project is currently Australia’s largest and most complex
Defence procurement. It is a cornerstone in the recapitalisation of the Navy and
delivering continuous naval shipbuilding in Australia.
This project is key to developing a globally competitive and effective naval shipbuilding
and sustainment industry, significantly expanding and upskilling Australia’s workforce.
Has the Government commenced the Hunter class frigate review?
Yes, the independent review commenced in September 2022 and finalised its report in
January 2023. The review team considered the progress made on ship design and
evaluated the program’s performance to date on cost, schedule and scope.
The review’s report was considered by the Defence Strategic Review in forming its
recommendations.
The Government has agreed with the Defence Strategic Review recommendation to
undertake an independent analysis of the Navy’s surface combatant fleet composition.
This independent analysis has commenced and is on track to deliver their finding for
consideration by September 2023. This review is being conducted by Retired US Vice
Admiral William Hilarides, former finance secretary Rosemary Huxtable and former
Australian Fleet Commander, retired Vice Admiral Stuart Mayer.
The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 24 April 2023 “The current work in terms of
the construction of Hunter will continue, and this Review will report in the third quarter
and it will do so in a way which does not see any disruption”.
The Government has committed to continuous naval shipbuilding to provide a
sovereign capability for both Osborne and Henderson ship yards.
On 19 May 2023 Defence officials appeared before the Joint Committee of Public
Accounts and Audit following the tabling of the Australian National Audit Office report
of the performance audit on Defence’s procurement and management of the Hunter
class frigates. As stated at the hearing Defence is reviewing the audit office report in
order to determine what occurred and ensure we learn lessons from this and update
processes as required. This will take time given the size of the report and many of the
officials no longer work in the Department.
What is the current cost forecast and approved budget?
The current out turned total acquisition cost estimate is $45.15 billion (Portfolio Budget
Statement 2023-24).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
Defence has approval to undertake the design and productionisation phase only. The
approved budget for this phase is $7.18 billion (Portfolio Budget Statement 2023-24),
which includes $921 million for infrastructure. The contract value for this phase with
BAE Systems Maritime Australia is currently $2.98 billion.
Defence will seek Government approval for funding for the production of the first batch
of three ships in late 2023.
Regarding the Australian National Audit Office audit findings, why has the project not been
effective in delivering on project milestones and appears to have created additional
milestones in order to pay the prime contractor?
The current approved design and productionisation phase is a cost plus fixed fee
contract and this type of contract was selected given the high risk nature of the project
at this stage. Since the head contract signature in December 2018, contract changes
have been executed to align the payment of fee to specific milestones instead of the
original quarterly milestones. Some milestones have slipped from their new contracted
dates however the project has continued to progress despite experiencing the impact
of the global pandemic across multiple sites. In May 2023 the project commenced
production of the first schedule protection block that will be used in the first ship.
Regarding the Australian National Audit Office audit findings, why did Defence not assess
value for money during the tender process?
Defence ensures that all procurement advice to Government on major and complex
acquisition projects include the basis and rationale for proposed decisions, including
the consideration of value for money.
Defence understands that value for money is a key element of any tender evaluation
and seeks to ensure all proposals are considered in line with the Commonwealth
Procurement Rules.
The tender process Defence conducted encouraged competition and was conducted in
an ethical manner and with transparency. Defence conducted a process with regard to
the program’s objectives. Government’s direction remains meeting those objectives.
In accordance with due process, Defence made a recommendation to Government and
with Government’s agreement, entered into the design and productionisation phase.
The complexity and scale of the project, as well as the importance of the capability to
meeting Government’s requirements, was recognised by the Auditor General.
SEA5000 is a multi-state procurement that will span many decades, with an approval
pathway that returns to Government multiple times. Throughout this process, Defence
will provide assessments that include a value for money assessment.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
It is important to note that $45.6 billion is a cost estimate. Approval has not been
sought for the funding to acquire nine Hunter class frigates. What has been approved is
the selection of the Type 26 as the reference ship design, the sale of ASC Shipbuilding,
funding for the design and productionisation phase, and agreement to return to
Government progressively for the construction of ships in three batches.
Regarding the Australian National Audit findings, can Defence afford the nine ship program
within the current estimate cost?
While beyond the current approved scope of the project, the Auditor-General also
found that the original 2018 estimated total acquisition cost for the project, including
all of the elements yet to be approved by Government, is under extreme pressure.
Defence has previously flagged that the project is under extreme pressure to deliver
nine ships for the estimate cost provided to Government in 2018. BAE Systems will
provide a tender quality cost estimate in July 2023 for the first three ships (Batch 1) and
a cost estimate for nine ships. Once received, Defence will provide the estimate to the
Independent Analysis Team for consideration as part of the surface combatant fleet
review.
Regarding the Australian National Audit findings, why was Defence not able to locate certain
key records?
Defence acknowledges and understands that it must maintain appropriate records and
employs a sophisticated and regulatory compliant record management system.
Of the thousands of documents identified and requested by the ANAO, 11 were noted
as unable to locate or missing information by the ANAO. Of the 11, four are documents
that were not able to be located and the remaining seven documents were noted by
ANAO stating information they considered should have been recorded in the
documents as opposed to the document not being located.
Regarding the Australian National Audit findings, why has there been a cost blowout?
The ANAO reported that the cost of the head contract has increased, without
acknowledging that Defence always expected the cost to increase with the main
increases to include the support system, land based test site and the interim
arrangement blocks required as a result of the Type 26 delays to keep the skilled
workforce employed.
The ANAO did note that the current contract price remains within the original Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 section 23 approval made in
2018. The Government has not approved an increase to the budget for the currently
approved design and productionisation stage.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
The cost increases have been transparently reported in the Major Projects Report
2020-21 and 2021-22.
Regarding the Australian National Audit findings, why has there been a 18 month delay?
The project is running around 18 months late – this has been publicly reported in the
Major Projects Report 2021-22 and was approved by the previous Government in June
2021. It is not an additional delay.
Some of this delay is attributable to design maturity issues with the UK’s Type 26
program that have flowed into our project, and some of it is a direct consequence of
the impact of the global Covid-19 pandemic.
Background
Schedule
When the project was approved in June 2018, the indicative schedule had prototyping
commencing by the end of 2020 and ‘cut steel’ on ship 1 by the end of 2022 and
delivery before the end of 2029. The ninth ship was anticipated to be delivered
between 2045 and 2047.
Prototyping commenced on schedule in the upgraded shipyard at Osborne in
2020.
In July 2021, the former Government agreed to an extended prototyping period and an
18-month delay to commencement of ship 1, from December 2022 to no later than
June 2024, to manage the risks associated with design maturity of the Type 26
reference ship design in the United Kingdom and the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Sustainment
The Hunter class frigate fleet will be sustained using the future maritime sustainment
model which is being introduced under Plan Galileo.
Western Australia will be home to a new Hunter class frigate training and capability
centre, known as ‘Ship Zero’, to support the new frigates’ introduction into service and
operation thereafter.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Supplementary Estimates: 15 February 2023
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
billion future frigates program;
Defence spending: $45 billion frigate faces budget blow-out
(afr.com);
Navy’s troubled frigate project suffers further cost blowout;
Project to build navy
frigates in Adelaide faces ‘significant’ cost blowouts, report says | Australian military | The
Guardian.
On 28 February 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Rethinking Australian
airpower in an age of impactful projection. Journalist Marcus Hellyer wrote about
Defence capability, including the Hunter Class Frigate program.
On 20 February 2023, Australian Manufacturing published an article titled,
BAE System
Australia form enterprise collaboration to develop combat management systems.
Journalist Kate B examined BAE Maritime Systems Australia’s partnership with
Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to support delivery of the Hunter Class
Frigate program.
On 15 December 2022, The Australian published an article titled,
Delayed Frigates
‘back on track soon’, says contractor BAE. Journalist Cameron Stewart covered the BAE
Systems Maritime Australia’s managing director Craig Lockhart’s comments on the
status of the Hunter Class Frigate project.
Division:
Major Surface Combatants & Combat Systems Division
PDR No:
SB23-000393
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Commodore Scott Lockey
Sheryl Lutz, First Assistant Secretary,
Director General Hunter Class Frigate
Major Surface Combatants and Combat
Systems
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 4 April 2023
Date: 23 May 2023
Cleared by CFO:
s47E(d)
Director Finance Navy Ships Acquisition – Navy and Naval
Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Defence Finance Group
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy DSR Task Ph: s47E(d)
Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 24 May 2023
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
7 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
RADM Wendy Malcolm, A/Deputy Secretary, Naval
Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Supplementary Estimates
Hunter Review
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Question
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thanks, Chair. It gave the officials a chance to stretch their legs but
not necessarily to move away! The department initiated a review in October last year into the
Hunter Class Frigates— is that correct?
Mr Dalton: That's correct.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: When did that review complete or conclude its work?
Mr Dalton: The review completed their report last month.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Was that in January?
Mr Dalton: Correct.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: What were the terms of reference for that review?
Mr Dalton: We'll take that on notice.
Answer
Not yet tabled
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Former United States Government Officials
Senator Jordon Steele-John
Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. Mr Dalton, Rear Admiral David Gale was on active duty
before he submitted his paperwork to the Pentagon to be able to come and work for
Australia. I believe he has been employed by the department to the tune of US$222,000. I'm
wondering whether you can confirm his employment status with the department.
Mr Dalton: I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I will take it on notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: It's Rear Admiral David Gale. He was a consultant, and I believe is still a
consultant, on the Future Frigate program. Then we've got a Mr Thomas Eccles, a former rear
admiral of the United States who retired in 2013 and has served, I think, for the last five years
or so as a consultant. What role does the former rear admiral serve with the department?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
8 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
Mr Dalton: Admiral Eccles was one of the founding members of the Naval Shipbuilding
Advisory Board, and his role has continued under the new Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory
Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. Finally, there is Mr William Hilarides, a former vice-admiral
who, I think, is currently in the role of member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board.
Mr Dalton: I can confirm that Admiral Hilarides is a foundation member of the Naval
Shipbuilding Advisory Board and he now chairs the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Again, the value of the contracts that we have had with—
Mr Moriarty: If I could, Admiral Hilarides has on a couple of occasions provided evidence to
this committee.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, I am aware of that. If you can do that, it would be fantastic.
Finally, in relation to former admiral Donald Kirkland, he was a member of the Australian
Submarine Advisory Committee?
Mr Dalton: I can confirm that Admiral Kirkland was a member of the Australian Submarine
Advisory Committee. He is no longer serving in that capacity.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: No, he is not. He was found to be—it was kind of made public that he
was also acting at the time as chairman of the Huntington Ingalls Industries group, since 2020
I believe.
Mr Dalton: We were aware of his other roles; he had declared that. He wasn't involved in
providing advice on aspects that touched on Huntington.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: He has stepped back from that position, as of April, because of a
potential conflict of interest.
Mr Dalton: From the Submarine Advisory Committee?
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes.
Mr Dalton: Yes.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Because of a potential conflict of interest.
Mr Dalton: With the expansion of the submarine program to include a nuclear powered
submarine program in which Huntington Ingalls would have an interest. I will just reinforce, in
his capacity as a member of the Submarine Advisory Committee he did not provide advice on
nuclear powered submarines.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I believe his contract was worth about US$255,000, but can you take
that on notice for me, as well.
Mr Dalton: Yes.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Finally, can you give us an idea of whether there are any former
members of the Navy currently advising Defence in relation to the AUKUS negotiations, other
than the individuals I have listed?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
9 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
Mr Dalton: I'm probably not best placed to talk about who is providing advice in relation to
AUKUS, but I can certainly advise you about the members of the Naval Shipbuilding Expert
Advisory Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, you could, or someone else at the table.
Mr Moriarty: Senator, we will get you a list of all former members of the US Navy who are
providing advice to Defence across any program.
Answer
Rear Admiral David Gale USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department over the period
September 2016 to October 2018 in relation to the Hunter Class Frigate program and
continuous naval shipbuilding.
Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016
under a number of contracts. The total not to exceed value of Admiral Eccles’ contracts
(including services and reimbursables) for advice through the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board and Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel over this period is $1,214,105.75
(including GST).
Vice Admiral William Hilarides USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016
under a number of contracts. The total not to exceed value of Admiral Hilarides’ contracts
(including services and reimbursables) for advice through the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board and Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel over this period is $1,941,952.14
(including GST).
Admiral Kirkland Donald USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department over the period
December 2017 to April 2022 in relation to the Collins and Attack Class submarine programs.
The total not to exceed value of Admiral Donald’s contracts (including services and
reimbursables) for advice through the Submarine Advisory Committee over this period was
$2,219,351.98 (excluding GST).
Admiral Donald resigned with two years remaining on his final contract.
Former United States Navy officers currently providing advice to the Department:
Name Advisory Capacity Rear Admiral Thomas ECCLES Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory
Panel Vice Admiral William HILARIDES Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
Captain Vernon HUTTON Development of nuclear mindset and supporting infrastructure and
facilities.
Captain Kevin JONES Development of the Nuclear Stewardship Framework.
Captain Matt KOSNAR Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Admiral John RICHARDSON Specialist advice on nuclear stewardship, workforce, and technical
matters.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
10 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
Commander Andy STEERE Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Captain Bryan STIL Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Hunter Class Frigate program
Senator Nita Green
Question
With respect to the Hunter Class Frigate program:
1. What is Defence’s approach to integration of Australian design requirements into the
Type-26 design reference?
2. How is Defence incorporating these changes to the design reference into the build
process?
3. Former Managing Director of BAE Systems Maritime Australia, Mr Craig Lockhart, told the
media in August 2022:
“We’ve divided the ship into design zones and when the [Type 26] reference ship has
reached a level of maturity that we can predict there will be little design change come
through, we’ll ‘cut’ that design from the UK process and bring that into the Australian
configuration environment. It’s then under our control [and] we expect no more design
change to be embodied in the reference ship that has a Hunter impact without being agreed
at the Design Council.""
a. How many zones have been ‘cut’ from the Type 26 design reference?
b. How many zones remain?
c. Are there any concerns relating to zones of the ship that have little to no variation to the
design reference?
d. Has Defence identified any additional elements that require deviation from the Type 26?
e. Are these zones subject to design reviews?
f. Have there been any failures of these design reviews?
4. What is the current profile of the workforce on the Hunter Class project, including
Departmental and BAE?
5. Is Defence aware of any workforce pressures on the project?
a. If yes, are there any concerns that the workforce pressures could impact schedule and/or
cost?
Answer
1.
The contract with BAE Systems Maritime Australia requires the company to adapt the
Type 26 reference ship design to meet the Hunter Class Frigate Mission System Specification.
The Mission System Specification is agreed and stable. BAE Systems Maritime Australia
employ a structured design process with review gates and agreed entry and exit criteria.
2.
The contract with BAE Systems Maritime Australia requires the company to design and
build the ship to meet the agreed Mission System Specification. The Hunter Class Frigate is
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
11 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
based on the UK’s Type 26 Frigate reference design. Both share 12 design zones that
encompass the design for the entire ship. Type 26 design zones are transferred to Australia
under a structured process at an agreed level of design maturity. Once transferred to
Australia, BAE Systems Maritime Australia progressively incorporate the Australian changes
into each design zone. Each design zone goes through a structured, formal engineering
approval process before being released for construction to commence.
3.
a) Seven
b) Five
c) No
d) No
e) All design zones are managed in accordance with the BAE Systems ‘zonal design’
process.
The zonal design process includes four review gates for each design zone.
f) The first design zone did not proceed past the fourth gate at its first review. A
subsequent review four weeks later was assessed as a proceed. The second design
zone did not proceed past the second gate at its first review. It was assessed as a
proceed two weeks later. The zonal review process has worked correctly in both
circumstances in that the design was not permitted to move to the next stage until
sufficient design maturity was achieved.
4.
The Hunter Class Frigate project office currently employs 163 staff. BAE Systems
Maritime Australia currently employs 1324 staff. In addition to the directly employed staff,
there are additional workers employed across multiple companies in the supply chain and
developing the Australian elements of the combat system.
5.
Yes.
a)
The Department is aware that recruiting across a number of job families is highly
competitive in the current market. In particular, the Department is aware that
engineers, naval architects, program managers, logisticians, supply chain managers,
heavy fabrication operators, and production quality controllers are in high demand. The
Department will continue to work with BAE Systems Maritime Australia and other key
suppliers to develop enterprise-wide supply side strategies to help meet the growing
workforce needs of industry and mitigate workforce risks to schedule and cost.
Senate Question on Notice 13 September 2022
Future Frigate Program
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Question
Senator Lambie asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, upon
notice, on 13 September 2022. Noting that BAE Systems has issued a press release stating
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
12 of
13
FOI 789/22/23
Document 6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000393
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Hunter Class Frigates
Key witness: Sheryl Lutz
that it has completed a first prototype block for the future Frigate and that the release stated
Block 16 was 141 tonnes and that it took 45,000 hours (e.g.320 hours per tonne).
1.
What is the target hours per tonne for the future Frigate project?
2.
What was the average hours per tonne achieved on the Air Warfare Destroyer?
3.
Can details be provided of any international benchmarks for hours per tonne?
4.
What was the original cost projection for the future Frigate program when it first
appeared in the Defence Industrial Capability Plan/Investment Plan?
5.
What was the cost projection for the future Frigate program at first pass?
6.
What was the cost projection for the future Frigate program when BAE Systems were
announced as the preferred tenderer?
7.
What was the current cost projection for the future Frigate program?
Answer
1 - 220 hours per tonne for structural steel fabrication (over the first three ships).
2 - 563 hours per tonne for structural steel fabrication (over the three ships).
3 - 160-170 hours per tonne for structural steel fabrication is the normalised benchmark for
all types of shipbuilding. This is an average across the shipbuilding industry, from
structurally simple cargo vessels and tankers, to significantly more complex warships.
Cargo vessels make up the majority of the benchmarking data that brings the average
down.
4 - >$30 billion (2016 Integrated Investment Program, table 6, p 89).
5 - Within the 2016 Integrated Investment Program provision (but based on a faster build
tempo).
6 - $44.3 billion (PBS 2018-19).
7 - $43.9 billion (PBS 2022-23).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Commodore Scott Lockey
Name: RADM Wendy Malcolm
Position: Director General Hunter Class Frigate Branch
Position: Position: A/Deputy Secretary
Division: Major Surface Combatants and Combat Systems
Group/Service: : Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
13 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000617
Last updated: 24 May 2023
DSR Independent Analysis Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Greg Moriarty, General Angus Campbell.
Document 7
What contracts are in place to support the independent analysis and how much will it cost?
The total estimated value of engagements for the three team members, a modeller and
a strategic writer is approximately $1.2 million, GST inclusive (including services and
reimbursables).
The estimated value of engagements for the three team members to October 2023
(including services and reimbursables) is approximately $0.34 million (including GST).
This leverages existing contracts for two members (Hilarides and Huxtable), and one
member (Mayer) being engaged as a reservist.
Expenditure for the team members’ services and reimbursables to 31 March 2023 was
approximately $0.04 million (GST exclusive).
Individual consultancy rates reflect the level of expertise each member brings to their
role on the team.
Contract values reflect the maximum contract value and includes services and
reimbursables.
How are confidentiality and conflicts of interest being managed for the team members?
Appropriate security, confidentiality, and conflict of interest arrangements are in place
and are regularly reviewed.
Relevant foreign government approvals are also in place to support these
engagements.
What access to Defence and Government information do the team members have?
The independent analysis is being informed by intelligence, capability, operational and
strategic assessments of Australia’s national shipbuilding and sustainment enterprise
and Navy’s surface combatant fleet.
Input to the independent analysis is being drawn from internal and external experts
and consultations with senior personnel.
How is Defence supporting the independent analysis?
Defence is supporting the team members by coordinating briefings from senior
officials, providing intelligence/capability assessments, and facilitating operational
analysis and external consultation.
Secretariat functions and costs associated with supporting the operation of the team
are being managed by Defence.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Independent Analysis Team Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Division: Associate Secretary Group
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Page
2 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000617
Last updated: 24 May 2023
DSR Independent Analysis Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Greg Moriarty, General Angus Campbell.
Document 7
Background
Navy’s surface combatant force currently consists of three Hobart Class Guided Missile
Destroyers and eight Anzac Class Frigates. The Anzac Class Frigates are planned to be
replaced by nine anti-submarine warfare optimised Hunter Class Frigates under Project
SEA 5000-1.
Why have you engaged a retired USN member to Chair the independent analysis activity?
The United States is an important ally to Australia and the Chair, VADM Willy Hilarides
USN (Ret.), has extensive experience in shipbuilding and submarine programs.
VADM Hilarides also has a thorough understanding of Australia’s naval requirements
and programs and has been providing advice to the Government since 2016 as part of
the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, and its precursor the Naval Shipbuilding
Advisory Board.
Why are you paying US advisors and other Independent Analysis Team members so much
and is it value for money?
Remuneration for these individuals is appropriate given their seniority and experience.
Timeline of Significant Events.
Date
Action
24 April 2023
Government publicly released the Defence Strategic Review and advised of
the independent analysis of Navy’s surface combatant fleet.
22 March 2023
Independent Analysis Team Secretariat established.
The Independent Analysis Team Terms of Reference (SECRET AUSTEO and
22 March 2023
SECRET REL AUS/US) signed by the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence
Force.
14 February 2023
Defence Strategic Review submitted to the Government.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Independent Analysis Team Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Division: Associate Secretary Group
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Page
3 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000617
Last updated: 24 May 2023
DSR Independent Analysis Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Greg Moriarty, General Angus Campbell.
Document 7
Recent Ministerial Comments
The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Industry outlined
the independent analysis into Navy’s surface combatant fleet at the launch of the
Defence Strategic Review on 24 April 2023.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 27 April 2023,
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that various retired senior US
military officers have been paid up to $7,500 a day for advice on major defence
projects. The Herald reports that VADM Hilarides “would be hired to lead a snap review
of the RAN’s surface fleet” and reports he had previously been paid “up to $US1.6
million since 2016” and charged USD 4,000 a day.
Australia pays former US officials $7k
a day for advice
On 27 April 2023,
ABC News reported that several retired US military officers (including
VADM Hilarides) are contracted by Defence as consultants and comments on their
remuneration.
Retired US admirals charging Australian taxpayers thousands of dollars
per day as defence consultants
On 25 April 2023,
The Australian reported that VADM Hilarides “won a lucrative
Australian contract as the head of a review that will determine the future size and
structure of the Royal Australia Navy. The Australian further reports past remuneration
for VADM Hilarides of USD 1.3 million since 2016 and charges of USD 4,000 a day for
consulting.
Defence Strategic Review: US admiral William Hilarides wins plum job of
reviewing Australian fleet
On 25 April 2023,
ABC News reported that VADM Hilarides, Ms Huxtable and VADM
Mayer will all conduct the analysis into the Navy surface Fleet and comments on VADM
Hilarides’ remuneration.
Retired US Admiral who has previously advised Australia on
shipbuilding to lead fresh review on navy’s warship fleet
On 25 April 2023,
The Washington Post reported several retired US military officials
have provided consultancy services to foreign governments. The Post reports that
VADM Hilarides is “the second-highest earner” (of this group) who since 2016 has
earned up to $1.6 million from consulting contracts to the Government of Australia,
and that he will be leading the independent analysis review.
Retired NSA director won
lucrative consulting deals with Saudis, Japan
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Independent Analysis Team Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Division: Associate Secretary Group
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Page
4 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000617
Last updated: 24 May 2023
DSR Independent Analysis Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Greg Moriarty, General Angus Campbell.
Document 7
Division:
Associate Secretary
PDR No:
SB23-000617
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Victoria Bergmann, Assistant Secretary
Matt Yannopoulos, Associate Secretary,
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
Associate Secretary Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 3 May 2023
Date: 24 May 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 2 May 2023
Tracey Mackrow, AS Finance – Enabling Groups
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 24 May 2023
Matt Yannopoulos, Associate Secretary, Associate
Secretary Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Independent Analysis Team Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Division: Associate Secretary Group
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Phone: s47E(d) Mob: s22
Page
5 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
training for Pacific Maritime Security Program partner country crews through
TAFE Queensland and the Royal Australian Navy’s Sea Training Group;
embedded in-country Navy advisors to support safe operations;
region wide contracted aerial surveillance for Pacific nations; and
enhancing regional coordination and communication.
If pressed: future of the Pacific Maritime Security Program following Defence Strategic Review
Consistent with the Government’s National Defence Statement 2023 following the
release of the Defence Strategic Review, the Department of Defence will work to
strengthen engagement with Pacific Island nations in Pacific maritime security.
If pressed: Guardian-class Patrol Boat Armaments
The Guardian-class Patrol Boats are designed to enable armaments to be fitted.
Pacific nations will consider their own maritime security needs according to their
priorities.
If armaments are requested, the Australian Government will consider each request on
a case-by-case basis. Any armaments would be accompanied by a comprehensive
support package to address sustainment, training and oversight requirements.
Armaments will enhance the Guardian-class Patrol Boat’s contribution to our regional
security and bolster the capacity of nations to respond effectively to shared maritime
security challenges, including illegal fishing and transnational crime.
Australia’s security assistance is undertaken in accordance with domestic and legal
obligations and is subject to a Memoranda of Understanding with important
safeguards.
If pressed: Cyclone damaged Patrol Boats
In March 2023, Vanuatu (RVS
Takuare) and Tuvalu’s (HMTSS
Te Mataili II) Guardian-
class Patrol Boats suffered damage as a result of Cyclones Judy and Kevin.
Defence arranged for both vessels to be transported back to Australia to receive a
comprehensive damage assessment. Both vessels arrived in Cairns in early April.
Defence does not pre-empt the outcome of the assessment. These vessels remain
sovereign assets of each country and it is a matter for the Governments of Vanuatu and
Tuvalu to determine plans for these vessels after the damage assessments.
Australia will determine the capacity to which it can assist Vanuatu and Tuvalu with
these vessels after the comprehensive damage assessments are complete.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
If pressed: Cost of deep level maintenance (30 and 60 month slippings)
The new Guardian-class Patrol Boats represent a significant step up in capability from
the old Pacific Patrol Boats.
Regular maintenance is critical to the ongoing viability and utility of Guardian-
class Patrol Boats.
Australia has committed to fund the 60 month deep level maintenance activities for the
Guardian-class Patrol Boats.
Under the original arrangements, individual nations were responsible for funding 30
month maintenance activities:
However, COVID-19 had a severe economic impact across the Pacific.
As a COVID-19 measure, Australia has agreed to fund a 30 month maintenance
period for six boats (Papua New Guinea (two), Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Tonga,
and Fiji).
If pressed: Guardian-class Patrol Boat delays from engineering and maintenance issues
As with every new product and design, especially one as complex as the Guardian-class
Patrol Boat, issues can be expected and will continue to be addressed as they arise.
Defence is working with Austal Pty Ltd to minimise any disruptions and will continue to
advise nations on the timeframes for handovers.
If pressed: Black and grey water system optimisation (hydrogen sulphide toxic gas hazard)
In December 2022 trials were successfully completed in Cairns on engineering
modifications to optimise the black and grey water system to reduce risk of toxic gas
exposure.
11 of the 14 in service Guardian-class Patrol Boats (including Vanuatu and Tuvalu)
have had modifications completed.
Modifications are now being rolled out across the rest of the fleet through
concurrent fly-away teams, along with a comprehensive training program for
operation, maintenance and safety procedures.
If pressed: Exhaust Cracking (carbon monoxide toxic gas hazard)
Issues involving a fault in the exhaust system were discovered in May 2022. Defence
has completed exhaust cracking repair works on all Guardian-class Patrol Boats.
If pressed: ADF Seariding on Guardian-class Patrol Boats
Guardian-class Patrol Boats are built to commercial standards in line with International
Maritime Organisation standards.
It is not unusual for Royal Australian Navy personnel to embark on commercial vessels.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
Following implementation of the engineering modifications and subject to individual
safety assessments, Navy personnel are permitted to embark on the Guardian-class
Patrol Boats.
If pressed: Sickbay Ventilation Issues
In May 2022, class-wide issues were discovered with sickbay ventilation systems.
Defence has approved the system redesign and will implement changes to the vessels
once the implementation plan has been agreed.
If pressed: Vulkan coupling
In February 2021 cracking in the Vulkan coupling between the main engines and gear
boxes was discovered.
The design for a new coupling has been approved and Defence is awaiting a rollout plan
for installation across the fleet.
If pressed: Samoa’s replacement Guardian-class Patrol Boat
Australia announced its intent to replace Samoa’s Guardian-class Patrol Boat, which
was damaged beyond repair in August 2021.
Australia is working with Samoa for its new vessel handover.
If pressed: Islander Enterprises Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth
This matter is currently before the Supreme Court of South Australia and it is not
appropriate to comment any further.
Background
The Pacific Maritime Security Program is the cornerstone of Australia’s defence
engagement in the Pacific, ensuring Pacific partners can exercise their sovereign rights
and interests over their vast maritime domain.
The Guardian-class Patrol Boats play a critical role in maritime surveillance activities, as
well as detecting and deterring illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Defence is delivering long-term sustainment, maintenance and training programs, in-
country advisors, integrated region-wide aerial surveillance and enhancements to
regional coordination to our partners in the Pacific region.
To date 15 of 22 vessels have been delivered: Papua New Guinea (three), Tuvalu (one),
Tonga (two), Samoa (one), Solomon Islands (two), Fiji (one), Palau (one), Vanuatu (one),
Kiribati (one), Federated States of Micronesia (one), and the Cook Islands (one).
The Government has committed to increasing funding for aerial surveillance activities
by $12 million a year from 2024-25.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
Australian funded aerial assets are available for nations to request through the Forum
Fisheries Agency and additional support can be sought through the Pacific Quadrilateral
Defence Coordination Group.
Islander Enterprises Pty Ltd was contracted by Defence to provide maritime aerial
surveillance in the South Pacific in 2014 and 2015. On 05 August 2020, Islander
Enterprises filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court of South Australia, which
commenced litigation against the Commonwealth.
Guardian-class Patrol Boats
Guardian-class Patrol Boats are a significant step up in capability from the aging Pacific
Patrol Boats and include:
increased capability, including speed, range and crew capacity;
accommodation for mixed gender crews; and
improved Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief capabilities.
Austal Pty Ltd, based in Henderson Western Australia, is the shipbuilding contractor.
In May 2016, the shipbuilding contract for the Guardian-class Patrol Boats was awarded
at a value of $360.1 million. On 01 November 2022, an additional vessel was added to
the Austal contract to accommodate the commitment to replace Samoa’s damaged
vessel.
The construction of the vessels has grown Australia’s defence Industry and supports
200 direct and indirect Australian jobs.
Since 2020 low levels of hydrogen sulphide gas emissions have been detected on a
number of Guardian-class Patrol Boats. Hydrogen Sulphide can be generated in black
and grey water systems and is not unique to the Guardian-class Patrol Boat.
Vanuatu was one of the first nations to receive a fly-away team for engineering
changes to mitigate the risk of exposure to hydrogen sulphide toxic gases.
Tuvalu made the sovereign decision to sail their Guardian-class Patrol Boat to
Vanuatu, to expedite repairs.
Cyclone Judy made landfall on 01 March 2023, and Cyclone Kevin made landfall
on 03 March 2023, where both Vanuatu and Tuvalu’s vessels were damaged.
Training
TAFE Queensland is contracted by Defence to provide individual training to Guardian-
class Patrol Boat crews at the Cairns Campus.
Approximately 250 Pacific and Timor-Leste personnel attend training per year.
The TAFE Queensland contract is a $36 million investment directly supporting 26
jobs.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
Armaments
In June 2021, Australia announced our agreement to Papua New Guinea (25 June) and
Solomon Islands’ (28 June) requests to arm their Guardian-class Patrol Boats.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Papua New Guinea on 27 July 2021.
A draft Memorandum of Understanding has been provided to the Solomon Islands
Government as we work through a needs assessment and logistical arrangements.
Australia is working to respond to a request from the Government of Timor-Leste for
Australia to arm Timor-Leste’s Guardian Class Patrol Boats.
Timor-Leste Minister of Defence wrote to Australia’s then Minister for Defence
on 30 November 2021, for “Both Guardian Class Patrol Boats to receive weapons
systems of a suitable calibre for a more effective role”.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates - 28 November 2022
QoN 69, Pacific Patrol Boats, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South
Australia) asked about the status of Vanuatu Guardian-class Patrol Boat RVS
Takuare.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In July 2022, a media organisation sought information relating to Defence
correspondence on Guardian-class Patrol Boat issues and remediation.
Documents
were released 13 December 2022.
In March 2022, an individual sought information on statistics on Guardian-class Patrol
Boat usage.
Document access was denied under section 33 of the FOI Act. This was
communicated to requester on 30 March 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 3 November 2022, on
ABC Radio, the Minister for Defence Industry reaffirmed
Australia’s position on providing capability enhancements for Solomon Islands’
Guardian-class Patrol Boats.
On 1 July 2022, a
Department of Defence Media Statement was published addressing
engine exhaust cracking and sick back ventilation issues on Guardian-class Patrol Boats
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
Relevant Media Reporting
On 8 February 2023, Australian Defence News, tweeted “
Nafanua III was originally
intended for Republic of Marshall Islands”.
On 3 November 2022,
Daily Cargo News, reported that Austal has received an
additional order for a Guardian-class Patrol Boat.
On 1 November 2022,
Defence News, reported ADF support to help the Pacific fight
illegal fishing as part of Operation KURUKURU.
On 22 September 2022,
Homeland Security Today US, reported on the United States
Coast Guard’s engagement with the Federated States of Micronesia’s National Police
Maritime Wing on repairs and maintenance of the nation’s Pacific Patrol Boat
FSS
Palikir (mistakenly identified in the article as a Guardian-class Patrol Boat).
On 29 August 2022,
PNG Post-Courier, reported on the incident where a PNG Defence
Force Guardian-class Patrol Boat allegedly fired upon an Indonesian fishing vessel.
On 10 August 2022,
Forbes,
commented on Guardian-class Patrol Boats in the context
of the United States’ involvement in the Pacific.
On 8 July 2022,
The Spectator Australia, commented on the suitability of the Guardian-
class Patrol Boats for the Pacific, citing the grounding of Samoa’s vessel and recent
Government engagements with Pacific nations.
Australian media has reported extensively on engine exhaust cracking and sick bay
ventilation issues causing on delays to the Guardian-class Patrol Boats:
1 August 2022 in
The Island Sun
2 July 2022 in the
Samoa Observer
1 July 2022 in the
Australian Financial Review
1 July 2022 in
The Guardian.
Division:
International Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000394
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Director Pacific Maritime
Samantha Higgins, Acting First Assistant
Security Program, Indo-Pacific Enhanced
Secretary, International Policy Division
Engagement
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 26 April 2023
Date: 27 April 2023
Consultation: Nil
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy
Ph: s47E(d)
DSR Task Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 06 April 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary
Strategic Policy and Industry
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates - 28 November 2022
Pacific Patrol Boats
Senator Birmingham
Question
1. What is the current state of the RVS
Takuare?
2. Where is RVS
Takuare now?
3. Vanuatu requested urgent repairs in July, why has this not been done?
4. Did the Government of Vanuatu request urgent repairs so the vessel could be used during
their election?
5. We are now in cyclone season – why isn’t the government acting swiftly to ensure this
vessel can assist?
6. At a media conference at Apia in June, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said “We do
understand how important these maritime assets are to island nations” – if that’s the case,
why hasn’t the government acted more swiftly to assist our Pacific neighbours?
Answer
Vanuatu has made the sovereign decision to not operate the RVS
Takuare until known issues
are resolved. The vessel is in Port Vila.
Australia has worked hard to respond to Vanuatu’s requests for Guardian-class Patrol Boat
repairs. Following a request in July 2022, RVS
Takuare sailed to Cairns, where temporary
repairs to the boat’s engine silencers were completed, while permanent solutions are
engineered. RSV
Takuare then departed Cairns for Port Vila on 26 July 2022, arriving on 29
July 2022. Vanuatu did not make a specific request in relation to its election.
Defence is currently working with Austal to understand and fix other issues as swiftly as
possible and is trialling solutions on a Guardian-class Patrol Boat in Australia. Once a solution
successfully completes test and trials, it will be rolled out in Vanuatu along with a
comprehensive training program for operation, maintenance and safety procedures.
Under the Pacific Maritime Security Program, Australia is committed to providing Vanuatu,
and Pacific partners, capability that will make a meaningful contribution to maritime security
and provide disaster response. The new Guardian-class Patrol Boats offer a significant
improvement in technology and capability.
As with every new product and design, especially one as complex as the Guardian-class Patrol
Boats, issues are to be expected and will continue to be addressed as they arise. COVID-19
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000394
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Guardian-Class Patrol Boats
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 8
exacerbated the effect of providing advanced technology through restricted movements for
training, sustainment, and disrupted supply chains.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Maritime Security Program
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: International Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
9
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
What activities do the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel members undertake?
The panel’s intent is to conduct five in-country visits to Australia per calendar year.
In 2022 the panel conducted five visits to Australia (Adelaide, Canberra, Perth and
Sydney) in February, May, July, October, and December during which they met with
Defence Portfolio Ministers, defence primes and subcontractors, and senior
Government representatives.
The Panel has conducted two visits so far in 2023 (February and April). The remaining
in-country visits are scheduled for July, October and December 2023.
Former Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board members and current Panel members have
provided evidence at Senate Estimates on five occasions; the last occasion was in
June 2021.
Does the dominance of the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel by United States citizens
reflect a US bias?
The Panel currently has six members appointed, four of which are United States
nationals. The other two members are British and Australian.
Panel members have a variety of relevant experience in naval ship design and
construction, shipbuilding, infrastructure, complex procurement, and national level
project management.
Why have you engaged former United States Navy and United States Department of Defense
personnel to advise on shipbuilding and submarines?
The United States is an important ally to Australia and has personnel with extensive
experience in shipbuilding and submarine programs.
As the public might reasonably expect, we leverage this experience by selectively
employing United States nationals, both former government officials and retired senior
United States Navy officers, through forums such as the Panel
Relevant foreign government approvals are in place to support these engagements.
Why do you pay United States advisors and other Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
members so much and is it value for money?
Remuneration for these individuals is appropriate given their seniority and experience.
Are Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel members advising and/or are connected with
the United States shipbuilding industry and does this represent a conflict of interest?
Appropriate security, confidentiality, and conflict of interest arrangements are in place
and are regularly reviewed.
Relevant foreign government approvals are also in place to support these
engagements.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Background
Transition from Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board to Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory
Panel
A former Minister for Defence Industry appointed the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board in December 2016 for an initial three-year tenure to provide independent expert
advice directly to Ministers, including members of the National Security Committee of
Cabinet.
In December 2019, the former Prime Minister agreed to a 12-month extension of the
Board’s term.
In November 2020, the former Government agreed a reconstituted Panel would
replace the Board.
Total expenditure against Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board member contracts for
services and reimbursables between January 2017 and December 2020 was
approximately $6.0 million.
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
Secretariat functions and costs associated with supporting the operation of the panel
are managed by Defence.
Individual consultancy rates are reflective of the level of expertise each member brings
to their role on the panel. Each member has been engaged via an individual
consultancy agreement.
Reporting of contracts on AusTender reflects the maximum contract value and includes
services and reimbursables.
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Membership
The Panel can comprise up to seven eminent individuals with significant experience in
naval ship design, construction, complex procurement, and national level project
management.
The Panel currently has six members appointed; the gender balance is five males and
one female; their nationalities are one Australian, four United States citizens, and one
citizen of the United Kingdom.
The current Panel members are:
- Chair: Vice Admiral William Hilarides, United States Navy (Retd), former
Commander, United States Naval Sea Systems Command (United States citizen);
- Mr Ron Finlay AM, Principal and Chief Executive of Finlay Consulting (Australian
citizen);
- Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles, United States Navy(Retd), Chief Executive Officer,
Trident Maritime Systems (United States citizen);
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
- Mr Murray Easton, former Chair of Babcock Facilities Management (Great Britain
citizen);
- Mr Howard Fireman, former Senior Vice President and Chief Digital Officer,
American Bureau of Shipping (United States citizen); and
- Ms Gloria Valdez, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Navy for shipbuilding
(United States citizen).
Advice to Government
The Panel’s advice to Government is in the form of After Action Reports.
The Panel’s advice to Cabinet supports the identification of emerging challenges, risks
and opportunities, and helps inform decisions required to achieve capability outcomes.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Supplementary Budget Estimates: 15 February 2023
QoN 11, ADM Consultants,
Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western Australia)
asked (as a follow up to the response tabled to QoN 12 from Budget Estimates on
9 November 2022) what Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel members Vice
Admiral William Hilarides United States Navy (Retd) and Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles
United States Navy (Retd) (as well as Admiral Kirkland Donald United States Navy
(Retd)) had been paid ‘up to this point’.
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 10, Paul Sullivan contract,
Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western Australia)
asked to be provided with the contract value of Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan United States
Navy (Retd) covering his time as a member of the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board.
QoN 12, former US government officials,
Senator Jordon Steele-John (Greens, Western
Australia), asked to be provided with information on what advice Rear Admiral David
Gale United States Navy (Retd) was providing to the Department as well as the contract
values for Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel members Vice Admiral William
Hilarides United States Navy (Retd), Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles United States Navy
(Retd), and former Submarine Advisory Committee member Admiral Kirkland Donald
United States Navy (Retd).
Handling Note: This QoN, updated and tabled on 18 April 2023, corrected the value of
contract values for Vice Admiral William Hilarides.
QoN 17, US retired Admirals declaration of other interests,
Senator David Shoebridge
(Greens, New South Wales), asked whether any retired United States Admirals advising
the government had declared any interests in companies that build nuclear powered
submarines.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
26 April 2023 – Defence Strategic Review: US Admiral William Hilarides wins plum job
reviewing Australian Fleet. The Australian reports that VADM Hilarides “won a lucrative
Australian contract as the head of a review that will determine the future size and
structure of the Royal Australian Navy”. The Australian further reports past
remuneration for VADM Hilarides of $US1.3 million since 2016 and charges of $US4000
a day for consulting.
27 April 2023 – Australia pays former US officials $7k a day for advice. The Sydney
Morning Herald reports that various retired senior US military officers have been paid
up to $7500 a day for advice on major defence projects. The Herald reports that VADM
Hilarides “would be hired to lead a snap review of the RAN’s surface fleet” and reports
he had previously been paid “up to $US1.6 million since 2016” and charged $US4000 a
day.
27 April 2023 – Retired US admirals charging Australian taxpayers thousands of dollars
per day as defence consultants. ABC News reports that several retired US military
officers (including VADM Hilarides) were contracted by Defence as consultants and
comments on their remuneration.
25 April 2023 – Retired US Admiral who has previously advised Australia on
shipbuilding to lead fresh review on navy’s warship fleet. ABC News reports that VADM
Hilarides, Ms Huxtable and VADM Mayer will all conduct the analysis into the Navy
surface Fleet and comments on VADM Hilarides’ remuneration.
25 April 2023 – Retired NSA director won lucrative consulting deals with Saudis, Japan.
The Washington Post reports on several retired US military officials who have provided
consultancy services to foreign governments. The Post reports that VADM Hilarides is
“the second-highest earner” (of this group) who, since 2016, has earned up to $1.6
million from consulting contracts to the Government of Australia and reports he will be
leading the independent analysis review.
7 March 2023 –
Former top U.S. admiral cashes in on nuclear sub deal with Australia.
Reporters Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones at the Washington Post published an article
that focusses on former United States Navy officials consulting the Australian
government on shipbuilding programs, the work of Admiral John Richardson United
States Navy (Retd) and specifically mentions Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
members Vice Admiral William Hilarides United States Navy (Retd) and Rear Admiral
Thomas Eccles United States Navy (Retd) including their purported remuneration.
23 November 2022 –
Labor retains Coalition-appointed shipbuilding adviser on $9,000
for each day worked. Journalist Daniel Hurst at
The Guardian published an article that
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
focussed on work undertaken since the change of government by the Professor Donald
Winter, the Prime Minister’s Special Adviser on Naval Shipbuilding. The article is
informed by a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet and focuses on his remuneration and says that the
Government wants the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel ‘to be the main
external source of naval shipbuilding advice’.
2 November 2022 –
Undue Influence: Defence ‘a tangle of overlapping interests’.
Journalist Michelle Fahy at
Pearls and Irritations wrote about the Commonwealth’s use
of retired United States Navy personnel and questioned if their advice included the
cancellation of the Attack Submarine Program and if this represented a conflict of
interest.
31 October 2022 –
Documents reveal extent of former US military chiefs working for
Australia. Reporter Charles Miranda at the
Daily Telegraph published an article
suggested there are security and conflict of interest concerns related to retired United
States Navy personnel advising the Government on shipbuilding programs.
25 October 2022 –
US Admirals driving AUKUS had conflict of interest: Washington
Post. Reporter Mike Scrafton at Pearls and Irritations published an article that focussed
on the use of retired United States Navy personnel and potential conflicts of interest.
24 October 2022 – Crikey published an article titled,
Australia’s submarine debacle, and
how the carousel keeps spinning for retired US Navy officials. The article references the
Washington Post article regarding the use of retired United States Navy personnel and
potential conflicts of interest.
18 October 2022 –
Retired U.S. admirals advise Australia on deal for nuclear
submarines (mrt.com). Reporters Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones at The Washington
Post published an article that focussed on the engagement of retired United States
personnel in support of shipbuilding and submarines.
Division:
Associate Secretary Group
PDR No:
SB23-000395
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Victoria Bergmann, Assistant Secretary
Victoria Bergmann, Assistant Secretary
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
Secretariat, Associate Secretary Group
Secretariat, Associate Secretary Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 2 May 2023
Date: 10 May 2023
Consultation: N/A
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Cleared by CFO: Tracey Mackrow
Date: 4 April 2023
Cleared Associate Secretary:
Date: 10 May 2023
Matt Yannopoulos, Associate Secretary, Associate
Secretary Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Supplementary Budget Estimates 15 February 2023
ADM Consultants
Senator Jordon Steele John
Spoken Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: In the answers you provided on notice in relation to Rear Admiral
Thomas Eccles,
Vice Admiral William Hilarides and Admiral Kirkland Donald, the combined total of the
payments made to those three individuals was some $5.3 million. Can you confirm that was
the answer you gave to us?
Mr Dalton: The response we gave you in that question on notice is the maximum amount
they could be paid if they worked all of the days they were allowed to work under their
contract, so their individual payments will be a total less than that sum.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: How much have they been paid to this point?
Mr Dalton: I'll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: In that context, then, I'm very keen to know how much Admiral
Richardson has been paid by the department to this point. What is the value of his contract-
those 100 days over two years?
Vice Adm. Mead: I'll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: And what's the duration of the contract that former Admiral
Richardson is under?
Vice Adm. Mead: I believe it's approximately two to three years, but I'll take that on notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Given it is a structure to exceed no more than a certain period of time
over a certain number of days, if you break it down, how much are we paying these
individuals per hour for their advice?
Vice Adm. Mead: I'd have to take that on notice, Senator.
Answer
Admiral John Richardson USN (Retd) has provided advice to Department since November
2022. Admiral Richardson has been paid $33,476.64 (excluding GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Admiral Richardson is engaged on a 12-month contract. The contract includes two 12-month
extension options at the Commonwealth’s discretion.
Admiral Kirkland Donald USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department from December 2017
to 2022. Admiral Donald was paid $297,319.97 (excluding GST).
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Vice Admiral William Hilarides USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016.
Vice Admiral Hilarides has been paid $1,582,430.82 (including GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016. Rear
Admiral Eccles has been paid $699,118.68 (including GST) as at 31 December 2022.
Individual payment rates for Admiral Richardson, Admiral Donald, Vice Admiral Hilarides and
Rear Admiral Eccles are commercially sensitive.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Paul Sullivan contract
Senator Jordon Steele-John
Spoken Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. I'll move to advice that the government has received
around the partnership and the acquisition of the capability. My understanding is that Paul
Sullivan, a retired vice admiral who, for a time, was hired as a submarine consultant after
working at an American national security lab that conducts sensitive research projects for the
US Navy, was employed by the department under a contract valued at about $414,000 over a
period of four years. Would you be able to confirm that? That's Vice Admiral Paul E Sullivan.
Vice Adm. Mead: I'll hand that question over to Mr Tony Dalton. I have not directly employed
former vice admiral Paul Sullivan. He is working in the US. We do receive advice, and we have
sought advice from our partners over the past 12 months, as you can imagine, Senator, but
I've not actually employed Admiral Paul Sullivan.
Mr Dalton: I can confirm that Admiral Sullivan was a member of the Naval Shipbuilding
Advisory Board. I can take on notice to get the periods during which he was a member of that
board.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: And the figure of $414,228 for his employment over the four-year
period?
Mr Dalton: I'll take that on notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. These are figures in the public domain, so, if you would be
able to come back to the committee before the end of the day with that information, that'd
be ideal. Would you be able to do that?
Answer
Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan USN (ret) was engaged as a member of the Naval Shipbuilding
Advisory Board (NSAB) from 8 December 2016 until 30 December 2020.
The total not to exceed value of his contract (including services and reimbursables) over this
period was $550,242.00 (including GST).
Vice Admiral Sullivan resigned from the NSAB on 5 March 2020.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Former United States government officials
Senator Jordon Steele-John
Spoken Question
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. Mr Dalton, Rear Admiral David Gale was on active duty
before he submitted his paperwork to the Pentagon to be able to come and work for
Australia. I believe he has been employed by the department to the tune of US$222,000. I'm
wondering whether you can confirm his employment status with the department. Mr Dalton:
I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I will take it on notice.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: It's Rear Admiral David Gale. He was a consultant, and I believe is still a
consultant, on the Future Frigate program. Then we've got a Mr Thomas Eccles, a former rear
admiral of the United States who retired in 2013 and has served, I think, for the last five years
or so as a consultant. What role does the former rear admiral serve with the department?
Mr Dalton: Admiral Eccles was one of the founding members of the Naval Shipbuilding
Advisory Board, and his role has continued under the new Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory
Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Thank you. Finally, there is Mr William Hilarides, a former vice-admiral
who, I think, is currently in the role of member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board.
Mr Dalton: I can confirm that Admiral Hilarides is a foundation member of the Naval
Shipbuilding Advisory Board and he now chairs the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Again, the value of the contracts that we have had with—
Mr Moriarty: If I could, Admiral Hilarides has on a couple of occasions provided evidence to
this committee.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, I am aware of that. If you can do that, it would be fantastic.
Finally, in relation to former admiral Donald Kirkland, he was a member of the Australian
Submarine Advisory Committee?
Mr Dalton: I can confirm that Admiral Kirkland was a member of the Australian Submarine
Advisory Committee. He is no longer serving in that capacity.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: No, he is not. He was found to be—it was kind of made public that he
was also acting at the time as chairman of the Huntington Ingalls Industries group, since 2020
I believe.
Mr Dalton: We were aware of his other roles; he had declared that. He wasn't involved in
providing advice on aspects that touched on Huntington.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: He has stepped back from that position, as of April, because of a
potential conflict of interest.
Mr Dalton: From the Submarine Advisory Committee?
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes.
Mr Dalton: Yes.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Because of a potential conflict of interest.
Mr Dalton: With the expansion of the submarine program to include a nuclear powered
submarine program in which Huntington Ingalls would have an interest. I will just reinforce, in
his capacity as a member of the Submarine Advisory Committee he did not provide advice on
nuclear powered submarines.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I believe his contract was worth about US$255,000, but can you take
that on notice for me, as well.
Mr Dalton: Yes.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Finally, can you give us an idea of whether there are any former
members of the Navy currently advising Defence in relation to the AUKUS negotiations, other
than the individuals I have listed?
Mr Dalton: I'm probably not best placed to talk about who is providing advice in relation to
AUKUS, but I can certainly advise you about the members of the Naval Shipbuilding Expert
Advisory Panel.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, you could, or someone else at the table.
Mr Moriarty: Senator, we will get you a list of all former members of the US Navy who are
providing advice to Defence across any program.
Answer
Rear Admiral David Gale USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department over the period
September 2016 to October 2018 in relation to the Hunter class frigate program and
continuous naval shipbuilding.
Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016
under a number of contracts. The total not to exceed value of Admiral Eccles’ contracts
(including services and reimbursables) for advice through the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board and Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel over this period is $1,214,105.75
(including GST).
Vice Admiral William Hilarides USN (Retd) has provided advice to Government since 2016
under a number of contracts. The total not to exceed value of Admiral Hilarides’ contracts
(including services and reimbursables) for advice through the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory
Board and Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel over this period is $2,437,298.56
(including GST).
Admiral Kirkland Donald USN (Retd) provided advice to the Department over the period
December 2017 to April 2022 in relation to the Collins and Attack class submarine programs.
The total not to exceed value of Admiral Donald’s contracts (including services and
reimbursables) for advice through the Submarine Advisory Committee over this period was
$2,219,351.98 (excluding GST). Admiral Donald resigned with two years remaining on his final
contract.
Former United States Navy officers currently providing advice to the Department:
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Name
Advisory Capacity
Rear Admiral Thomas ECCLES
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
Vice Admiral William
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel
HILARIDES
Captain Vernon HUTTON
Development of nuclear mindset and supporting infrastructure
and facilities.
Captain Kevin JONES
Development of the Nuclear Stewardship Framework.
Captain Matt KOSNAR
Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Admiral John RICHARDSON
Specialist advice on nuclear stewardship, workforce, and
technical matters.
Commander Andy STEERE
Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Captain Bryan STILL
Provide advice on nuclear-powered submarine shipyards and
infrastructure.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
United States retired Admirals declaration of other interests
Senator David Shoebridge
Spoken Question
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Have any other of these retired US admirals had an interest in
companies that build nuclear-powered submarines?
Mr Dalton: Not to my knowledge.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You say 'not to your knowledge'?
Mr Dalton: Yes, not to my knowledge.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Do you say, sitting there, that you have full knowledge of their
disclosures?
Mr Dalton: I have not personally seen their declarations.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Would you take it on notice as to whether or not at any point they
have an interest in any company that builds nuclear-powered submarines?
Mr Dalton: We will take that on notice.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000395
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Administration
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Greg Moriarty
Document 9
Answer
Vice Admiral William Hilarides and Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles have not declared any
interest in companies that build nuclear-powered submarines.
Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan, Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, and Rear Admiral David Gale did
not declare any interest in companies that build nuclear-powered submarines.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Victoria Bergmann
Name: Matt Yannopoulos
Position: Assistant Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Position: Associate Secretary
Branch: Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel Secretariat
Group/Service: Associate Secretary Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Talking Points
South Australia
Through Australian Naval Infrastructure, the Government has investing more than
$555 million in a state-of-the-art shipyard at Osborne South in support of continuous
naval shipbuilding.
Australian Naval Infrastructure is working closely with the Nuclear-Powered Submarine
Task Force to support its future infrastructure needs.
On 25 March 2022, the former Government announced it would lease, through
Australian Naval Infrastructure, additional land to the north of the Osborne
precinct to secure it for potential use as part of a future nuclear-powered
submarine construction yard.
The lease with Renewal SA is for 45.5 hectares of land. The lease commenced on
01 July 2022 for one year and has two further one-year extension options. The
cost of the lease is commercial in confidence.
Enabling works, starting in 2023, will include above and in ground utility
relocation, construction of a new access road and other supporting
infrastructure.
Under the Cooperation Agreement, recently signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and
Premier for South Australia, the Commonwealth and South Australian Government will
progress an exchange of land to facilitate the development of the future nuclear-powered
submarine construction yard, as well as a skills and training academy at Osborne.
This will include exchanging Defence-owned land at Smithfield and Keswick to
support South Australian urban renewal projects, in consideration for the land
required at Osborne.
Western Australia
Infrastructure investment at HMAS
Stirling to support the nuclear-powered submarine
program of up to $8 billion over the next decade is forecast to create around 3,000
direct jobs, and will include:
wharf upgrades;
operational maintenance, logistics and training facilities; and
opportunities for supporting infrastructure outside of HMAS Stirling.
On 15 March 2022, the former Government announced that it intended to invest up to
$4.3 billion in large vessel infrastructure at Henderson, Western Australia to support
continuous naval shipbuilding.
New large ship infrastructure at Henderson would provide an increased sustainment
capacity as sustainment pressures increase over the coming decades, and will provide
sovereign onshore redundancy for the Captain Cook Graving Dock.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
At present, Navy’s five large amphibious and replenishment ships can only be
dry-docked at the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney for routine and
unscheduled maintenance and repair.
Defence is working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that options under
development would see Initial Operating Capability achieved by 2028, as initially
anticipated.
The Western Australian Government identified the need for new infrastructure in
its 2020 Strategic Infrastructure and Land Use Plan for the Henderson precinct.
Defence funded scoping studies were completed in February 2023 and further
capability options are being developed to inform a submission for Government
consideration in late 2023.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Inquiry into the management and assurance of integrity by consulting services:
23 March 2023
QoN 13, Consulting services, Senator Barbara Pocock (Greens, South Australia) asked if
any partners from the “Big 7” are appointed to any boards of sub-committees of
Defence.
Supplementary Estimates: 15 February 2023
QoN 53, Joint Defence and WA Government Henderson Task Force, Senator the Hon
Linda Reynolds (Liberal, Western Australia) asked to be supplied the minutes of these
meetings or any information on what specific action is taken from these meetings.
QoN 54, Henderson and AMC, Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds (Liberal, Western
Australia) asked are there any other studies or plans on infrastructure deficiencies or
updates on Henderson and the Australian Marine Complex.
QoN 63, Henderson Dry Dock Project, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds (Liberal,
Western Australia) asked about funding and capital for the Henderson Dry Dock
Project.
Budget Estimates: 25 November 2022 (Finance Portfolio)
QoN F061, Update on Large Vessel Dry Berth - Henderson, Western Australia, Senator
the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South Australia) asked for an update on the large
ship infrastructure.
QoN F062, Funding – Large Vessel Dry Berth – Henderson, Western Australia, Senator
the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South Australia) asked for information about
funding for the large ship infrastructure.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 13, Infrastructure Upgrades at the Henderson Precinct, Senator the Hon Linda
Reynolds (Liberal, Western Australia) asked for a list of all that is funded under the
Western Australian Governments’ $89 million in fast-tracked infrastructure projects in
the Henderson precinct; and a list of how $47 million was spent in 2021-22, and $65
million in 2022-23 is forecast to be spent by Defence on projects in the Henderson
precinct.
QoN 14, Taskforce reporting effects, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds (Liberal, Western
Australia asked about the Henderson task force and impacts to delivery timeframes,
and the quantum and timing of funding.
QoN 40, WA Naval Infrastructure, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds (Liberal, Western
Australia) asked about Western Australian Naval Infrastructure and the Department of
Defence’s engagement with the Western Australian Government.
QoN 62, WA Naval Infrastructure, Senator Claire Chandler (Liberal, Tasmania) asked a
series of questions relating to Western Australian Naval Infrastructure, funding/budget
for the large vessel dry berth, and Australian Naval Infrastructure’s involvement in the
project.
QoN 68, Henderson Infrastructure, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South
Australia) asked for information about funding for the large ship infrastructure and
Australian Naval Infrastructure.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None
.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 09 February 2023, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds, (Liberal, Western Australia)
raised in Parliament concerns for the future of the Henderson shipyard infrastructure
project stating, that this important sovereign capability, having a dry dock and a
Defence marine precinct in Henderson on our west coast, is now in jeopardy.
On 18 November 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to questions from radio
host Gareth Parker during
an interview with 6PR Breakfast regarding decisions about
the large ship infrastructure in Western Australia.
Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce:
On 1 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister was
interviewed by Karl Stefanovic and
Sarah Abo on Today about the optimal pathway announcement and the industrial base
of AUKUS partners.
On 30 January 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs held a
joint press conference in Paris, announcing joint support to Ukraine with France, and
responding to queries about AUKUS and an interim conventional submarine capability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
On 25 January 2023, the Prime Minister was
interviewed about the nuclear submarine
acquisition costs and costs of Defence following outcomes of the Defence Strategic
Review.
On 24 January 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister was interviewed by the
Sydney
Morning Herald about plans for the upcoming announcement of the nuclear-powered
submarine.
On 23 January 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs published an
opinion piece
discussing Australia’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and AUKUS
partner commitments to uphold legal obligations.
On 19 January 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was
interviewed on Australia-
China relations, including that AUKUS is about working closely with allies.
On 08 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister held a
doorstop interview in
Washington D.C to discuss the outcomes of AUSMIN and the AUKUS Defence Ministers’
Meeting and the intent to operationalise the Australia-United States Alliance.
On 08 December 2022, the
AUKUS Defense Ministerial Joint Statement was released
following the AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting.
On 06 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs
held a
joint press conference with United States Secretary of State and United States
Secretary of Defense following the AUSMIN forum.
On 29 November 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister published an
opinion piece in The
Canberra Times on the strategic imperatives of the AUKUS partnership.
On 8 November 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister addressed the Submarine Institute of
Australia conference where he first used the term “impactful projection” when
describing the importance of nuclear-powered submarines.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 3 April 2023, the West Australian published article titled,
Albanese promises WA will
be ‘big beneficiary’ of subs deal but avoids Henderson dry dock detail. Journalists Tim
Clarke and Katina Curtis, wrote Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused to say
whether Australia’s nuclear submarine future includes the promised $4 billion dry dock
in Henderson — but strongly hinted at a jobs boost for Western Australia in
the AUKUS announcement this week.
On 14 March 2023, the West Australian published article titled,
AUKUS: No dry dock
plan for Henderson despite $8 billion upgrade after nuclear submarine deal. Journalist
Kimberley Cains stated building a dry dock in Henderson to support the maintenance of
the nation’s largest vessels is not included in the Federal Government’s $8 billion
upgrade to naval facilities in Western Australia as part of the AUKUS deal.
On 12 March 2023, the West Australian published an article titled,
Troubled Waters.
Journalist Kimberley Cains stated that Western Australia is hoping the billions of dollars
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
to be spent on AUKUS won't leave this state high and dry over a major project
promised for the Henderson shipyard.
On 9 November 2022, the West Australian published an article titled,
Billions still set
aside for Henderson dry dock but Albanese Government yet to make final decision on
project. Journalist Kimberley Caines, stated that the $4.3 billion for the Henderson dry
dock is still set aside by the Federal Government but a final decision on whether the
project will go ahead has been delayed, pending the Defence Strategic Review.
On 6 November 2022 the West Australian published an article titled,
McGowan
Government calls for UK and US submarines to be based in WA as part of defence force
submission. Journalist Peter Law stated that funding for a $4.3 billion pre-election
commitment by the former Morrison Government to build a large vessel dry dock at
Henderson was not in either of this year’s Federal budgets.
On 14 October 2022 the West Australian published an article titled,
Albanese
Government commits to building Navy’s Henderson dry dock but $4.3 billion cost is
under question. Journalist Kimberley Caines wrote that the Western Australian project
will transform the Henderson maritime precinct into a world-class shipbuilding
powerhouse, but there are questions over whether the $4.3 billion investment is for a
wider scope than just building the dry dock.
Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce:
On 03 April 2023, The Australian, in an article titled
Beijing keen on a “new frontier”
reported on comments made by the Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian in
which he praised the normalisation of ties between Australia and China but described
AUKUS as a bad idea.
On 30 March 2023, The Guardian published an article titled “
AUKUS spending sparks
calls to boost Australia’s aid budget.” Journalist Daniel Hurst reported that there are
calls for Australia to boost its aid budget now that the AUKUS costs have been
revealed.
On 29 March 2023, The Advertiser published an article titled
Labor and union
movement at odds over AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. Journalist Catie McLeod
reported in that the Australian Council of Trade Unions backed a nuclear free defence
policy and is yet to come to a final position on AUKUS.
On 28 March 2023, the Pacific Islands News Association published an article titled
AUKUS is ‘going against’ Pacific Nuclear free treaty – Forum Chair. Journalist Pita
Ligaiula reported that the Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown joined a growing list
of Pacific leaders objecting to the AUKUS deal.
On 24 March 2023, the Age published an article titled
“Dividing world”: NZ no fan of
AUKUS subs. Journalist Matthew Knott reported that a senior New Zealand politician
has raised concerns that Australia acquiring nuclear powered submarines makes the
region less safe.
On 23 March 2023, The Australian Financial Review published an article titled
AUKUS
tech sharing clears first hurdle in US Congress. Journalist Matthew Cranston reported
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
that the United States congress passed a bill which loosened controls on military
technology sharing under AUKUS.
On 22 March 2023 The Guardian published an article titled
Australia’s $3bn AUKUS bill
to boost US and UK industry may go even higher. Journalist Daniel Hurst reported that
there are concerns the $3 billion that is to be spent on the United States and United
Kingdom shipbuilding capability may climb even higher.
On 21 March 2023, The Australian Financial Review published an article titled
Caucus
raucous over AUKUS as dissent surfaces. Journalist Phillip Coorey reported concerns
within the Labor party about the challenges posed by AUKUS.
On 20 March 2023, the Cairns Post published an article titled
Osborne Shipyard to
triple in size for AUKUS nuclear submarines. Journalist Gabriel Polychronis reported the
Osborne shipyard is expected to triple in size to accommodate building nuclear-
powered submarines.
On 20 March 2023, The Sydney Morning Herald published an article titled
Building own
subs “not most cost-effective”. Journalist Shane Wright reported the Productivity
Commission has raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of building nuclear
powered submarines in Australia as opposed to importing them from overseas.
On 17 March 2023, The Guardian published an article titled
Wollongong residents react
angrily to reports Port Kembla will be east coast base for Aukus submarines. Journalist
Paul Karp reported there was opposition from Wollongong residents about the
potential east coast base at Port Kembla.
On 17 March 2023, the NT News published an article titled
New deal sub-par: Turnbull.
Journalist Ellen Ransley reported Malcolm Turnbull had raised concerns of costs and
sovereignty with regards to the AUKUS agreement.
On 16 March 2023, The Australian published an article titled
“Family comes first”: Fiji
lends full support for defence pact. Journalist Joe Kelly reported Fijian Prime Minister
Sitiveni Rabuka has assured Australia of his support for the AUKUS agreement.
On 16 March 2023, ABC News published an article titled
State premiers disagree over
who should host nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines. Journalists Eugene Boisvert,
James Carmody, Leah MacLennan, and Lucas Forbes reported there was growing
discontent among premiers about where nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines will
be stored.
On 15 March 2023, former Prime Minister Paul Keating released a statement titled
AUKUS Statement by PJ Keating, The National Press Club. Mr Keating criticised the
AUKUS agreement as an unnecessary provocation of China and an affront to Australian
sovereignty.
On 15 March 2023, Ben Packham released an explainer in The Australian “
Our freedom
fleet” on the Optimal Pathway, including the timelines and costs involved with
Australia’s nuclear submarine purchases.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Division:
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
PDR No:
SB23-000396
Prepared by:
Cleared by Group/Service Head:
s47E(d)
Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Executive Program Director Large Vessel
Acting Deputy Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding
Infrastructure
and Sustainment Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 26 April 2023
Date: 18 May 2023
Consultation:
Andy Cann, First Assistant Secretary, Nuclear
Powered Submarine Taskforce
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy
Ph: s47E(d)
DSR Task Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by CFO / DPG: NA
Cleared by: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm, Acting
Date: 18 May 2023
Deputy Secretary, Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment
Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Inquiry into the management and assurance of integrity by consulting services
Consulting Services
Senator Barbara Pocock
Question
The following question relates to the below consulting/accounting firms that will be referred
to as the “Big 7.” If answering in the affirmative to any of the below questions, specify which
of the Big 7 firms you are referring to.
•
Deloitte
•
EY
•
KPMG
•
PwC
•
McKinsey
•
Boston Consulting
•
Accenture
Are any former partners of each of the Big 7 appointed to any boards or sub-committees of
Defence?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Answer
Defence does not keep records of former employers in its HR system (PMKeyS) and is
therefore unable to run a search under these parameters. Defence believes that surveying
the entire workforce to obtain this information would unreasonably divert the resources of
the Department.
Supplementary Estimates
Joint Defence and WA Government Henderson Task Force
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question
I understand the Joint Defence and WA Government Henderson Task Force meets quarterly
and is updated by the WA Government routinely on its planning for Henderson
infrastructure.
Can you please supply the minutes of these meetings or any information on what specific
action is taken from these meetings?
Answer
The Joint Department of Defence / Western Australian Government Henderson Task Force
meets regularly to discuss and progress the future development of the Henderson Maritime
Precinct. The actions arising from the Task Force include:
a) Updates on planning and development at the Henderson Precinct;
b) Planning for fit-for-purpose naval shipbuilding and sustainment infrastructure to
support the growing needs; and
c) Facilitating inter-governmental matters.
Supplementary Estimates
Henderson and AMC
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question:
We have the:
• 2019-20 WA Government AMC Strategic Infrastructure and Land Use Plan
• 2020 Defence Henderson Shipbuilding Sustainment Infrastructure Review
• 2021 WA State Government position paper on the AMC
• 2021-2022 Integrated Infrastructure Program study- Funded by Defence with the WA Govt
Are there any other studies or plans on infrastructure deficiencies or updates on Henderson
and the AMC?
Answer:
The Department of Defence provided $9 million in funding to the Western Australian
Government to undertake studies, including the studies identified, within an Integrated
Infrastructure Program. These studies were led by the Western Australian Government in
collaboration with Defence. Additional studies undertaken within this program include
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Integrated Transport Program study, Maritime and Advanced Collaboration and Technology
Hub study, Alternative Energies study, Southern Breakwaters Condition study and the
Northern Harbour Demand study. These studies will be used to inform any further
development of Henderson and the AMC.
The Department of Defence continues to consult with the Western Australian Government
on future naval shipbuilding and sustainment needs at Henderson.
Supplementary Estimates
Henderson Dry Dock
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question
1. In Defence’s response to Questions on Notice about funding for a large vessel dry berth at
Henderson, you noted, “The capital costs of the infrastructure will be funded through ANI,
using equity injected by Government (not the Department of Defence) or through ANI’s
ability to raise capital from the market.” Previously, equity funding from the Commonwealth
was used for construction and acquisition at Osborne.
A) Is the $4.3 billion allocated by the previous government for the Henderson dry
berth project currently in the IIP Broadsheet?
B) Why has the Government decided that ANI should raise its own capital for this
project?
C) Has ANI been consulted on its ability to raise capital from the market to fund the
project in its entirety or partly?
D) Have Defence expended any funding in relation to this project since the October
2022 Budget? E.g. on feasibility studies?
E) Has Defence contracted any consultancies to provide advice on this project? Can
you provide details?
2. In the March 2022 Budget, construction for the project was scheduled to commence in
2023, initial operating capability was 2028 and full operational capability in 2030. At Senate
Estimates in November the Department of Defence said that the final investment decision for
the project had been delayed until mid-2023. Can Defence please provide an updated
timeline for delivery of this project?
A) Defence’s response to QON62: “Subject to Government consideration of the final
capability solution, initial operational capability is anticipated in 2028 with full operational
capability in the early 2030s.” How will Defence make up the time after more than a year in
delays since the original announcement, and no decision due until mid-2023 at the very
earliest?
B) During Senate Estimates in April 2022, Senator Wong asked whether at some point
in the next five years there would be a period in which Australia does not have a dry dock
available. Rear Admiral Malcolm responded: “That is possible.” Given Labor have now
delayed this project by a year, with an investment decision still months away. Can you
confirm that is capability gap is now a certainty?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
C) What is the current funding and scheduled for the upgrades to the Captain Cook
Graving Dock?
D) What is the plan for the period where Henderson is not operational, and Captain
Cook is not operational?
E) Has a location at Henderson been identified and confirmed for the Dry Dock?
3. Please list all of Defence’s engagement with the WA Government on the project since May
2022?
A) When did the Government inform the Government of Western Australia about the
delay in a final investment decision?
Answer
1. A) The former Government made an announcement on 15 March 2022 to “invest up to
$4.3 billion to deliver Western Australia’s first large vessel dry berth. Funding for the project was
not allocated by the former Government at that time.
B) The former Government selected ANI to design, construct, deliver and maintain the planned
infrastructure. Infrastructure delivered by ANI is typically funded using a mix of equity, debt and
internally generated cash flows.
C) Defence is working closely with ANI on options for Government consideration in 2023.
D) Yes.
E) Aurecon Australia has been engaged to develop functional requirements for large vessel
infrastructure at Henderson.
2. Defence is currently working to deliver initial operating capability from late 2020s, subject to
Government consideration and taking into account the outcomes of the Defence Strategic
Review and the optimal pathway for acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
A) Refer to answer 2.
B) Refer to answer 2.
C and D) The Captain Cook Graving Dock refurbishment is tentatively scheduled to occur in the
late 2020s as part of the Garden Island Redevelopment Project. To support this, Defence will
progress a detailed business case.
E) Yes.
3. The Department co-chairs the Joint Defence and WA Government Henderson Task Force that
meets quarterly.
A) Refer to answer 3.
Budget Estimates (Finance and Public Administration)
Henderson large vessel dry berth
Senator Simon Birmingham
Question
1. Can ANI provide an update on the work that they have undertaken to date on the $4.3
billion large vessel dry berth at Henderson in Western Australia?
2. In ANI’s 2021-22 Annual Report (p29) it is stated that “ANI is working with the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Commonwealth and the WA Government to progress this project, noting it is still in early
planning stages.’ Can you provide an update on engagement with both levels of
Government?
3. Has ANI been provided any additional grant or equity funding to commence work on this
project? If yes, please provide details.
4. Has ANI been briefed by Finance and/or Defence on a change of decision for the project’s
delivery or funding? If yes, please provide details.
5. In April 2022 ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave the following evidence, “ANI has now been
down selected, and we’ve been formally advised that we will be involved now in the design
and ultimately the build of that infrastructure.”
a. Does this remain ANI’s understanding of their role in the project?
b. Is it ANI’s understanding that the $4.3 billion allocated in the March 2022 Budget would be
provided to ANI as an equity injection to fund the design and build of the project?
c. If no, what is ANI’s current understanding of their involvement and funding expectations
for the project?
6. Has a location for the project at Henderson been selected?
a. Please provide details?
7. At Senate Estimates the Department of Defence said that the final investment decision for
the project had been delayed until mid-2023. Was ANI made aware of this delay?
8. In the March Budget, construction for the project was scheduled to commence in 2023,
initial operating capability was 2028 and full operational capability in 2030. How will the
delay in the final investment decision impact these timelines?
9. Can ANI confirm if there will be a period in the next five to 10 years where Australia will
not have an operational dry dock? If so, when and for how long?
10. Have any of the Ministers in the Defence Portfolio met with ANI to discuss the project? If
so when and who?
Answer
1. ANI has been assisting Defence’s large vessel dry berth (LVDB) project team by undertaking
a peer review of the integrated infrastructure program (IIP) studies undertaken by the
Department of Defence jointly with the WA Government, which considered various options
for the development. In addition, ANI has been familiarising itself with the Henderson
precinct, developing an understanding of environmental and planning approval
requirements, and planning to undertake environmental background monitoring to inform a
future environmental impact assessment.
2. ANI participates in a Steering Group established jointly by the Department of Defence and
Department of Finance to oversee the project, and in a working group that reports back to
that Steering Group. ANI participates in meetings of the joint WA Government and
Commonwealth Task Force for the LVDB project, and a working group that reports back to
that Task Force. ANI regularly meets with the Defence LVDB project team to report back on
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
findings of its peer review activities and to take instruction on additional review tasks to help
inform future Government decisions.
3. No.
4. ANI has been advised that the outcomes of the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) will need to
be considered as part of future Government decisions on the project. In April 2022, ANI’s
understanding was that there was an intention to approach Government for project
approvals at the end of 2022, but that has now been postponed to mid-2023 after the DSR is
complete. ANI has not been advised of any change as to funding. ANI’s understanding has
always been that although the ANI model has been chosen for delivery of the infrastructure,
that funding may come from a variety of sources.
5. a. Yes.
b. No.
c. The Department of Finance, Department of Defence and ANI are working together to
consider various funding options for the proposed infrastructure investment.
6. The precise location has not yet been determined.
7. Yes.
8. The project timelines will be dependent on the infrastructure capability options chosen.
9. No. That is a question for the Department of Defence.
10. ANI has participated in three meetings with Ministers at the Osborne Naval Shipyard to
discuss ANI’s key activities generally, including the Henderson LVDB project. On 6 July 2022,
ANI’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) met with the Deputy Prime Minister, the
Hon Richard Marles MP. On 10 August 2022, ANI’s CEO met with the Assistant Minister for
Defence, the Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP. On 17 August 2022, ANI’s CEO met with the
Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Pat Conroy MP.
Budget Estimates (Finance and Public Administration)
Henderson large vessel dry berth
Senator Simon Birmingham
Question
Can the Department confirm if there has been a change in the funding amount or
arrangements (including delivery mechanism) for the $4.3 billion large-vessel dry berth at
Henderson, WA as published in the March 2022 Budget?
a. If yes, please explain why this decision was not reflected in Budget Paper 2 of the October
Budget?
2. During Senate Estimates Defence stated that the $4.3 billion for the large vessel dry berth
at Henderson, WA was “not part of their Budget.” The March 2022 Budget measure (BP2,
p71) states “the cost of this measure will be met from within the existing resource of the
Department of Defence.”
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
13 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
a. Can the Department explain how the funding is not in the Defence Budget but is being
funded by Defence resources?
3. In relation to the $4.3 billion funding decision, the Government told the April 2022
Estimates hearings that “the Government has determined that a government-owned and
government-led agency through Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) is the optimal way to
provide for the secure, sensitive delivery of critical naval infrastructure for the future.”
a. When did the Government reverse the decision to use ANI to design and construct the
project?
b. As a Shareholder Department has Finance provided any advice on alternative delivery
mechanisms for the project instead of equity through ANI?
4. Has Finance and/or the Finance Minister met with ANI on the project? If yes, when and
with you?
5. Defence Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton referred to the funding being “pre-decisional by
government”.
a. Can the Department explain this phrase given a decision was published and announced in
the March Budget?
6. Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton also stated at November 2022 Estimates the funding was for
lease arrangements. However, ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave evidence in April 2022 under
questioning from Senator Penny Wong that the $4.3 billion was for design and build of the
large-vessel dry berth.
a. Please explain when the purpose of the funding was changed and why?
b. How will the funding be used for lease arrangements?
c. Has Finance informed ANI of the change in purpose of the funding?
d. How will the project be constructed if not with funding from the Commonwealth?
Answer
1. The previous Government announced in March 2022 that up to $4.3 billion would be
invested in a large vessel dry berth at Henderson. The announcement was based on early
rough-order-of-magnitude cost, prior to detailed technical investigations and engagement
with Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) on constructability of the infrastructure.
Subsequent work has revealed that initial cost estimates were insufficient to deliver the
capability contemplated. The Department of Finance, the Department of Defence and
Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) are working collectively together to identify a range of
capability solutions. The current Government has not taken any further decisions in relation
to this proposed infrastructure investment, which is being considered in the context of the
Defence Strategic Review.
2. Should Government decide to fund the investment through ANI, capital costs of the
infrastructure will be funded through ANI (not the Department of Defence). The model would
allow shipbuilders to subsequently lease the infrastructure from ANI with the cost of the
lease set by ANI to generate a reasonable return on investment.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
14 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
3a. The proposed infrastructure investment is being considered by the Government in the
context of the Defence Strategic Review.
3b. N/A.
4. The Department of Finance has regular discussions with ANI. On 14 July 2022, the Minister
for Finance, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher attended an ANI-led tour of the Australian
Marine Complex, Henderson, and its Common User Facilities. A senior official from the
Department of Finance attended.
5. Refer to Q3a above.
6. Refer to Q2 above.
Budget Estimates
Infrastructure Upgrades at the Henderson Precinct
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question
Senator REYNOLDS: Just before you do, the current review that will report at the end of the
year to the task force also includes the dry dock proposal and the funding that's associated
with that. Is that correct?
Rear Adm. Malcolm: No. What I would note is that we are working together with WA to look
at what the optimal ways are that we could deliver the precinct. The announcement that was
made by the former government—
Senator REYNOLDS: When you say 'the precinct', are you talking about the entire Henderson
precinct or a defence precinct?
Rear Adm. Malcolm: The Henderson precinct. For instance, we've worked very closely with
WA on a number of their fast-tracked infrastructure projects. So that's $89 million that the
state government has actually put into that, including wharf upgrades, vessel transfer
pathways and transport improvements in the area.
Senator REYNOLDS: Could you, on notice, give me a list of all that's funded under that $89
million in terms of works, and what the schedule is for those works?
Rear Adm. Malcolm: Yes. I will seek that from the WA task force.
Mr Fankhauser: I could add to that. Up until 30 June of this year, we had spent $47 million
directly from the defence budget on projects in the Henderson precinct. This financial year
we're expecting to add a further $65 million to that expenditure. That's primarily to support
future capabilities—the offshore patrol vessel, and—
Senator REYNOLDS: Could I ask for that on notice? A list of how that $47 million for last
financial year was spent, plus the upcoming $65 million and projects and time lines for those
as well?
Mr Fankhauser: Certainly.
Answer
Western Australian Government Henderson Projects
Project Name Description
Schedule
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
15 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
Vessel
Design and construction of an The vessel transfer path is currently
Transfer Path upgraded vessel transfer path operational, having achieved practical
Project
between the floating dock and completion in early 2022
the shipbuilding and
sustainment facilities
Wharf
Design and construction of an Construction of the wharf extension
Extension and extension to the existing
infrastructure forecast for completion
Finger Wharf wharf 1 and the design of a
end November 2022 and the power
Design
new finger wharf
services forecast for completion end
Project
March 2023. The finger wharf design
completed in early 2022
Intersection
Upgrade of three road
At the most recent Joint Henderson Task
Upgrades
intersections to increase road Force meeting on 30 November 2022,
Project
capacity and safety, reduce
the WA Government confirmed practical
vehicle congestion and
completion had occurred for the
improve access
Intersection Upgrades Project at
Henderson with landscaping still
scheduled for completion by the end of
June 2023 (to avoid die-back over
summer).
Commercial
New shipbuilding facility in the Practical completion forecast for end
Shipbuilding
northern harbour to activate
June 2023
Hall Project
underutilised land and support
commercial shipbuilding and
sustainment
Department of Defence Henderson Projects
Defence is delivering the Henderson Capability Centre which commenced construction in July
2021 and is forecast for completion in mid-2023. In 2021-22, a total of $47.4 million was
spent on civil works, in ground services and building construction. In 2022-23, the forecast
spend is $65.2 million on external and internal building fit-out works.
Budget Estimates
Taskforce Reporting Effects
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question
Senator REYNOLDS: Please take this on notice. With the review, with the task force reporting
options at the end of the year as you've just described, what does that then push the time
frame out to fully deliver the new works over the next decade or so at Henderson? What sort
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
16 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
of quantum of funding are you now looking at? What is the funding profile for all of that work
in totality? Thank you.
Answer
The former Government announced on 15 March 2022 that it intended to invest up to $4.3
billion to develop large ship infrastructure at Henderson to support continuous naval
shipbuilding in the west. Australian Naval Infrastructure will be the Government’s delivery
partner for this program.
Defence continues to work with Australian Naval Infrastructure and the Western Australian
Government to develop options for large vessel infrastructure at Henderson.
Defence is working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that options under development
would achieve initial operating capability by 2028, as initially anticipated.
Defence will provide advice to Government by in 2023 on capability options, taking into
account the outcomes of the Defence Strategic Review and the optimal pathway for
acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. The funding profile will be determined following
consideration by Government of the capability options.
Budget Estimates
WA Naval Infrastructure
Senator Linda Reynolds
Question
With reference to the reporting in the West Australian, 6 November 2022, of the WA
government’s submission to the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) proposing a plan to enhance
WA naval infrastructure:
1. Has the Department of Defence (Department) been briefed on the proposed investment
and development of WA naval port infrastructure to support Australia’s national defence,
and under AUKUS, to make it possible for US and UK naval vessels to dock in WA?
2. Have the proposals been provisioned or otherwise contemplated in the Budget in respect
of the Department? If yes, please provide details.
3. Has the Department been contacted by WA Defence Industry Minister Paul Papalia, or any
other representative of the WA Government, to discuss or participate in briefings on the
proposals?
If yes, has the Department been briefed and how has the Department responded?
4. What plans are being considered, and pursued, in relation to these proposals?
5. What additional costs and resourcing have been considered to implement these
proposals?
6. What briefings/reports have been provided by, or given to, the Department in relation to
the capacity of US or UK naval vessels to use current or enhanced WA port facilities (including
HMAS Stirling, or the proposed large vessel dry berth at Henderson, WA)?
Answer
1. Yes.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
17 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
2. Defence is continuing to work in collaboration with the Western Australian Government
and Australian Naval Infrastructure to develop options for large vessel infrastructure at
Henderson, Western Australia.
3. The Department co-chairs the Joint Defence and WA Government Henderson Task Force
that meets quarterly. The WA Government routinely updates the task force on its planning
for Henderson infrastructure. There has not been any specific interaction between the
Department, WA Government Ministers or the task force on the WA Government’s
submission to the Defence Strategic Review.
4. Refer to answer 2.
5. Refer to answer 2.
6. The Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce continues to investigate what is required to
maintain, support and sustain nuclear-powered submarines in Western Australia,
including at HMAS Stirling and Henderson. Understanding these requirements will also
enable Australia to support the more frequent presence of United Kingdom and United
States nuclear-powered submarines in the region.
Budget Estimates
WA Naval Infrastructure
Senator Claire Chandler
Question
1. During Senate Estimates Defence stated that the $4.3 billion for the large vessel dry berth
at Henderson, WA was “not part of their Budget.”
a. The March 2022 Budget measure (BP2, p71) states “the cost of this measure will be met
from within the existing resource of the Department of Defence.”
• Has Defence transferred all or part of the funding to the Contingency Reserve, another
Department or Government Business Enterprise?
• If not, then how can the funding no longer be considered as part of the Defence Budget but
be funded from Defence resources?
2. Can the Department provide the funding profile for the project, noting that evidence was
provided at Senate Estimates that it is currently provisioned post 2030?
3. Former Finance Minister Senator Simon Birmingham stated in relation to the $4.3 billion
funding decision during the April 2022 Estimates hearings that “the Government has
determined that a government-owned and government-led agency through Australian Naval
Infrastructure (ANI) is the optimal way to provide for the secure, sensitive delivery of critical
naval infrastructure for the future.”
a. When did the Government reverse the decision to use ANI to design and construct the
project?
b. When was ANI informed? And by who?
c. Why did the Government make no announcement of this decision?
4. When did the Government inform the Government of Western Australia about the delay in
a final investment decision and a change in the delivery mechanism?
5. Have any of the Ministers in the Defence Portfolio met with ANI to discuss the project? If
yes, when and who?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
18 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
6. Have any of the Ministers in the Defence Portfolio met with anyone in the WA Government
to discuss the project? If yes, when and who?
7. In the March Budget, construction for the project was scheduled to commence in 2023,
initial operating capability was 2028 and full operational capability in 2030. At Senate
Estimates the Department of Defence said that the final investment decision for the project
had been delayed until mid-2023. Can Defence please provide an updated timeline for
delivery of this project?
8. Can Defence confirm if there will be a period in the next five to 10 years where Australia
will not have an operational dry dock? If so, when and for how long? How has the delay in
delivery of this project impact this capability gap?
9. In Senate Estimates Defence Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton referred to the funding being
“pre-decisional by government”.
a. Can the Department explain this phrase given a decision was published and announced in
the March Budget?
b. ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave evidence in April 2022 to Estimates that Mr Dalton
personally advised him on 11 March 2022 that ANI had been down selected to build and own
the infrastructure. If the project was ‘pre-decisional’ why did Mr Dalton inform ANI of this?
10. Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton also stated at Estimates the funding was for lease
arrangements. However, ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave evidence in April 2022 under
questioning from Senator Penny Wong that the $4.3 billion was for the design and build of
the large-vessel dry berth.
a. Please explain when the purpose of the funding was changed and why?
b. How will the funding be used for lease arrangements?
c. Has Defence informed ANI of the change in purpose of the funding?
d. How will the project be constructed if not with funding from the Commonwealth?
Answer
1. The capital costs of the infrastructure will be funded through ANI, using equity injected by
Government (not the Department of Defence) or through ANI’s ability to raise capital from
the market. Shipbuilders will subsequently lease the infrastructure from ANI. The cost of
the lease will be set by ANI to generate a reasonable return on investment. The
shipbuilders recover the cost of the lease through shipbuilding contracts with Defence.
Defence has budget provisions in future years to cover these costs inside the shipbuilding
contracts.
2. No. The Defence provision covers the expected additional costs to future shipbuilding
contracts through which shipbuilders will recover the lease costs associated with using the
infrastructure.
The funding profile for the infrastructure build program is a matter for ANI once
Government approves the final capability solution.
3. The Government has not reversed the decision to use ANI to design, construct, deliver and
maintain the planned infrastructure.
4. Defence is working towards an initial operational capability in 2028, this has not changed
from what the Western Australian Government has been advised.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
19 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
5. ANI routinely meets with portfolio Ministers to discuss a range of matters.
6. Defence Portfolio Ministers routinely discuss a range of matters relating to the Defence
portfolio with Western Australian Government Ministers and officials.
7. Subject to Government consideration of the final capability solution, an initial operational
capability is anticipated in 2028 with full operational capability in the early 2030s.
8. Refurbishment of the Captain Cook Graving Dock in New South Wales is expected to occur
later this decade. A range of mitigations, including potentially sequencing infrastructure
works at Henderson, will be considered in managing this risk.
9. a) The final capability solution has not been considered by Government, hence it remains
‘pre-decisional.’ Defence will provide advice to Government in 2023 on capability options,
taking into account the outcomes of the Defence Strategic Review and the optimal
pathway for acquisition of nuclear-submarines.
b) ANI was selected by the former Government in March 2022 as the delivery partner for
the large vessel infrastructure at Henderson.
10. There has been no change in the purpose of the funding.
Budget Estimates
Henderson Infrastructure
Senator Simon Birmingham
Question
1. During Senate Estimates Defence stated that the $4.3 billion for the large vessel dry berth
at Henderson, WA was “not part of their Budget.”
a. The March 2022 Budget measure (BP2, p71) states “the cost of this measure will be met
from within the existing resource of the Department of Defence.”
• Has Defence transferred all or part of the funding to the Contingency Reserve, another
Department or Government Business Enterprise?
• If not, then how can the funding no longer be considered as part of the Defence Budget but
be funded from Defence resources?
2. Can the Department provide the funding profile for the project, noting that evidence was
provided at Senate Estimates that it is currently provisioned post 2030?
3. Former Finance Minister Senator Simon Birmingham stated in relation to the $4.3 billion
funding decision during the April 2022 Estimates hearings that “the Government has
determined that a government-owned and government-led agency through Australian Naval
Infrastructure (ANI) is the optimal way to provide for the secure, sensitive delivery of critical
naval infrastructure for the future.”
a. When did the Government reverse the decision to use ANI to design and construct the
project?
b. When was ANI informed? And by who?
c. Why did the Government make no announcement of this decision?
4. When did the Government inform the Government of Western Australia about the delay in
a final investment decision and a change in the delivery mechanism?
5. Have any of the Ministers in the Defence Portfolio met with ANI to discuss the project? If
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
20 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000396
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Infrastructure
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead; Stacie Hall
Document 10
yes, when and who?
6. Have any of the Ministers in the Defence Portfolio met with anyone in the WA Government
to discuss the project? If yes, when and who?
7. In the March Budget, construction for the project was scheduled to commence in 2023,
initial operating capability was 2028 and full operational capability in 2030. At Senate
Estimates the Department of Defence said that the final investment decision for the project
had been delayed until mid-2023. Can Defence please provide an updated timeline for
delivery of this project?
8. Can Defence confirm if there will be a period in the next five to 10 years where Australia
will not have an operational dry dock? If so, when and for how long? How has the delay in
delivery of this project impact this capability gap?
9. Defence Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton referred to the funding being “pre-decisional by
government”.
a. Can the Department explain this phrase given a decision was published and announced in
the March Budget?
b. ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave evidence in April 2022 to Estimates that Mr Dalton
personally advised him on 11 March 2022 that ANI had been down selected to build and own
the infrastructure. If the project was ‘pre-decisional’ why did Mr Dalton inform ANI of this?
10. Deputy Secretary Tony Dalton also stated at Estimates the funding was for lease
arrangements. However, ANI CEO Andrew Seaton gave evidence in April 2022 under
questioning from Senator Penny Wong that the $4.3 billion was for design and build of the
large-vessel dry berth.
a. Please explain when the purpose of the funding was changed and why?
b. How will the funding be used for lease arrangements?
c. Has Defence informed ANI of the change in purpose of the funding?
d. How will the project be constructed if not with funding from the Commonwealth?
Answer
Refer to Question No. 62
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Rear Admiral Wendy Malcolm
Position: Executive Program Director Large Vessel Infrastructure
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Enterprise HQ
Group: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
21 of
21
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
Investing in Land Combat Vehicle modernisation will ensure Army remains competitive
at a time when regional military modernisation and technological advances erode our
advantage.
Land 200 Phase 2 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Boxer)
The Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Boxer) is achieving success here and has export
potential.
The Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle entered service in mid-2022.
Boxer Block I has completed field training, including live fire, at Wide Bay
Training Area, Queensland in March 2023.
Rheinmetall’s manufacturing facility in Brisbane has started producing Boxer Block II.
The Australian Industry Capability level for the project is over 65 per cent, with a
$10.2 billion investment in Australian goods and services over 30 years.
Independent analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that more than 40
companies will benefit all around Australia, creating a peak of 1,450 jobs
nationally.
The Minister for Defence Industry and his German counterpart, Thomas Hitschler,
signed a Letter of Cooperation on 23 March 2023 to negotiate the possible export of
more than 100 Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier vehicles for the German Army.
If asked: How will possible export to Germany affect Phase 2?
The possible export of heavy weapons carriers will not negatively affect the
delivery of Land 400 Phase 2. Should the order proceed, it will provide
opportunity to strengthen the supply chains for the project through the
expansion of production in the facility.
Land 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles
Government has accepted the advice of the independent Defence Strategic Review to
reduce the number of vehicles being sought under Land 400 Phase 3 from up to 450
(three mechanised battalions) to 129 (one mechanised battalion).
This will provide one mechanised battalion (94 vehicles), including training (16 vehicles),
repair and attrition stock (19 vehicles). There will be variants procured including the
infantry role (78 vehicles) and command and control / joint fires role (51 vehicles).
Land 400 Phase 3 is a live tender process: Government has not made a decision on the
successful tenderer at this stage.
The proposed Infantry Fighting Vehicle is a core component of the Land Combat System.
It provides firepower, protection and mobility to Integrated ADF ground forces as they
close within direct fire range of enemy positions.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
A wide range of potential adversaries can obtain damaging direct fire weapons
such as anti-tank rockets and large calibre rifles. No other vehicle in the
Australian inventory can protect our troops against these threats to the level
provided by the Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle will provide the necessary protection for Australian
soldiers, contribute to deterrence as the core of Australia’s credible land combat
force, and give Army the ability to fight and win in a broad range of
environments.
The Land 400 Phase 3 project is a live tender process involving tenders from two
companies, Hanwha Defense Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia.
Defence has worked closely with both companies during the tender process,
and provided guidance to support discussions with their industry partners on
the decision to defer the project until the Government considered the findings
of the Defence Strategic Review.
Defence is still analysing the implications of the Defence Strategic Review and
will provide advice to Government when those implications are understood.
There is no timeframe currently available for this advice.
If pressed: Has the Government decided on a successful tenderer for Land 400 Phase 3?
I am unable to provide any further details about Land 400 Phase 3 as it is in a live
tender process.
If pressed: Will Infantry Fighting Vehicles still be built in Australia?
I am unable to provide any further details about Land 400 Phase 3 as it is in a live
tender process.
If asked: Where will the Infantry Fighting Vehicles be based?
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be part of the armoured combined arms brigade.
Army is currently reviewing its structure and posture in accordance with the priorities
outlined in the Defence Strategic Review, which will determine final location.
Land 907 Phase 2 Main Battle Tank Upgrade (M1A1 Abrams)
Land 907 Phase 2 aims to deliver 75 upgraded M1A1 Abrams tanks as part of a relevant
and credible Land Combat System. Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2025.
There have been no significant developments in this project since the last Senate
Estimates hearing in February 2023.
Land 8160 Phase 1 Combat Engineer Vehicles
Land 8160 Phase 1 aims to deliver 52 Combat Engineer Vehicles as part of a relevant and
credible Land Combat System. Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2025.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
There have been no significant developments in this project since the last Senate
Estimates hearing in February 2023.
Background
Land 400 Phase 2 – Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Boxer)
The Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle is an Armoured 8x8 wheeled vehicle that has been
selected to be Army’s next Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle as part of a relevant and
credible Land Combat System.
Modern Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles will allow the Integrated Force to engage in
sustained close combat due to their firepower, mobility, protection and networking
capabilities.
Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles can conduct persistent reconnaissance, degrading
enemy situational awareness and provide friendly forces with the information and direct
fire support to maintain combat superiority.
An interim deployable fleet of 25 vehicles has been delivered to Army while the full
capability of 186 Block II vehicles are designed and manufactured for delivery.
Block I consists of 12 x 30mm turreted Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, and 13 x Multi-
Purpose Vehicles fitted with a remote weapon station.
Once Block II is delivered, the 25 Block I vehicles will be upgraded/replaced to Block II
capability.
Land 400 Phase 3 – Land Combat Vehicle System (Infantry Fighting Vehicle)
Land 400 Phase 3 is scoped to acquire and support up to 450 Infantry Fighting Vehicles,
and is the final major component of the modernisation of the ADF’s Combined Arms
Fighting System.
The Combined Arms Fighting System that protects our soldiers today is a
Vietnam era Armoured Personnel Carrier, the M113. Army cannot effectively
conduct integrated land combat using the in-service platform.
Land 400 Phase 3 is in a live tender process.
A Request for Tender was released in August 2018 to acquire and establish
the support for up to 450 Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
Hanwha Defense Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia were
shortlisted for participation in the Stage 2 Risk Mitigation Activity on
16 September 2019.
The Source Evaluation Report was signed 17 December 2021.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
Land 907 Phase 2 Main Battle Tank Upgrade
Land 907 Phase 2 will acquire the United States Army Abrams Main Battle Tank M1A2
System Enhancement Package, Version 3. The Main Battle Tank is a unique contributor
to the ADF’s combat power. It provides a combination of firepower, mobility, protection
and connectivity to the modern Australian soldier.
The Abrams Main Battle Tank is unique amongst Armoured Fighting Vehicles; it alone is
designed and optimised to specifically enter, fight and endure alongside soldiers in close
combat.
The Abrams Main Battle Tank is tasked with the conduct of mounted close combat,
primarily through the application of precise and overwhelming direct fire, combined
with heavy armour protection, rapid cross country movement and networked
communications.
This project received Second Pass approval in December 2021.
As the capability is being acquired under the Foreign Military Sales program,
opportunities for Australian Industry involvement will primarily reside in
sustainment, including training systems and the future support system. Defence
will partner with Australian Industry to support this capability where appropriate
and value for money.
Land 8160 Phase 1 Combat Engineer Vehicles
The Land 8160 Phase 1 Combat Engineer Vehicle capability delivers vehicles that rapidly
open safe lanes through obstacles while under fire. These vehicles operate alongside the
Abrams Main Battle Tank and Infantry Fighting Vehicle in close combat. They have
similar mobility and protection to that of a tank.
The capability is based on two primary vehicles; the Joint Assault Bridge and Assault
Breacher Vehicle. The Combat Engineer Vehicle is able to bridge gaps (such as rivers or
ditches), reduce barriers and open safe lanes through a variety of obstacles including
minefields, improvised explosive devices and rubble.
This project received Second Pass approval in December 2021.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 24 April 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry announced the Government’s
decisions on armoured vehicles as part of the
release of the Defence Strategic Review.
On 23 March 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry issued a
Media Release relating
to Land 400 Phase 2 Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, stating “this could be
one of Australia’s largest-ever defence export contracts, boosting our sovereign
defence industry, securing local jobs and contributing to Australia’s economic
growth.”
On 02 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister provided a
doorstop interview in the
United Kingdom, on the prospect of tanks for Ukraine.
On 25 November 2022, the Minister for Defence Industry
announced that the
Government would consider the outcomes of the Defence Strategic Review before
making a decision on Land 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 25 April 2023,
The Australian published commentary
that supported the
Government’s decision on Land 400 Phase 3 but disparaged the decision on tanks.
On 05 April 2023, the Australian – Pacific Defence Reporter published an article
Rheinmetall starts talks to build more than 100 Boxers in Australia for Germany that
details the letter of cooperation signed in March 2023 and features Rheinmetall
spokespersons.
On 29 March 2023, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published an article
Defence capability and the ‘not used since Vietnam’ critique that refutes the position
of some commentators that tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles are no longer
relevant or useful to the Australian Army.
On 29 March 2023, Defense News published an article
Getting tanks to Ukraine won’t
impact Abrams Lima line, Camarillo says about possible production delays for the
M1A1 Abrams.
On 24 March 2023, the Australian Defence Magazine published an article
Australia a
step closer to major Boxer export deal based on the Minister Defence Industry
announcing the Letter of Cooperation on the Boxer.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000397
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Land Armoured Fighting Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 11
Division:
Land Capability Division
PDR No:
SB23-000397
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier Colin Bassett, Director General
Major General Richard Vagg, Head Land
Platforms
Capability
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 04 April 2023
Date: 04 April 2023
Consultation: Jacquie Menzies, Acting Assistant Secretary
Date: 4 April 2023
Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Capability
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Tom Menadue, Assistant Secretary Global
Date: 4 April 2023
Partners, International Policy Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy
Ph: s47E(d)
DSR Task Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 28 April 2023
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army
On 23 March 2023, the ABC News published an article
Australia on brink of signing $3
billion defence export deal to sell combat vehicles to Germany that details the
upcoming contract signing announcement by the Minister for Defence Industry, the
Boxer capability and live-fire exercise at the Wide Bay Training Area, and the demands
on international defence stocks of the war in Ukraine.
On 21 March 2023, the Australian Financial Review published an article
Ukrainian MPs
ask Canberra to join the ‘tank coalition’ about a delegation of Ukrainian Members of
Parliament visiting Canberra called for more support for their armed forces, with one
Ukrainian opposition Member of Parliament noting: “if we want to create together
victory we need a sustainable supply of armour or money or sanctions, everything
that helps to stop Russia and take back our territory”.
On 10 February 2023, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published an article
Western tanks will bring their own complexities to Ukraine’s fight against Russia that
discusses the impact Western tanks may have in the conflict, and the challenges of
fuel consumption and training for crews.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s22
/ s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Projects LAND 4507 Multi-Role Helicopter (MRH90) Rapid Replacement and LAND 4503
Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) Replacement provide an opportunity for
Defence to remediate platform and disposition challenges.
In late 2022 the Government agreed to rapidly replace the MRH90 with the UH-60M
Black Hawk Utility Helicopter, with delivery of the first three aircraft expected later this
year.
The Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter capability is expected to meet Defence
requirements until its withdrawal from service in 2028, with LAND 4503 on track to
deliver the first AH-64E Apache Attack Helicopters in 2025.
The CH-47F Chinook remains an exemplar of a mature, proven, reliable and affordable
helicopter and associated support system.
Defence’s decision to expand the original CH-47F Chinook fleet from 10 to 14 was seen
as a pragmatic, cost effective, and sustainable response to increasing demands being
placed on the battlefield lift capability.
The additional CH-47F Chinook aircraft are currently undertaking Australian
modifications to meet unique aspects of Australia’s operating context, including
amphibious operations.
Army is leasing fixed and rotary wing aircraft to mitigate the underperformance of the
MRH90 and ARH, and deliver domestic tasking support.
Army is investing heavily in Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) to provide enhanced
situational awareness for better decision making and reduce the exposure of Australian
soldiers to danger.
Defence is committed to building a sustainable, affordable and reliable industrial base
in Australia to support Army’s Aviation capabilities.
The highly skilled and experienced Australian helicopter industry workforce will
continue to be in high demand by Army Aviation for many years to come.
If pressed: What opportunities are there for Industry?
There are opportunities for Australian industry participation in the Apache and Black
Hawk projects through the provision of logistic support, warehousing services, training
development, engineering services, and maintenance, repair and overhaul.
Army’s Uncrewed Aerial Systems investments are providing opportunities for Australian
industry.
For example selection of the Australian developed and prototyped CM234 Spitfire
Camera Gimbal from Melbourne-based Ascent Vision Technologies as part of the
LAND 129 Phase 3 Tactical Uncrewed Aerial Systems project.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
If pressed: Basing and operating locations for Army Aviation Capabilities?
Maximising the efficiency and readiness of Army’s aviation capability is important and is
why the UH-60M Black Hawk will be based out of Oakey, Queensland and Holsworthy,
New South Wales.
Basing Black Hawks in these locations will strengthen industry support and
leverage the existing arrangements for Navy’s Seahawk helicopters.
Placing Black Hawks in close proximity to Navy’s Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD)
vessels in Sydney will support rapid deployments.
Townsville will continue to be the home of the expanded CH-47F Chinook fleet, and
Army’s leased AW139 helicopters.
If pressed: Will this reduce Defence’s presence in Darwin?
No. As part of Army’s review of its structure and posture in accordance with the
priorities set out in the Defence Strategic Review, and the growth in capabilities such as
Littoral Manoeuvre, the number of positions in Darwin will remain stable in the long
term.
If pressed: Reason why the Government is replacing the MRH90 with Black Hawk?
MRH90 has been managed as a Project of Concern since 2011. MRH90 no longer
delivers the capability and capacity required to meet the ADF’s needs.
The UH-60M Black Hawk is the best option available to meet Defence’s Utility
Helicopter capability requirements. It is combat proven in comparable roles worldwide,
and it represents the largest single battlefield utility helicopter variant in the world.
If pressed: What is the status of the MRH90 fleet following the incident at Jervis Bay on 22
March 2023?
Operations of the Australian MRH-90 Taipan fleet were temporarily suspended to allow
time for initial investigations to determine if there were any ongoing airworthiness
implications for the platform.
Flight operations resumed on 06 April 2023, after extensive risk analysis and
implementation of additional risk mitigation controls.
Defence Flight Safety Bureau is leading the investigation into the MRH-90 Taipan
incident, with assistance from Airbus Australia Pacific and local representatives of the
engine manufacturer. The investigation is ongoing.
If pressed: Was a missing software upgrade responsible for the incident at Jervis Bay on
22 March 2023?
The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter is subject to a number of engine, software and other
aircraft modifications. In each case these modifications are completed in accordance
with manufacturer recommendations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / 0448 237 854
Phone: s47E(d) / 0439 559 784
Page
3 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
s47E(d)
It would be inappropriate to provide further comment on the incident as it remains
under investigation by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau.
If pressed: Is Army procuring a UH-60M Black Hawk with floatation capability?
Army is not procuring a UH-60M Black Hawk flotation capability.
Army treats the risk of overwater flight with mitigation methods including carrying life
rafts, individual flotation life support ensembles for crew, and helicopter underwater
escape training for crew and passengers.
Army will continuously monitor new product developments to assure the level of safety
in-service in collaboration with other Black Hawk users.
If pressed: If the ARH Tiger is performing satisfactorily for Army’s needs, why does it need to
be replaced?
Army needs a capable and credible crewed armed reconnaissance capability with the
capacity to become the hub of a crewed-uncrewed system.
AH-64E Apache provides the networking capability to “orchestrate” the battle and will
bring the Army in line with other nations’ crewed-uncrewed teaming capabilities,
providing additional intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and networking
capabilities required in future conflict.
If pressed: Why does Army not pursue an armed Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS), rather than a
crewed Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter?
Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) cannot yet replicate all the capabilities of crewed
aircraft, particularly as people remain essential to decision making in battle across the
combined arms team.
The AH-64E Apache provides the critical step change in capability enabling crewed-
uncrewed aerial systems teaming.
If pressed: Why is Defence buying helicopters that cannot be operated from Navy Landing
Helicopter Dock ships?
The UH-60M Black Hawk and AH-64E Apache will operate off the Landing Helicopter
Dock ships. No other Australian Army helicopter is marinised, yet all operate from ships
without issue.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
If pressed: What is the status of LAND 129 Phase 4B Small Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS)?
LAND 129 Phase 4B has completed its tender evaluation of suitable Small Uncrewed
Aerial Systems (UAS) to replace the in-service Wasp AE.
LAND 129-4B remains subject to Government consideration and decision. s47E(d)
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Supplementary Budget Estimates Hearing: 15 February 2023
QoN 23, Black Hawk costs, Senator Shoebridge (Greens, NSW) asked about the budget
for the MRH-90 program.
QoN 24, Black Hawk T&E, Senator Fawcett (LIB, SA) asked about test and evaluation
activities, including dates and scope of the program.
QoN 25, LAND 129 Phase 4B (Small Uncrewed Aerial System) tenderers, Senator Van
(LIB, VIC) asked about the country of origin of the tenderers who had provided a
response to the LAND 129 Phase 4B Request For Tender.
Budget Estimates Hearing: 9 November 2022
QoN 41, UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter acquisition, Senator Chandler (LIB, Tasmania)
asked several questions about the status of the Black Hawk acquisition.
Senate Estimates: 28 September 2022
QoN 827, UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters and MRH-90 Taipan Fleet, Senator
Birmingham
(LIB, South Australia) asked about the status replacing the MRH90 with the
UH-60M Black Hawk.
QoN 817,
AH-64E Apache and MH-60R Romeo programs, Senator Birmingham (LIB,
South Australia) asked about the status of the AH-64E Apache program and what
briefings and reports have been provided.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In February 2023, an individual sought access under FOI to documentation relating to
the February 2023 Supplementary Budget Estimates. The Army Aviation Senate
Estimates Briefs have not yet been released.
In November 2022, an individual sought access under FOI to documentation relating to
the November 2022 Budget Estimates. The Army Aviation Senate Estimates Briefs were
released on 1 March 2023.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on the incident involving an MRH90 at Jervis
Bay on 22 March 2023; and the acquisition of the UH-60M Black Hawk Utility
Helicopter to replace the MRH90 Multi-Role Helicopter.
On 18 April 2023, ABC News published an article,
Army insiders claim troubled Taipan
helicopter fleet did not receive crucial software upgrades. Defence correspondent
Andrew Greene reported that several military figures had told the ABC a simple
software upgrade may have prevented the emergency ditching of a MRH-90 in Jervis
Bay.
On 28 February 2023, The Australian published an article,
Coveted Apache and Black
Hawks to replace Tiger, Taipan choppers. Reporter Nigel Pittaway discussed the
replacement of its European helicopter fleets with the United States Black Hawk and
Apache capability. The article also details how the Black Hawk fleet will not be based in
Townsville as expected, but at Oakey, Queensland and Holsworthy, New South Wales.
On 17 January 2023, The Financial Review published an article,
Labour to buy US-made
Black Hawk helicopters. Journalist Andrew Tillett wrote Australia will spend almost $3
billion buying 40 new US-made Black Hawk helicopters.
Division:
Army
PDR No:
SB23-000398
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier David Hafner, Deputy Commander Major General Richard Vagg, Head Land
Aviation Command
Capability
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 27 April 2023
Date: 17 May 2023
Consultation: Rotary, Aerospace and
Date: 6 April 2023
Surveillance Systems Division
Ph: s47E(d)
Major General Jeremy King
Head Joint Aviation Systems Division
Cleared by DSR
Date: 1 May 2023
Major General Chris Field, FAS ADF Integration
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 28 April 2023
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Question on Notice 15 February 2023
Black Hawk costs
Senator David Shoebridge
Question
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I think the last time I checked, the overall life of the MRH90 program
had about a $7.3 billion budget attached to it. Is that the right figure, Lieutenant General?
Lt Gen. Stuart: We can come back and confirm that with you, but that's—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: It seems about right?
Lt Gen. Stuart: in the order of magnitude.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Was some of that repurposed into this $2.8 billion, or is the $2.8
billion on top of the $3.7 billion that has been set aside already for the MRH90?
Major Gen. King: I think we'll take that on notice and we'll be able to give you an accurate
figure of exactly the source of that money and what has flowed out through MRH and in
courtesy of Black Hawk.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Not much flows out through MRH90.
Lt Gen. Stuart: Senator, we'll come back to you with the exact figures, but if you think of it in
terms of there being a certain amount of money that is forecast for the delivery of that
capability, there isn't additional funding required to deliver that capability, above what was
originally planned.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: No, I don't think the budget had anticipated expenditure up to and
beyond 2030 on the MRH90. You can't repurpose savings outside the current budget
estimates to apply to your $2.8 billion project, can you, Lieutenant General?
Lt Gen. Stuart: If you're talking across the forward estimates or across the life of type of an
aircraft, we'll come back to you with those exact figures.
Answer
The total budget for the MRH90 program was $10.352 billion. This budget was planned for an
MRH90 operational life of up to year 2037. As of December 2022, the total expenditure
(amount spent) for the MRH90 program is $3.5 billion on acquisition, and $2.2 billion on
sustainment.
LAND 4507 will be funded by cancellations of the Light Helicopter project for Special
Operations (LAND 2097-4) and MRH90 Capability Assurance Project (LAND 4510-1 & 2). The
cancelled projects had available unapproved funds this decade, which are to be repurposed.
It should be noted that the practice of repurposing funds is not uncommon.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
The acquisition cost of UH-60M Black Hawk is expected to be $3.2 billion, and $4.3 billion on
sustainment. The total budget for the UH-60M program is $7.5 billion. This budget is planned
for an operational life of up to year 2045.
Senate Question on Notice 15 February 2023
Black Hawk T&E
Senator David Fawcett
Question
Senator FAWCETT: I like to know when the preview testing is scheduled for the Black Hawks
given your policy says, even for military off-the-shelf acquisition, a preview should be
conducted. Given the lessons we learned from the CH-47D and the additional and upgrade
programs that are required for a standard American army helicopter before we can deploy it,
are we aware of all the costs involved if we require any differences to the
configuration used by the US Army?
Mr Fairweather: Chief of Army may wish to respond but there is a detailed T and E plan. We
know the Black Hawk program very well. We have identified what we will need to do for that
platform. There is test evaluation activity already commenced. There will be a Black Hawk out
here for Avalon. There will be a series of test evaluation activities around that using eights
and other resources and that will continue prior to entry to
service and through its entry to service.
Senator FAWCETT: If you could take the details on notice, I would like to know when that is
actually programmed to occur, and the scope if possible.
Mr Fairweather: No problem.
Answer
Project LAND 4507-1 Preview Test and Evaluation is outlined in the approved Test &
Evaluation Master Plan. It is focused on understanding the differences in Configuration, Role
and Environment associated with the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) operation of the UH-
60M Black Hawk.
Preview Test and Evaluation activities completed to date include:
• 19-23 September 2022 - Peer User Engagement with the US Army’s 25th Combat
Aviation Brigade, Hawaii. The scope of this activity was: integration of ADF role
equipment, life support equipment, crash protection data and the aircraft support
system.
• 20-23 February 2023 - Cockpit and Cabin Integration test series supported by a US
Army UH-60M Black Hawk in Australia. The scope of this activity was: integration of
ADF life support equipment, ADF night vision equipment, ADF role equipment, special
operations teams, mission planning and support systems.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Senate Question on Notice 15 February 2023
LAND 129 Phase 4B (Small Uncrewed Aerial System) tenderers
Senator David Van
Question
Senator VAN: Going to Land 129 Phase 4B, which is a small unmanned aerial system project
launched by land systems, I believe, last year, Major General King, can you update me on the
progress of that, please?
Major Gen. King: Land 129 Phase 4B was born out of what was originally Land 129 Phase 4 in
around 2016, 2017. It was decided, because of the rate of change of small uncrewed aerial
vehicles, that we would look do it in a tranche approach. There was an initial buy of 78 Wasp
AE small UAS purchased for Army, with an approach to look at a follow-on buy around now,
about five years from when 4A was approved, to acquire the best and most modern small
UAS's we could. That process is progressing. It has not yet presented to government but will
be in short time.
Senator VAN: Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there four tenders put forward for that
program?
Major Gen. King: Perhaps defer to CASG in relation to the tender evaluation.
Senator VAN: They can come up or put it on notice. Am I right in saying there were three
Australian and one German contenders?
Major Gen. King: Again, I will take that on notice.
Answer
Six (6) tenderers submitted applications on 04 Mar 22 in response to the LAND 129-4B
Request For Tender.
The tenderers, including each company’s nation of origin, were as follows:
• Australian UAV Technologies (Australian company)
• Geodrones Australia (Australian company)
• DefendTex (Australian company)
• Quantum Systems (submitted under US subsidiary company, not German parent
company)
• Sypaq (Australian company)
• Boxhamtech (Company origin unknown)
Following Preview, Test and Evaluation activities, Quantum Systems and Sypaq were chosen
for detailed consideration as part of the LAND 129-4B project.
LAND 129-4B remains subject to Government consideration and decision.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Senate Question on Notice 28 September 2022
UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters and MRH-90 Taipan Fleet
Senator Simon Birmingham
Written Question
The United States Department of State recently approved the proposed sale of UH-60M Black
Hawk helicopters to Australia—what decision and timetable have been confirmed to
complete the contract, acquisition, delivery and operational integration of the UH-60Ms into
the ADF.
Can the Minister confirm the Government’s intentions relating to the MRH-90 Taipan fleet, in
light of flight readiness data over the span of service for the fleet.
What briefings and reports have been provided to the Minister, and the Government,
relating to these matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Answer
Government is due to consider this matter in the coming period.
Defence routinely briefs Ministers and the Government on these matters. These briefings
contain sensitive material and may adversely impact Defence if released publicly.
Senate Question on Notice 28 September 2022
AH-64E Apache and MH-60R Romeo programs
Senator Simon Birmingham
Written Question
What is the status of the acquisition and implementation of the AH-64E Apache and MH-60R
Romeo programs (Programs) and is delivery still on track for 2025. What issues/risks have
been identified with the Program during the current year. What progress has been made in
upgrading sites and facilities to support the acquisition and maintenance required by the
programs. Does the Minister consider that the Programs are necessary for ADF capability.
What briefings and reports have been provided to the Minister, and the Government,
relating to these matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Answer
Status of acquisition:
Acquisition projects for AH-64E Apache and additional MH-60R Romeo helicopters were
announced by the former Prime Minister and Minster for Defence in May 2022.
AH-64E Apache - during 2022-23, the project will focus efforts on maturing the implemented
Foreign Military Sales arrangements with the United States Army and completing a tender for
a local Initial Support Contract.
MH-60R Romeo – Defence is continuing to progress this acquisition under Foreign Military
Sales arrangements with the United States.
Defence advises there are no risks to the schedule of either project at this time.
Issues/risks:
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
Skilled workforce availability – which is an issue across multiple industries.
Sites and facilities:
Facilities and sites continue to be developed in line with Government approvals.
Necessity:
Defence advises that the AH-64E Apache and MH-60R Romeo will meet the ADF’s future
capability requirements.
Briefings and reports:
Defence routinely briefs Ministers and the Government on Defence matters. These briefings
contain sensitive material and may adversely impact Defence if released publicly.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter acquisition
Senator Claire Chandler
Written Question
1. The US State Department recently approved the proposed sale of UH-60M Black
Hawk helicopters to Australia-what decision and timetable have been confirmed to
complete the contract, acquisition, delivery and operational integration of the UH-
60Ms into the ADF?
2. In Table 54, Defence Portfolio Budget Statement, page 113, Top 30 Military
Equipment Acquisition Program Approved Projects by 2022-23, under AIR 9000
Phase 2, reference to the US Government approval is made regarding the 40 UH-
60M acquisition. What is the status of Departmental and Ministerial decision making?
3. Have submissions or advice on a decision been presented to the Government, and
when?
4. Who was that advice provided to?
5. What was the initial timetable for this decision, and is the decision timetable going
to be met?
6. When will a decision be made?
7. Is this capability decision subject to further inquiry as part of the Defence Strategic?
Review?
8. Has a decision been delayed due to the Defence Strategic Review?
9. What approvals within the Department, CASG or otherwise, remain outstanding?
10. When will the Black Hawks arrive and enter service with the ADF?
Answer:
1. A decision to replace the MRH90 with the UH-60M Black Hawk was announced on 18
January 2023 with delivery of initial platforms to commence later this year.
2. As above.
3. Defence routinely provides advice to Government on Defence capabilities including on
MRH and Black Hawk.
4. Government.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000398
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Battlefield Aviation Program
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Lieutenant General Simon Stuart; Major General Jeremy King
Document 12
5. A decision to replace the MRH90 with the UH-60M Black Hawk was announced on 18
January 2023.
6. As above.
7. No.
8. No.
9. None.
10. The initial platforms will be delivered from Q3 2023.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier David Hafner
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Deputy Commander Aviation Command
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Headquarters Aviation Command
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
12
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000399
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Army Littoral Manoeuvre
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 13
LAND 8710 Phase 1 is in the process of finalising tender evaluations for both the Littoral
Manoeuvre Vessel - Medium landing craft and the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel –
Amphibious vehicle. The outcomes of the tenders will inform the project’s preparations
for undergoing approval considerations.
The Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium provides shore-to-shore manoeuvre and
sustainment for the Joint Force in littoral and riverine environments.
- Its secondary role is to provide additional ship-to-shore transfer capacity to the
Australian Amphibious Force, centred on Navy’s Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD,
HMAS
Canberra and
Adelaide), the Landing Ship Dock (HMAS
Choules) and their
future replacements.
LAND 8710 Phase 2 will deliver the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Heavy (LMV-H) on an
accelerated schedule as agreed by Government.
LAND 8710 Phase 3 contemplates the acquisition of the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel –
Patrol (LMV-P), a fast assault craft that will specialise in operating in dangerous direct
fire areas to provide the rapid manoeuvre and firepower that will be critical for
optimising Army for the close fight in a littoral environment.
LAND 8710 Phase 5 will deliver new basing in Northern Australia to support the
expansion of Army’s Littoral Manoeuvre fleets. This new basing will improve the ADF’s
ability to operate from Australia’s northern regions. These proposed facilities align with
the Defence Strategic Review recommendation that upgrades and supports to the
development of Australia’s northern network of bases, ports and barracks.
Key facts
The Army Littoral Manoeuvre Program’s priority is currently to accelerate and expand
LAND 8710 Phases 1-2 Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (Landing Craft Medium and
Heavy) and synchronise delivery of landing craft, long-range fires, and infantry fighting
vehicles.
Approval: LAND 8710 Phase 1 achieved First Pass approval in December 2020.
Budget: Army is currently assessing the method of implementing and funding the
accelerated littoral manoeuvre capability in line with the Defence Strategic Review’s
recommendations.
Initial Operational Capability / Final Operational Capability: The composition of these
capability milestones is subject to further analysis.
The Army Littoral Manoeuvre Program is now preparing options for an accelerated
pathway that will deliver a minimum viable capability in the shortest possible time.
Army is working closely with Navy to ensure the ADF has an amphibious system that
effectively contributes to Australia’s strategic objectives.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
2 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000399
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Army Littoral Manoeuvre
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 13
Background
With a range of up to 1,200 nautical miles, the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium
will be able to project independently or in company with Navy ships.
The Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium will be much larger than the legacy landing
craft, the Landing Craft Mechanized, Mark 8 and will provide a significant increase in
capability.
This increase in size is necessary to achieve additional payload, range and seakeeping
requirements. This increase in size will prevent integration into the well dock of the
Navy’s Landing Heavy Dock (LHD),, but ship-to-ship transfer of some cargo is expected
to be able to be conducted through craning operations.
If pressed: What is Army doing to “accelerate and expand” LAND 8170 Phase 1 and 2 as a
result of the Defence Strategic Review recommendations?
Army will deliver the Defence Strategic Review recommendations as agreed by
Government.
Army is currently assessing the method of implementing the accelerated littoral
manoeuvre capability as per the agreed Defence Strategic Review recommendations.
If pressed: Where are the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels expected to be built in Australia?
This question should be referred to Deputy Secretary Naval Shipbuilding and
Sustainment. An acquisition strategy for the accelerated Littoral Manoeuvre capability
is under development and will be presented for Government consideration in due
course.
If pressed: A full-scale, operational proof of concept LMV-M is being constructed by Birdon in
Henderson, WA. Does this mean the decision has been made to construct LMV-M there?
It would be inappropriate to comment on this matter as tender evaluation for the
LMV-M is undergoing finalisation.
If pressed: Where will Army’s new fleet of watercraft be based?
The majority of Army’s new fleet of watercraft will be based in Darwin. New fit-for-
purpose watercraft basing will be delivered by LAND 8710 Phase 5 in support of both
Army’s new watercraft fleets and the Joint Force. The proposed work will establish a
Littoral Manoeuvre Centre of Excellence in Darwin which includes world-class training
and simulation systems. The new basing is proposed for construction in both Darwin
and Townsville where the current Army watercraft capabilities are based. These new
facilities will play an important role in enabling and sustaining force projection into our
region.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
3 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000399
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Army Littoral Manoeuvre
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 13
If pressed: Won’t basing the watercraft in Darwin reduce train and sustain opportunities
offered by co-locating with the existing designated amphibious battalion in Townsville, similar
to Battlefield Aviation?
Army Littoral Manoeuvre basing will support the projection of forces into the region.
Having bases at Darwin and Townsville will enable the Joint Force to better maintain a
persistent presence in the region, including engagement with regional security
partners, and project force in response to a number of possible contingencies. Bases at
these locations will also enable the Army Littoral Manoeuvre capability to integrate
with and support key dependency units such as the 2nd and 5th Battalion, Royal
Australian Regiment.
While there is an argument for the efficiency of co-locating bases, this comes at a cost
of redundancy, putting unsustainable demand on local industry and the impracticality
of putting a base large enough to support the full Army Littoral Manoeuvre fleet in one
location and competing with private industry for real estate.
If asked: Will the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Heavy (LMV-H)’s be built in Australia?
LAND 8710 Phase 2 is being accelerated and expanded as directed by Government in
the Defence Strategic Review. The requirements for LAND 8710 Phase 2 are being
developed now and will be released in accordance with the accelerated procurement
schedule.
If pressed: Is there a LAND 8710 Phase 4?
LAND 8710 Phase 4 is a proposed capability assurance phase that is not yet approved
nor reflected in the Integrated Investment Program. This will ensure through-life
capability assurance, enhancement and incremental upgrades of the full range of LAND
8710 Army Littoral Manoeuvre fleets and achieve efficiencies through a programmatic
approach to maintaining through-life effectiveness.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
4 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000399
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Army Littoral Manoeuvre
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 13
Relevant Media Reporting
The Defence Strategic Review recommendation to accelerate the acquisition of LAND
8710 Phases 1 and 2 – Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (Landing Craft Medium and
Heavy) received widespread media coverage from 22 April 2023.
Since achieving First Pass approval in December 2020, LAND 8710-1 and the future
littoral projects have received accurate and positive coverage in the leading Defence
Industry publications such as Australian Defence Magazine, Defence Technology
Review and Jane’s Defence Weekly.
In February 2023, Australian Defence Magazine published an article,
New landing craft
prototype being built in WA, detailing construction of a full-scale, operational proof of
concept Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium by a group led by Birdon in Henderson,
Western Australia.
In September 2022, ASPI published an article,
Defence review must examine Australia’s
amphibious basing quandary raised issues with the planned Army watercraft base in
Darwin. It raised the argument for co-location with the amphibious battalion in
Townsville.
Division:
Army
PDR No:
SB23-000399
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier Colin Bassett, Director General
Major General Richard Vagg, Head Land
Platforms, Army
Capability, Army
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 18 May 2023
Date: 18 May 2023
Consultation: Navy
Date: 04 April 2023
Commodore Ashley Papp, Director General
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Littoral
Consultation: Navy Shipbuilding and
Date: 03 March 2023
Sustainment Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
David Kingston, Assistant Secretary Ship
Acquisition Specialist Ships
Cleared by DSR: Major General Christopher Field,
Ph: s47E(d)
Deputy DSR Task Force - ADF Integration
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 18 May 2023
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Colin Bassett
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Platforms
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability Division
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
5 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000597
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Land Based Fires
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 14
Long Range Fires, Land-based Maritime Strike and the Precision Strike Missile
The acceleration of an expanded Long Range Fires capability will include additional High
Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers, munitions and support vehicles. Defence is
working closely with the United States to align the earlier timelines with their production
schedules.
To achieve an enduring land-based maritime strike capability, Army has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the United States to co-develop the Precision Strike
Missile.
To meet the capability timeframe to achieve the Enhanced Force-in-Being, Defence is
completing a market-scan to confirm feasibility of several land-based maritime strike
options that can be rapidly acquired.
Short Range Ground Based Air Defence
Under Project Land 19 Phase 7B Short-Range Ground Based Air Defence, Defence will
acquire the enhanced National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System from Raytheon
Australia, with production having commenced in Adelaide in late 2019.
The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System is a ground-based air defence
system designed to engage hostile aircraft, missiles and drones using a variety of ground
launched missiles.
The Australian company CEA Technologies is contracted to deliver advanced radars for
integration into the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System.
The Project has commenced introduction into service training and testing in preparation
for Initial Operating Capability.
New facilities for Project Land 19 Phase 7B Short-Range Ground Based Air Defence are
being developed at Edinburgh Defence Precinct in South Australia, with a facilities
contract signed in March 2023.
Weapon Locating Radars
To enable the Integrated Force to conduct enhanced long-range strike, Army will acquire
Weapon Locating Radars that will integrate into a wider sensor network to provide timely
target information for engagement.
Under LAND 8113 Phase 1 Tranche 2 Weapon Locating Radar project, a delivery of up to
10 radars will coincide with initial deliveries of land-based long-range strike capabilities.
The Australian company CEA Technologies have been invited to tender for the
acquisition, with Army’s desire to maintain a solution that has previously been proven
through the Short Range Ground Based Air Defence capability and the Integrated Air and
Missile Defence capability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Warren Gould
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Systems & Integration
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000597
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Land Based Fires
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 14
Protected Mobile Fires
Under the LAND 8116 Phase 1
Protected Mobile Fires project, Defence will acquire a new
Self Propelled Artillery system from Hanwha Defense Australia.
The Project will deliver 30 AS-9 Huntsman Self-Propelled Howitzers and 15 AS10
Armoured Ammunition Resupply Vehicles for the Australian Army, with deliveries
scheduled to start in 2025.
Each Self-Propelled Howitzer is a large armoured vehicle mounting a long-range
cannon capable of firing artillery shells up to 70 kms.
The Project has commenced ammunition integration testing in the Republic of Korea, and
the construction of the Hanwha Defense Australia facility in Geelong is ongoing.
The Protected Mobile Fires contract with Hanwha Defense Australia will create a
minimum of 300 jobs spread across facility construction, acquisition and maintenance,
generating ongoing support opportunities for Australian industry until the late 2040’s.
Government accepted the recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review to cancel
the planned second battery of Self-Propelled Howitzers (LAND 8116 Phase 2).
Background
LAND 8113 Phase 1 Tranche 1 Long-Range Fires (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems)
On 05 January 2023 the Government announced the decision to purchase 20 High
Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, associated munitions and support systems via a Foreign
Military Sales case.
The LAND 8113 Phase 1 Tranche 1 Long Range Fires project will deliver launchers, missiles
and training rockets for introduction into service in the late 2020s. The US High Mobility
Artillery Rocket Systems is a long-range missile system mounted on a military truck. The
current High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems missile fleet range between s33(a)(ii)
The total cost for this initial capability is expected to be $0.9-1.1 billion for acquisition and
early sustainment.
If pressed where will these be based?
Whilst an initial fleet will be based in Puckapunyal, Victoria, the majority of Army’s 20
High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems will be based in s33(a)(ii)
Army is currently reviewing its structure and posture in accordance with the priorities
outlined in the Defence Strategic Review, which will determine final location decisions.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Warren Gould
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Systems & Integration
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000597
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Land Based Fires
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 14
Precision Strike Missile
Australia have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States to
co-develop the Precision Strike Missile.
The Precision Strike Missile is a United States development program that will extend the
range of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems capability to beyond 500 kilometres
by the mid-2020s.
Future missile upgrades will seek improved sensors to expand the High Mobility Artillery
Rocket Systems capability to include greater range and novel warheads.
LAND 8113 Phase 1 Tranche 2 Weapon Locating Radars
The acquisition of Weapon Locating Radars will provide Army the ability to conduct
efficient and accurate counter fires and will provide the Joint Force with greater
situational awareness and enhanced lethality across the battlespace, at ranges
appropriate for the employment of Long Range Fires and Land Based Maritime Strike
capabilities.
Land-based Weapon Locating Radars are integral to the ‘sensor-to-shooter’ network to
enable the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to engage targets. They track incoming
and outgoing rockets, artillery rounds, mortars and missiles, allowing the Integrated Force
to locate, track and strike threat systems. Weapon Locating Radars are critical for
counter-fires operations, as demonstrated on contemporary battlefields in the Ukraine.
LAND 8116 Phase 1 Protected Mobile Fires
The AS9 Huntsman Self-Propelled Howitzer provides high rates of indirect fire for
supporting infantry and armour whilst conducting close combat. The Self-Propelled
Howitzer capability increases range and weight of fire support from s33(a)(ii)
delivering the 155 millimetre artillery effects in support of the Land Force.
The AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply Vehicle will enable resupply to be conducted
under-armour, improving survivability and protection of friendly forces logistic elements.
The Armoured Ammunition Resupply Vehicle is considered an essential
supporting platform to the Self-Propelled Howitzer, minimising the need for Self-
Propelled Howitzer crews to dismount when conducting ammunition resupply.
The Self-Propelled Howitzer and Armoured Ammunition Resupply Vehicle will be
manufactured near Geelong by Hanwha Defense Australia with the hulls, turrets, fuel
tanks and camouflage systems to be manufactured in Tasmania.
If pressed what does the cancellation of the Second Self-Propelled Howitzer Regiment mean to
Army Capability?
The Defence Strategic Review recommended that Land 8116 Phase 2 be cancelled to
support the prioritisation of long range fires, including land-based maritime strike. The
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Warren Gould
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Systems & Integration
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000597
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Land Based Fires
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 14
acceleration and expansion of Land 8113 Phases 2- 4 will see an overall increase of range
and lethality of Army’s long range fires capabilities.
Long-range weapon systems have a much higher requirement for intelligence than
traditional cannon artillery.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
Media reporting about the protected mobile fires capability since the last Senate
Estimates has been focused on the
Hanwha facility at Avalon, and
sub-contracts associated with the Huntsman for
training and
chemical sensors for the new vehicles.
Reporting about High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems has included reports about
missile manufacture in Australia and
potential obstacles.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Warren Gould
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Systems & Integration
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000597
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Land Based Fires
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Document 14
Division:
Army
PDR No:
SB23-000597
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier Warren Gould, Director General
Major General Richard Vagg, Head Land
Systems and Integration, Army
Capability, Army
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 17 April 2023
Date: 17 April 2023
Consultation: Capability Acquisition and
Date: 14 April 2023
Sustainment Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
s47E(d)
, Director Fires
Modernisation Program
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 1 May 2023
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy Defence
Ph: s47E(d)
Strategic Review Task Force
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 17 May 2024
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Warren Gould
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Director General Systems & Integration
Position: Chief of Army
Division: Land Capability
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000400
Last updated: 17 May 2023
LAND 400 Phase 2 - Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle Project
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 15
Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence facility is located
in Redbank, Queensland.
The German Government has engaged with Defence to explore options to leverage
Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s production capacity at the Military Vehicle Centre of
Excellence for the production of Boxer Vehicles in a ‘Heavy Weapon Carrier’
configuration for the German Army.
Defence has responded positively to this proposal, with a Letter of Cooperation signed
by the Minister for Defence Industry and his German counterpart on 23 March 2023,
committing to formal negotiations to establish appropriate legal and commercial
arrangements.
If pressed: About media reporting of problems with the Boxer, carbon monoxide toxicity;
vibration problems; difficulties operating the vehicle at night time; and tyre changing in the
field.
During the Block I Boxer Operational Test and Evaluation activities, a smal number of
technical issues were identified – such issues are not unusual for a project of this
complexity.
Defence, in col aboration with Rheinmetal Defence Australia, are implementing a range
of actions to ensure these issues are addressed with al safety risks successful y mitigated.
If pressed: About issues integrating the Anti-Tank Guided Missile and Active Protection System
on the turret.
Integration of an Anti-Tank Guided Missile into the Boxer Block I turret remains on track.
Defence is progressing the upgrade from the Spike LR to the Spike LR2 Anti-Tank Guided
Missile with Rheinmetal Defence Australia and Varley Rafael Australia, as it provides a
superior capability.
Defence entered into a contract with Varley Rafael Australia in September 2022 for the
acquisition of a smal quantity of Spike LR2 missiles to enable integration and verification
testing with the Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle.
Defence is assessing the viability of integrating an Active Protection System onto the
Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle.
The Anti-Tank Guided Missile and the Active Protection System capabilities were not
requirements for achieving Initial Operational Capability.
If pressed: What is the status of the German Government proposal to utilise Australian
production capacity for the build of their Boxer Heavy Weapons Carrier vehicles?
The signing of the Letter of Cooperation by the Australian and German Governments is a
significant step in the advancement of this export opportunity and enables the
commencement of formal negotiations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Phone:
/
Phone:
/
s22
s22
s47E(d)
s47E(d)
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000400
Last updated: 17 May 2023
LAND 400 Phase 2 - Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle Project
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 15
Background
Fol owing a comprehensive three-year tender process, Rheinmetal Defence Australia’s
Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle was assessed as the most suitable for Defence.
s33(a)(ii)
The Project budget is $5.6 bil ion, with five major contracts currently in place:
$3.4 billion acquisition contract with Rheinmetall Defence Australia signed on
9 August 2018;
$192 million support contract with Rheinmetall Defence Australia signed on
20 December 2018 (for an initial term of seven years);
$49 million acquisition contract with Electro Optic Systems for the supply and
support of 82 Australian designed and developed Remote Weapon Stations;
$30 million acquisition contract with Universal Motion Simulation Pty Ltd for the
supply of six Reconfigurable Driver Simulators; and
$97 million acquisition contract with NIOA for the supply of explosive ordnance.
The Australian Industry Capability commitment is $1.975 bil ion ($1.801 bil ion for the
acquisition period [2019-2026] and $174 mil ion in the initial support contract).
Defence has conducted multiple driver and commander courses to ensure Army’s people are
trained.
Vehicle assembly
With a deliberate period of transition, the Block I Boxer Vehicles wil be built and
assembled in Australia, under a gradual ramp-down in Germany and ramp-up in Australia.
This transition approach wil enable progressive technology transfer of the manufacturing
techniques and assembly line processes to Australia during this period.
The first ful y Australian-assembled Block I Boxer vehicle is scheduled for delivery in mid-
2024. The final vehicle is scheduled for delivery in 2027. Final Operational Capability is
planned for 2027.
Delays
Rheinmetal Defence Australia has experienced delays in the achievement of some
milestones predominantly linked to COVID, global supply chain pressures, and workforce
availability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Phone:
/
Phone:
/
s22
s22
s47E(d)
s47E(d)
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000400
Last updated: 17 May 2023
LAND 400 Phase 2 - Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle Project
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 15
Defence and Rheinmetal Defence Australia are working closely to ensure Final
Operational Capability is achieved in 2027.
Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Australian suppliers
To date, the Government has announced several Australian businesses who have
signed supply contracts with Rheinmetall Defence Australia. These businesses include;
Penske Australia, Supacat Asia Pacific, Cablex, Eylex, Tectonica Australia, ABI Coating
Specialists, Thomas Global, Frontline Manufacturing, Precision Metal Group, MoTeC,
Rockpress, Bisalloy, BlueScope and Thales Australia.
Additionally, there are a range of other Australian companies supporting Rheinmetall
Defence Australia in the delivery of the project and its operations in Australia.
Rheinmetall Defence Australia has established a teaming arrangement with two
Australian companies (Bisalloy Steel Group and BlueScope) to provide armoured steel
for the Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles. Bisalloy will manufacture the ballistic
armour from steel supplied by BlueScope.
German Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier
The German Ministry of Defence is seeking to acquire 123 vehicles for the German
Army, closely aligned to the design of the Australian Boxer Reconnaissance Vehicle
variant.
The Department of Defence is conducting formal negotiations with the German Federal
Ministry of Defence and Rheinmetall Defence Australia.
The formal negotiations with the German Ministry of Defence and Rheinmetall will seek
to establish appropriate legal and commercial arrangements, and confirm Rheinmetall’s
ability to concurrently deliver on German requirements without impacting their
obligations to Defence under the Australian Boxer contract.
Timeline of Significant Events
Date
Action
23 March 2023
Letter of Cooperation signed to enter into formal negotiations to
pursue the Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier vehicle export opportunity.
15 October 2022
Defence announced that Initial Operational Capability was achieved
on schedule.
31 May 2021
Rheinmetall Defence Australia delivered all 25 Block I Boxer Combat
Reconnaissance Vehicles.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Phone:
/
Phone:
/
s22
s22
s47E(d)
s47E(d)
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000400
Last updated: 17 May 2023
LAND 400 Phase 2 - Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle Project
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 15
Date
Action
The Australian National Audit Office published its report on
26 November 2020
Defence’s procurement of Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles
(LAND 400 Phase 2).
Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Military Vehicle Centre of
11 October 2020
Excellence facility was opened in Redbank, Queensland by the
former Prime Minister.
24 September 2019
Rheinmetall Defence Australia delivered the first Boxer Combat
Reconnaissance Vehicle to Defence.
The Australian Government announced that Rheinmetall Defence
14 March 2018
Australia had been selected to deliver Australia’s new Combat
Reconnaissance Vehicle.
13 March 2018
Second Pass Government approval achieved.
09 December 2014
First Pass Government approval achieved.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No recent QoNs.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 23 March 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry
announced the Boxer Heavy Weapon
Carrier Vehicle export opportunity and signing of Letter of Cooperation.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has extensively reported on the Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier export
opportunity speculating on the value of export, and whether it will impact Rheinmetall
Defence Australia’s offer under Infantry Fighting Vehicle project, which is currently
under live tender.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Phone:
/
Phone:
/
s22
s22
s47E(d)
s47E(d)
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000400
Last updated: 17 May 2023
LAND 400 Phase 2 - Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle Project
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 15
Division:
Armoured Vehicle Division
PDR No:
SB23-000400
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Jacqueline Menzies, Acting Assistant Secretary
MAJGEN Jason Blain, Head Armoured
Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Vehicle Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 17 May 2023
Date: 17 May 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 18 May 2023
Chris Deeble, Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition
and Sustainment Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Phone: s47E(d) /
Phone: s47E(d) /
s22
s22
Page
6 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
On 25 November 2022, the Minister for Defence Industry announced that the
Government will consider the findings of the Defence Strategic Review before making a
decision on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle project.
On 24 April 2023, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister released the public
version of the Defence Strategic Review and the Government’s response to the review.
The announcement confirmed a reduction in the quantity of Infantry Fighting Vehicles
to be acquired to a total of 129 vehicles.
Both tenderers and relevant governments have been engaged regarding the reduction
in quantities.
Defence is working closely with Government in relation to the way forward for the
acquisition of this important capability in line with agreed Defence Strategic Review
recommendations.
If pressed: When will a decision on the Infantry Fighting Vehicle project preferred tenderer be
made?
The project remains subject to Government consideration.
If pressed: Is there a preferred tenderer?
The project is a live tender and is yet to be considered by Government.
If pressed: Has the Deputy Prime Minister recused himself from the Infantry Fighting Vehicle
project decision-making process?
As reported in the Australian on 04 August 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister has
recused himself from the decision-making process for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle
project because one of the shortlisted tenderers is based in his electorate in the
Geelong region.
Background
The current M113 platform was first introduced into service in 1965 and is not
fit-for-purpose against threats which are prevalent in our region. It has reached the
limits of its technical life, and must be replaced as a core component of the Combined
Arms Fighting System.
The Infantry Fighting Vehicles will be fitted with an Active Protection System to counter
anti-tank missiles and other projectiles. The vehicles will also be armed with Spike LR2
Anti-Tank Guided Missiles.
A robust tender evaluation process conducted over 2018 to 2021 and concluded with
the approval of the final source evaluation report and preferred tenderer
recommendation in December 2021.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
In May 2022, Defence engaged with both shortlisted tenderers, Hanwha Defense
Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia, to provide additional information to
support consideration of available options for Defence and the Government.
The tender validity period was extended, on agreement of both tenderers, to 31 July
2023, to accommodate the deferral of Government consideration of the project until
after release of the Defence Strategic Review.
Australian Industry Capability
Once approved, the project may offer opportunities for Australian defence industry to
be included in the successful tenderer’s international supply chain and contribute to
growing Australia’s sovereign defence industrial base.
In line with direction of the Defence Strategic Review, Australian industry content and
domestic production will be balanced against timely capability acquisition.
Budget
The current unapproved Integrated Investment Program provision is $18.1-27.1 billion
(including contingency).
The savings from the reduction of LAND 400 Phase 3, will help enable the acceleration
of projects and the acquisition of additional capabilities identified under the Defence
Strategic Review.
Timeline of Significant Events
Date
Action
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister released the public
24 April 2023
version of the Defence Strategic Review and the Government’s
response to the review.
The Minister for Defence Industry announced that Government
25 November 2022
would consider the findings of the Defence Strategic Review prior to
making a decision on the project.
December 2021
The final evaluation stage of the tender concluded with approval of
the Source Evaluation Report.
08 October 2021
The Risk Mitigation Activity concluded with the submission of the
shortlisted tenderers’ final offers.
11 October 2019
Defence signed contracts with both shortlisted tenderers to
commence the Risk Mitigation Activity.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
Date
Action
Hanwha Defense Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia
16 September 2019
announced as shortlisted tenderers to proceed to the Risk
Mitigation Activity.
01 March 2019
Request for Tender closed.
24 August 2018
Request for Tender released.
13 March 2018
First Pass Government approval achieved.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates: 09 November 2022
QoN 27, Small to Medium Enterprise Network, Senator David Van (Liberal, Victoria)
asked about preferred tender announcement delays and how it impacts the local small
to medium enterprise ecosystem network.
QoN 42, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Senator David Van (Liberal, Victoria) asked a series
of questions about the Infantry Fighting Vehicle project, including initial operational
capability requirements, capability gaps, and details of incoming Government briefing.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 26 April 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry
discussed the reduction in number of infantry fighting vehicles being acquired in a
Doorstop interview.
On 24 April 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry
announced the release of the Defence Strategic Review, including the recommendation
to reduce the acquisition of Infantry Fighting Vehicles to 129 vehicles to provide one
mechanised battalion.
On 25 November 2022, the Minister for Defence Industry
announced that the
Government will consider the findings of the Defence Strategic Review before deciding
on the tender for the LAND 400 Phase 3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle project.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
On 03 October 2022, a spokesperson for Minister for Defence Industry was attributed
in an
ABC news article saying, "We do not comment on cabinet processes” in response
to questions when a decision on the project would be made.
On 03 August 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Minister for Defence
Industry would be the Minister responsible for bringing the project forward for
Government consideration via a
media article.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on the outcomes of the Defence Strategic
Review, particularly regarding the reduction in quantities.
On 24 March 2023, the Australian published an article titled
Germany in driver's seat to
clinch $18bn armoured vehicle deal. Journalist Ben Packham speculated that the export
opportunity of Boxer vehicles to Germany may ‘sweeten’ Rheinmetall Defence
Australia’s offer under the Infantry Fighting Vehicle project.
On 03 March 2023, the Australian published an article published titled
Army backs
lethal Red Back. Journalist Ben Packham wrote that Hanwha Defense Australia’s
Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle is the Australian Army’s preferred tender, included
speculation on Defence Strategic Review outcomes, reduction to Infantry Fighting
Vehicle quantities and concerns regarding Elbit as a partner for the Redback turret.
On 12 October 2022, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute Special Report titled
Deciding the future: the Australian Army and the Infantry Fighting Vehicle was released
with significant media reporting post release. The report examines the debate around
the plan to acquire Infantry Fighting Vehicles and whether the number acquired should
be 450.
Division:
Armoured Vehicle Division
PDR No:
SB23-000401
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Jacqueline Menzies, Acting Assistant
Sarah Myers, Acting Head Armoured Vehicle
Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Division
Branch
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 27 April 2023
Date: 27 April 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by DSR:
Ph: s47E(d)
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy Defence
Date: 28 April 2023
Strategic Review Task Force
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 27 April 2023
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates 09 November 2022
Small to Medium Enterprise Network
Senator David Van
Spoken Question
Is there a risk, if a decision is made to have an IFV that this delay is going to potentially
degrade the ecosystem needed to build them, should that decision be made?
Mr Moriarty: I think that the companies involved understand that the Defence Strategic
Review is a very important process. A lot of the leads are looking at fundamental issues to do
with force structure and force posture, and I think that they understand that the Government
is, very appropriately, waiting for that report before decisions on major capabilities are taken.
Senator VAN: I agree with you and I do believe that the two primes understand that and are
prepared to wait. It's the SME network that's going to underpin the ecosystem needed by the
primes that doesn't understand this. I'm hearing from them very regularly that they're
coming up to make decisions and asking if they should go and work on something else—
another defence project, a mining project or whatever it happens to be—rather than waiting
around for Land 400 phase 3 Bravo to be decided. That's my concern. Minister, can you tell
us if Land 400 phase 3 Bravo is being delayed because of DSR, or is it just waiting for a cabinet
decision?
Senator Wong: I'll take on notice if there's anything further that I can give you, but I think
that the advice from Mr Moriarty, and consistent with the answers, is that all capabilities are
being considered in the context of the DSR.
Answer
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle project is in a live tender process and subject to Government
decision, therefore it would not be appropriate to comment further on the project at this
time.
Budget Estimates 09 November 2022
Infantry Fighting Vehicles
Senator David Van
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000401
Last updated: 28 April 2023
LAND 400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Jason Blain
Document 16
Written Question
1. Has the Department of Defence (Department) determined or received or otherwise been
briefed on technical and operational assessments, including survivability in the context of
contemporary combat scenarios, of the M113 Infantry Fighting Vehicle capability? Please
provide details
2. The Incoming Government Brief (IGB) explicitly noted the need for upgrading our Infantry
Fighting Vehicles. On what date the incoming Ministerial Brief delivered to the minister for
Defence?
a. Was there a separate briefing on the IGB?
b. If yes, please provide a date/s and list of attendees.
3. What is Defence’s the Army’s stated initial operational capability (IOC) requirements for
the L 400 Phase 3B project?
a. Does defence expect that it will meet this requirement?
b. Will there be a capability gap if defence does not meet this requirement?
4. What are the main factors preventing the IOC requirement being met?
5. How many SME’s does Defence expect to be supported by the L 400 Phase B project?
6. Is there a minimum requirement for the number, or percentage of SME’s that must be
involved in the project as part of Defences commitment to supporting local industry?
Answer
1. Defence has assessed that the M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier is suitable for
training and deployment, on low-threat operations such as humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief.
2. 31 May 2022.
a. As is usual practice, Defence provided a range of briefs on portfolio matters following the
2022 Federal Election.
b. A range of senior Defence officials conducted a number of briefings as part of the
incoming government process.
3. The Initial Operational Capability requirements are subject to a Government decision-
making process.
a. See response to question 3.
b. Yes. A capability gap already exists with the obsolete Vietnam-era M113AS4 Armoured
Personnel Carrier. The Australian Defence Force will not deploy the vehicles into medium
and high threat environments, primarily due to protection levels and the age of the
capability. The M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carrier is retained primarily for training
purposes.
4. See response to question 3.
5. Australian Industry Capability is considered during the tender process, and is dependent
on the capability selected, which is subject to Government consideration.
6. No.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Jacqueline Menzies
Name: Lieutenant General Simon Stuart
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Position: Chief of Army
Branch: Armoured Fighting Vehicles Branch
Group/Service: Army
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d)
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000402
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Protected Mobility Vehicle - Light (Hawkei)
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Document 17
This is not related to the original braking issue involving the Anti-Lock Braking System, for
which a software fix has been implemented across the ADF fleet.
Will Australia gift Hawkei vehicles to Ukraine?
Defence’s advice is that gifting of the Hawkei vehicle at this stage would adversely impact
the introduction of the capability to the ADF.
This is largely due to the work being performed by Thales to uplift vehicles to the final
contracted baseline.
There is also a shortage of spare parts as a result of the COVID-19 global supply chain
challenges. Nearly all available repair parts would need to be redirected to Ukraine to
keep the capability operating in a wartime environment.
Why are there Hawkei vehicles parked at Thales’ facility in Bendigo?
About 500 vehicles remain at Bendigo for Thales to complete work to bring them to the
final contracted baseline before acceptance by the Commonwealth.
This work must be completed before they can be delivered to units and is commonplace
on developmental programs of this scale and complexity.
If pressed: why are Hawkei vehicles parked at Thales’ facility in Bendigo?
To keep its workforce engaged and mitigate delays, Thales manufactured approximately 600
vehicles prior to the final contracted baseline being agreed with Defence.
These vehicles were paid for earlier than required under the terms of the contract to enable
Thales to sustain its own workforce and supply chain, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which
incorporates a large number of small and medium-sized Australian businesses.
Why has the project been delayed?
Initial Operational Capability was initially rescheduled by 12 months from December 2019
to December 2020 due to vehicle reliability, design maturity and production issues caused
by Steyr Motors entering voluntary administration.
The Hawkei Project experienced some initial challenges meeting Full-Rate Production and
uplift capacity requirements.
The Project was also impacted by COVID-19, which caused global supply chain disruptions
and impacted Army’s ability to complete the necessary training for the introduction of the
vehicle.
Initial Operational Capability was then deferred pending resolution of a Hawkei brake
incident that occurred on 23 November 2020, and was subsequently declared on
20 May 2021.
The collective impact of these delays mean that Final Operating Capability has been
rescheduled to June 2024.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Head Land Systems
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Land Systems
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000402
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Protected Mobility Vehicle - Light (Hawkei)
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Document 17
Is Thales liable for liquidated damages due to delays?
It would not be appropriate to make comment on a commercial matter between the
Commonwealth and Thales.
Background
The Hawkei Project (LAND 121 Phase 4) is acquiring 1,098 light protected mobility
vehicles and 1,058 companion trailers from Thales Australia, which will be used for
command, liaison, utility and reconnaissance roles.
The Project’s current budget is $1.963 billion (March 22-23 Portfolio Budget Statement).
The acquisition contract with Thales Australia, valued at about $1.5 billion, was signed on
5 October 2015. It is on schedule to achieve an Australian Industry Capability target of
50 per cent.
The Hawkei provides a high level of protection for soldiers against blast and ballistic
threats, comparable to the Bushmaster, with superior off-road mobility to enable it to
operate in high-risk areas.
The Hawkei is listed in the Defence Industrial Capability Plan (April 2018) as an example of
a Sovereign Industrial Capability Priority in the category of 'Land Combat Vehicle and
Technology Upgrade'.
Thales was approved to commence full-rate production on 30 September 2020. This was
completed in August 2022.
The Project was removed from the Projects of Interest list on 26 May 2021.
Thales’ vehicle production effort is now focussed on completing the ‘uplift’ of
manufactured vehicles to the final production baseline. This type of work is commonplace
on developmental programs of this scale and complexity.
It is expected that the uplift to the final production baseline will be completed by June
2023, pending resolution of the braking system issue.
As at 17 May 2023, Defence has accepted and paid for a total of 874 Hawkei vehicles, and
398 vehicles and trailers have been issued to Defence units across Australia.
In October 2021, the Government approved a reduction in project scope to allow a
buyback of two Hawkei vehicles by Thales Australia to support a potential export
opportunity.
This reduced the total quantity to be delivered by Thales to Defence from the original
1,100 Hawkei vehicles to 1,098.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Head Land Systems
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Land Systems
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000402
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Protected Mobility Vehicle - Light (Hawkei)
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Document 17
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 60 Hawkei vehicle faults, Senator Claire Chandler (Liberal, Tasmania) asked
questions relating to an article in the Australian concerning speed limits, public road
bans and the braking fault identified with the Hawkei.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None
.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 29 March 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Ukraine calls for more
Australian armour. Journalist Ben Packham stated a Ukrainian Defence Ministry adviser
urges Australia to donate Abrams tanks and Hawkeis.
On 15 November 2022, The Australian published an article titled,
Speed limit, road ban
for Defence’s $2bn 4WDs. Journalist Ben Packham stated concern about speed limits,
public road bans and the braking fault identified with the Hawkei four-wheel drive
vehicle.
On 15 September 2022, ABC News published an article titled,
Ukraine calls for more
Bushmasters, Hawkeis as war with Russia rages on. Journalist Tyrone Dalton stated the
Ukrainian ambassador to Australia says his country's forces are getting creative in how
they use Australian-made Bushmasters as its Bendigo-based manufacturer, Thales, says
it is working hard to secure export orders for both Bushmaster and Hawkei protected
vehicles.
On 24 August 2022, ABC News published an article titled,
Defence Manufacturer Thales
axe 29 jobs at Bendigo factory. Reporter Shannon Schubert stated Thales is making 29
of its Bendigo defence manufacturing staff redundant.
On 16 June 2022, The Bendigo Advertiser published an article titled,
Bendigo-built
Hawkei vehicles is back in Defence’s good books. Reporter Tom O’Callaghan stated
Defence expects the last Bendigo-built Hawkeis to be ready by June 2023.
On 11 March 2022, Australian Defence Magazine published an article titled,
Who is
undermining Hawkei? Journalist Ewen Levick examined the issues impacting the
Hawkei.
On 04 March 2022, ABC News published an article titled,
Brake problems delay delivery
of Army’s billion-dollar Hawkei fleet. Reporter Brett Worthington stated the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Head Land Systems
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Land Systems
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000402
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Protected Mobility Vehicle - Light (Hawkei)
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Document 17
Government is spending $1.3 billion on 1,100 Hawkei protected vehicles to replace
Army Land Rovers, but delivery has been delayed because of problems with brakes.
Division: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group Land Systems
PDR No: SB23-000402
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier John-Paul Ouvrier
Major General Andrew Bottrell, Head Land
Mob: s22
Ph:
Systems, Capability Acquisition and
s47E(d)
Sustainment Group Land Systems Division
Date: 03 April 2023
Mob: s22
Date: 18 May 2023
Consultation: Nil
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 18 May 2023
Chris Deeble, Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition
and Sustainment Group
Questions on Notice referred to within this brief:
Budget Estimates 09 November 2022
Hawkei vehicle faults and bans
Senator Claire Chandler
Written Question
With reference to reporting in The Australian, 15 November 2022, concerning speed limits,
public road bans and the braking fault identified with the Hawkei four-wheel drive vehicle:
1. The fault was identified on 11 November 2022. Please confirm the nature of the quality
assurance inspection, how often such inspections are carried out, and the process for
identifying faults.
2. Please provide details of the identified fault, any attendant risks, and the risk mitigation
and rectification program, including costs and implications for the introduction of further
vehicles into service.
3. What are the risks and impacts of the fault, the risk management and rectification program
for vehicles in service with the Australian Defence Force (ADF)? What costs and further risks
are associated with removing vehicles from service, or imposition of speed limits, road bans
and other aspects of the risk management and rectification program?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Head Land Systems
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Land Systems
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000402
Last updated: 18 May 2023
Protected Mobility Vehicle - Light (Hawkei)
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Document 17
4. When will the fault risk management and rectification process be completed? What
progress has been made? What is the expected total cost of the fault, risk management and
rectification?
5. In addition to the braking fault, were any other faults or risks identified with the vehicles
during the inspection? If yes, what risk mitigation or remedial action has been
recommended?
6. Had any similar, or other, faults or risks been identified with the vehicles during prior
quality assurance inspections? If yes, how have these been resolved?
7. Has the Department of Defence (Department) been briefed by the ADF in relation to the
impacts and implications of the identified fault, risk management and rectification process on
capability and operations? Please provide details.
Answer
1. These inspections occur during final production work on vehicles to verify that each vehicle
meets Defence’s contracted performance and quality requirements to ensure the vehicle is
safe to operate and fit for purpose.
2. The brake system fault is characterised as the incorrect operation of the Anti-Lock Braking
System. Based on the information provided by Thales, Defence has assessed the potential
safety risk as High and put in place restrictions on the use of the Hawkei vehicle until Thales
has identified the root cause of the fault and advised Defence of an approved rectification
procedure. The costs and timeline for rectification will not be known until Thales has
confirmed the root cause and fault remediation program.
3. The fault may affect the performance of the brake system and in some circumstances may
also affect the directional stability of the vehicle during braking.
Defence has a comprehensive risk framework for assessing the potential impact of a fault,
and determining appropriate vehicle operating restrictions to mitigate risks. These
restrictions will remain in place while Defence and Thales work together to identify the root
cause, and then implement a remediation plan across the Hawkei fleet.
The current restrictions on the Hawkei will impact some training activities; however, Defence
does not envisage a requirement to remove the vehicles from service while the root cause is
being assessed.
4. The timeline and cost for any required rectification will not be known until Thales has
confirmed the root cause of the fault and advised Defence of an approved rectification
procedure.
5. No.
6. Not to the knowledge of Defence. While reliability issues were identified, and remediated,
during earlier reliability trials, Defence is not aware of any other faults or risks being
identified during quality assurance inspections.
7. The Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and Army (the Capability Manager) are
working collaboratively to manage the issue. The key impact identified to date relates to the
training of ADF personnel.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Major General Andrew Bottrell
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Head Land Systems
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Land Systems
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000403
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Special Purpose Aircraft
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 18
entitled passengers. The Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister for Defence, approves the
domestic flights of all other entitled passengers.
Defence coordinates with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General and
the Office of the Minister for Defence to manage Special Purpose Aircraft allocation
and tasking.
The review and update of the Guidelines for the Use of Special Purpose Aircraft will
incorporate the security review considerations undertaken by the Australian Federal
Police.
Future Special Purpose Aircraft schedules will be released by Defence once the review
of the Guidelines is complete. This will ensure that security considerations are balanced
with the need to remain accountable and transparent in the use of a public asset.
Replacement of the current Boeing Business Jets with two new medium capacity
737-8 aircraft represents better value-for-money than retention of the Boeing Business
Jets beyond lease expiry in 2024.
When was Government agreement provided for replacement of the Special Purpose Aircraft
fleet?
Agreement to lease two new replacement medium capacity 737-8 Boeing Business Jet
aircraft was provided by the Prime Minister on 18 December 2021.
Does the replacement Special Purpose Aircraft lease cost more than the existing fleet?
Yes. The replacement Special Purpose Aircraft are new aircraft replacing the current
Defence Boeing Business Jets, which will be 22 years old at the end of their current
lease term in 2024.
The cost of the lease of the current Boeing Business Jet fleet – which is on its third lease
term – reflects the aircraft age and therefore, low residual value.
The lease cost for the current Boeing Business Jet fleet is $4.9 million per annum in
comparison to the new fleet lease cost of $28.9 million annually, noting lease costs
decrease each time a lease term contract is renegotiated.
Background
Special Purpose Aircraft have flown entitled persons since 1959.
Special Purpose Aircraft support Government to conduct business in a timely, efficient
and secure manner.
Special Purpose Aircraft enable Government business to continue when commercial
options are not suitable. The aircraft afford passengers minimal delays and reduced
transit times from point-to-point. Secure communications allow Government
passengers to continue working during flight.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Branch: Air Force Headquarters
Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000403
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Special Purpose Aircraft
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 18
Key Facts and Figures
The permanently designated Special Purpose Aircraft fleet comprises three ‘small’
Dassault Falcon 7X (13 passengers) and two ‘medium’ 737 Boeing Business Jets (26
passengers). These aircraft are operated by No. 34 Squadron located at Defence
Establishment Fairbairn, Canberra.
The Special Purpose Aircraft fleet is supplemented by one large capacity ‘Government
Transport and Communications’ modified KC-30A aircraft operated by No. 33 Squadron
from Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley. Its modification costs included:
Air-to-air refuelling tanker element – $167 million; and
Government Transport and Communications element – $135 million.
The additional cost to operate the Falcon 7X or 737 Boeing Business Jet is $4,135 per
hour.
The additional cost to operate a KC-30A as a Government Transport and
Communications aircraft is $6,985 per hour.
Defence revises the ‘additional cost’ per hour of Special Purpose Aircraft every financial
year. These costs are indexed yearly and reported within the Schedule of Special
Purpose Flights.
The support contractor is Northrop Grumman Australia Technology Services.
The latest Schedule of Special Purpose Flights was published on 21 July 2021. It can be
found on the Defence website.
Defence is leasing two replacement 737-8 Boeing Business Jets to ensure continuity in
the provision of medium capacity Special Purpose Aircraft capability when the existing
Boeing Business Jets are withdrawn.
The two Boeing Business Jets are scheduled to reach a planned withdrawal date
mid-2024.
Medium Special Purpose Aircraft Replacement
A review of the medium capacity Special Purpose Aircraft capability assessed
replacement of the current Boeing Business Jets with two new medium capacity
737-8 aircraft represents better value for money than retention of the Boeing Business
Jets beyond lease expiry in 2024.
The 737-8 Boeing Business Jets meet or exceed all current Boeing Business Jet
capabilities. They are the only viable solution to meet the future requirements of the
medium capacity Special Purpose Aircraft capability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Branch: Air Force Headquarters
Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000403
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Special Purpose Aircraft
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 18
The 737-8 Boeing Business Jet was the only tendered option that can carry enough
people, far enough, with sufficient amenity required for the medium capacity Special
Purpose Aircraft role.
The 737-8 Boeing Business Jet is capable of transporting more passengers, with fewer
refuelling stops and a higher level of amenity than the current Boeing Business Jet.
Contemporary amenities allow for appropriate work and rest on-board for both
passengers and crew, and include maximising lie-flat seating, reduced cabin altitude
and a crew rest facility on-board.
s33(a)(i)
systems on-board with more capable systems than the Boeing
Business Jet will enable s33(a)(i)
, improving Government efficiency during transit.
Government Transport and Communications
The Government Transport and Communications aircraft provides large capacity, long-
range international transport when not used in its primary air to air refuelling role.
The Government Transport and Communications aircraft is operated by No. 33
Squadron located at RAAF Base Amberley.
The Government Transport and Communications aircraft has recently been used to
transport the Prime Minister to the G20 meetings in India, and to bilateral meetings
with the governments of Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Fiji, and to meetings
with the governments of the United States and United Kingdom for the AUKUS
announcements in San Diego, United States.
In 2022, the aircraft transported the Prime Minister to:
Bilateral meetings in Indonesia;
The Quadrilateral dialogues in Japan;
The Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference in Spain, and Bilateral
meetings in France;
State funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II;
State funeral of the former Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe;
Association of Southeast Asian Nations dialogues, G20 and Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation summits in Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand respectively.
In 2023, the aircraft has transported the Prime Minister to:
Bilateral meetings in Papua New Guinea; and
G20 summit, AUKUS meetings and Bilateral meetings in India, USA and Fiji respectively.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Branch: Air Force Headquarters
Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000403
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Special Purpose Aircraft
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 18
With the introduction of the F-35A Lightning II and P-8A Poseidon, the fleet of seven
KC-30A air-to-air refuelling tankers, inclusive of the Government Transport and
Communications aircraft, s33(a)(i)
.
s33(a)(i)
Manifests, Tabling and Reporting Requirements
Defence is responsible to the Deputy Prime Minister (as Minister for Defence) for
compiling the Schedule of Special Purpose Flights for tabling in Parliament.
Defence provides the Schedule of Special Purpose Flights, once reviewed and verified
by the Approving Authorities, to the Deputy Prime Minister for tabling. The Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister also provides copies to the following agencies the:
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority; and
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The last Special Purpose Aircraft Schedule to be tabled in Parliament covered the
period 1 July – 31 December 2020.
Special Purpose Aircraft Schedules for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022
have not been tabled, due to the review of the Special Purpose Aircraft Guidelines.
As part of normal Special Purpose Aircraft Guidelines and Schedule of Special Purpose
Flights processes, Defence provides the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister
with manifests reflecting passengers carried on each task as recorded by the Defence
database.
As part of normal Special Purpose Aircraft Guidelines and Schedule of Special Purpose
Flights processes, on a routine basis, Approving Authorities verify a summary, provided
by Defence, of all travel and advise Defence if discrepancies are identified.
Tabling Dates for Special Purpose Aircraft Schedule
Schedule
Senate Tabled Date
1 July 2020 – 31 December 2020
21 July 2021
1 January 2020 – 30 June 2020
11 February 2021
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Branch: Air Force Headquarters
Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000403
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Special Purpose Aircraft
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 18
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
None identified.
Division:
Air Force
PDR No:
SB23-000403
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Air Commodore David Titheridge
Air Vice-Marshal Wendy Blyth, Head of Air
Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force Capability
Force
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 27 April 2023
Date: 30 March 2023
Consultation: Capability, Acquisition and Sustainment
Date: 03 April 2023
Group.
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips, Head of
Aerospace Systems Division
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
N/A
Cleared by Service Chief:
Date: 27 April 2023
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Branch: Air Force Headquarters
Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000404
Last updated: 19 May 2023
Northern Airbases
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 19
Northern Airbases
Handling Note: Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force, to lead on capability
aspects of Northern Airbases.
Key Messages
Defence maintains a network of airbases across northern Australia to project and
sustain air power in defence of Australia and its interests.
The Defence Strategic Review identifies improvement of the ADF’s ability to operate
from Australia’s northern bases as a priority.
Defence’s immediate priorities are to improve capacity and resilience of the network of
northern airbases.
Improvements to capacity and resilience of Australia’s northern airbases will create
new economic opportunities in regional and remote areas.
Talking Points
Why are the northern airbases important?
Defence maintains a network of airbases in northern Australia to project and sustain air
power in the defence of Australia and its interests. These bases are vital for the
provision of logistic support, deterrence, and denial across the region.
Defence conducts routine operations from the northern airbases, as well as major
exercises that activate all elements of the network.
What are the northern airbases?
The northern airbase network comprises a combination of permanently staffed main
bases being Townsville (QLD), Darwin (NT) and Tindal (Katherine, NT), and minimally
staffed forward operating bases being Scherger (Weipa, QLD), Curtin (Derby, WA), and
Learmonth (Exmouth, WA).
With the exception of RAAF Base Scherger, the northern airbases enable civilian
aviation activities that support local communities, such as regular public transport,
logistics and aeromedical services.
RAAF Bases Darwin and Townsville are joint user aerodromes that support domestic
and international civil air transport.
RAAF Base Townsville is also a main sustainment base for Army aviation capabilities.
A civilian terminal exists at RAAF Base Curtin, leased to the Shire of Derby. While
functional, it is currently not utilised.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force HQ
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
1 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000404
Last updated: 19 May 2023
Northern Airbases
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 19
The airfield at Cocos (Keeling) Islands is utilised by Defence but managed by the
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and
the Arts. Defence contributes to the maintenance of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield.
Why must northern airbases be viewed a holistic capability system?
The Defence Strategic Review suggested the Chief of Air Force should manage the
northern airbases as a holistic capability system. The review did not make a specific
recommendation to change capability management responsibilities.
Airbases must be treated as a capability system. They are the platform to project and
sustain air power, and must provide dispersal, redundancy and resilience for our force
posture.
A holistic capability approach allows for more effective and efficient day-to-day
operations and future investment by ensuring that all elements of the capability are
considered in relation to each other.
Air Force works closely with Security and Estate Group to ensure the airbase
infrastructure and services meet operational requirements, alongside the provision of
supplies and services such as air traffic management, air movements, aircraft fuelling,
maintenance activities, spares parts and many other elements outside the estate
management remit.
Why do the northern airbases require further investment?
Defence’s northern air basing posture has not changed since the late 1980s with the
construction of forward operating bases (Scherger, Curtin and Learmonth).
Defence is developing a discrete program of works to enhance the resilience of
northern airbase infrastructure. The Enhanced Northern Air Base Resilience Project will
prioritise works at RAAF Bases Learmonth, Curtin, Tindal, Darwin, Scherger and
Townsville, in addition to Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Air Force’s immediate priorities are to improve capacity and resilience of the northern
airbases. In line with the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review, work
across northern airbases will include upgrades to runway and apron capacity, fuel
supply and storage, accommodation and security. These improvements seek to
increase capacity, resilience and flexibility of Defence’s basing capability in support of
the integrated force.
Background
The network of airbases in northern Australia are essential for the conduct of Defence
operations, including Force Generation and Force Application, to maintain Australia’s
national security.
The Defence Strategic Review, released on 24 April 2023, outlines a developed network
of northern bases as a critical capability for the ADF’s ongoing operational success.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force HQ
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000404
Last updated: 19 May 2023
Northern Airbases
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 19
The Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield upgrade project received Parliamentary approval for
delivery on 29 March 2023.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Supplementary Budget: 15 February 2023
In
QoN 18, Cocos (Keeling), Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) asked for a
breakdown of additional funds for the Cocos (Keeling) Island project.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 27 April 2023, the Minister for Defence released a press statement titled
Strengthening Australia’s Northern Bases. The statement outlined Government
direction to Defence to spend $2 billion for critical air bases stretching across the
northern airbases.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on US Basing in Australia and upgrades to
Defence facilities in the north of Australia.
On 26 January 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
Trepidation over ADF plan to
upgrade airstrip, boost military capability on Cocos (Keeling) Islands - ABC News.
Journalist, Alice Angeloni, reported the Australian Defence Force had plans for a $567.5
million upgrade to the airfield at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to accommodate heavier
military planes. The shire's chief executive said the community was feeling trepidation
ahead of the upgrades. A defence researcher said concerns that ADF investment posed
a security threat were understandable but unfounded.
On 28 February 2023, The Australian published an article titled
Our northern bases are
becoming ‘increasingly problematic’. Journalist, Nigel Pittaway, reported on the
posturing of the Australian Defence Force to meet growing regional threats and
infrastructural upgrades to bases like RAAF Base Tindal. It stated that despite these
upgrades, none of the facilities are hardened against attack and the rapidly maturing
long-range strike capabilities of increasingly belligerent nations. Chief of Air Force was
quoted that the upgrades to facilities are part of our normal business “Air Force is
developing plans to protect our bases and critical supply lines and, if necessary, find
alternate pathways to sustain air and space power that are less vulnerable to
disruption.”
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force HQ
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000404
Last updated: 19 May 2023
Northern Airbases
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 19
Division:
Head of Air Force Capability Division
PDR No:
SB23-000404
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Air Commodore David Titheridge
Air Vice-Marshal Wendy Blyth
Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Head of Air Force Capability
Force
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 19 May 2023
Date: 11 May 2023
Consultation: Security and Estate Group
Date: 15 May 2023
Dan Fankhauser, First Assistant Secretary
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Infrastructure
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 1 May 2023
Major General Christopher Field
Ph: s47E(d)
Deputy DSR Task Force – ADF Integration
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 19 May 2023
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force HQ
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000404
Last updated: 19 May 2023
Northern Airbases
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 19
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
2022-23 Supplementary Budget Estimates
Cocos (Keeling)
Senator David Fawcett
Question
Senator FAWCETT: Sure. You've given us a long list of factors that you've considered. Can you
give us a breakdown of the I think $383.6 million of additional funding, as to which of those
elements contributed to that funding?
Mr Fankhauser: Yes, we'll provide that on notice.
Answer
A summarised breakdown of the $384 million cost increase is provided below:
Reason for cost increase
Value ($m)
Increased funding to meet original cost estimate
31
Additional scope (Runway Extension, Defence legacy waste and supporting
89
elements)
Increased Defence contingency (from 5% to 15% of budget)
65
Increase in material volumes (i.e. asphalt)
31
Increased shipping and logistics costs
115
Increased workforce costs, design and management fees
53
Total
384
A breakdown of the changes to project expenditure across financial years is provided below:
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
Contingency Total
Original
101
72
2
-
-
-
9
184
Change
-101
-71
117
248
116
10
65
384
Current
-
1
119
248
116
10
74
568
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore David Titheridge
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Capability Enablers – Air Force
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force HQ
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
As highlighted in the Defence Strategic Review,
the Government recognises Defence
must continue to develop its space capabilities. Defence is examining options to
achieve this for presentation to Government for consideration as a part of the 2024
Budget.
The Government agreed or agreed in principle to three recommendations relating to
space:
“Space Command should be moved into Joint Capabilities Group from 1 July
2023”. This was accepted by Government and Defence has established a
dedicated transition team to affect the change. The move will focus space power
as a joint element of the integrated force. Moving Defence Space Command was
always a consideration in the Defence Space Strategy.
“A centralised space domain capability development and management function
should be established”. This was agreed in-principle. This function partially exists
with the Space Commander holding capability development functions and
developing capability management functions as new capabilities come into
service.
“A method should be established for building and sustaining a trained Defence
space workforce, including a defined career path for space professionals”. This
was also agreed in-principle. Defence has developed the Defence Space Strategic
Workforce Plan 2022-35 that defines and identifies the future workforce needed
and areas of workforce risk in assuring Australia’s access to space. Defence will
look at accelerating the workforce plan and development of the training
continuum to implement this agreed recommendation.
Defence is coordinating closely with its allies and partners to ensure alignment in our
approaches to shape, deter and respond to, from or through the space domain.
Defence is also engaged with inter-agency partners, including the Australia Space
Agency, to support sovereign space industry development, with a focus on unique
Australian capabilities that compliment those of our allies and partners.
If pressed: Is Defence seeking to acquire ‘soft kill’ capabilities?
This is not terminology used by Defence.
There are many ways that competitors can interfere with space capabilities, including
non-kinetic effects like jamming of the electro-magnetic spectrum.
To mitigate potential threats in space, Defence is designing resilient mission systems
and contributing to combined space operations with our allies and partners.
Defence is exploring options for a Space Electronic Warfare capability to detect and
deter attempts to interfere with our use of the space domain without causing debris or
damage to the space environment.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
Defence supports efforts to promote international norms, transparency and
cooperation in upholding responsible behaviour in space.
Background
Defence Space Command’s mission is to prepare space power to secure Australia's
interests in peace and war. The Command vision is assured Australian civil and military
access in space, integrated across Government, and in concert with allies, international
partners and industry.
Defence Space Command is responsible for managing space capability projects, the
development, growth and sustainment of a space workforce, force assignment of space
specialists to the Chief of Joint Operations, space concepts and doctrine, and the
development of effective partnerships with international and inter-agency partners.
Since its establishment in January 2022, Defence Space Command’s achievements
include the release of the Defence Space Strategy, a review of space capability projects,
the development of the Defence Space Strategic Workforce Plan, the establishment of
the Joint Force space component within Joint Operations Command, and the stand-up
of the first Joint Space Unit, 1 Space Surveillance Unit.
Defence Space Command is working across the Defence Portfolio to progress efforts to
advance space capability delivery, a space policy framework and to develop space
workforce and career pathways.
Defence Space Capability Program
Government has accepted in-principle a recommendation in the Defence Strategic
Review that a centralised space domain capability development and management
function should be established.
The Space Domain Capability Program will seek to combine the current Space Services
and Space Control Programs to reduce duplication in the management of two
programs, and provide better appreciation of how capabilities correlate within the
space domain.
The implementation of this program will be subject to consideration as a part of the
National Defence Strategy to be delivered in 2024.
Work with Allies and Partners
Defence remains closely engaged with international partners—including through the
Combined Space Operations initiative with Five Eyes partners, France and Germany—to
ensure space remains safe, secure and accessible, and to establish international norms
for responsible behaviours in space.
At Australia–United States Ministerial consultations in 2022, the principals decided to
enhance space cooperation and space domain awareness, and strengthen assured
access to space through future bilateral space arrangements.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
The US-built Space Surveillance Telescope in Western Australia, which achieved
initial operating capability in September 2022, demonstrates an important
milestone in bilateral space collaboration.
Australia has a unique geographical position to contribute significantly to collective
space domain awareness with our allies and partners. Space domain awareness enables
tracking and identification of space objects and threats, such as space debris, as well as
predicting and avoiding potential collisions in space.
Threats to Space Capabilities
Capabilities can be employed by competitors to interfere with and influence satellites.
Threats can originate from the ground or space domain. Actions can range from non-
kinetic effects (such as electronic attack for jamming communications) to kinetic
weapons (such as Direct Ascent Anti-Satellite missiles).
Both China and Russia have demonstrated advanced space capabilities that could be
used to attack other nations’ satellites. There has been no demonstrated intent or
actions from either nation to disable Australian space capabilities.
The Chinese Shijian-21 satellite that towed a defunct Chinese satellite out of its position
in geosynchronous earth orbit to dispose of it, as reported on 27 January 2022, is an
example of a potential dual use technology (i.e. could have both civilian and military
uses).
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
An organisation requested the, ‘latest copies of the projects of concerns and projects
of interest reports.’ In response, a redacted version of the August 2022 Project and
Product of Concern and Interest Dashboard Report was released, which lists Joint
Project 2008 Phase 5B2 as a Project of Interest.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on Lockheed Martin winning the tender to
build Australia’s first sovereign military satellites.
On 23 March 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
NASA boss Bill Nelson visits
Canberra, amid concerns for Australian space industry's failure to launch. Journalist
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
Andrew Greene reported on the head of National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA) visit to Canberra.
On 22 March 2023, the Western Australian Government Department of Jobs, Tourism,
Science and Innovation published,
WA space and defence industry wows at AVALON
2023. The department reported on the attendance of the Defence West team at the
Australian International Airshow 2023.
On 20 March 2023, InnovationAus.com published an article titled,
Rover builders
revealed as NASA leaders charm Aus space sector. Journalist Joseph Brookes wrote
about the two Australian space consortiums that were selected as the industry
partners for Australia’s first Moon mission.
On 17 March 2023, Reuters publications released an article titled,
Britain and Japan
sign space co-operation deal. Reuters reported on the signing of an agreement
between Great Britain and Japan to facilitate future space co-operation including
sharing space information, collaborative training and personnel exchanges.
On 14 March 2023, paceaustralia.com published an article titled,
First Projects to Fly in
the Australian Astronaut Program Announced. Journalist Clare Fletcher wrote that
Sabre Astronautics had announced the first set of projects that will fly to the
International Space Station as part of its Australian Astronaut Program.
On 13 March 2023, Space & Defence (spaceanddefense.io) published an article titled,
UK – Australia Space Bridge Chases Bigger Role in Defence Space Sector. The article
relayed Head of Space at the United Kingdom Department for Business and Trade’s
speech at the Australian International Airshow 2023.
On 20 March 2023, Amtil (Amtil.com.au on) published an article titled,
Gilmour has
eyes on the sky. Amtil wrote about Gilmour Space Technologies plans to launch its Eris
Orbital Rocket in 2023 and G-class satellites from 2024.
On 04 March 2023, Reuters publications released an article titled,
As space junk threat
grows, government and investors seek solutions. Journalist Joey roulette wrote of
increased space debris in Earth’s orbit.
On 03 March 2023, Australian media reported on
Defence Space Command’s intent to
quickly secure ‘non-destructive’ capabilities to deter attacks or interfere with enemy
satellites without creating additional space debris.
On 21 February 2023, an article was published on spaceconnectonline.com.au,
Australia’s geographic location gives us the edge on launch. Journalist Malavika
Santhebennur wrote about benefits of Australia’s geographical location with respect to
space launches, and the need for collaboration within Australia’s space sector.
On 17 February 2023, Australian Defence Magazine published an article titled,
New
Aus-UK space capability mapping tool announced. It reported that Australian space
industry announced a new space supply chain mapping tool to showcase the United
Kingdom and Australian space sector capabilities.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
On 01 February 2023, Australian Strategic Policy Institute published an article in the
Strategist titled,
Australian, US, UK and French commanders on why ‘space is hard.’
Senior Analyst Malcom Davis explored the importance of the space domain for defence
and national security.
On 10 February 2023, Business Acumen Magazine published an article titled,
New
inquiry on the Defence Annual Report 2021–22. It reported on key themes for the
Defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade’s inquiry are announced.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000405
Last updated: 23 May 2023
Space Command
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Document 20
Division:
Air Force
PDR No:
SB23-000405
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Catherine Kimonides
Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts
Acting Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Commander, Defence Space Command
Mob: s22
Mob: s22
Date: 03 April 2023
Date: 24 May 2023
Consultation: Air Defence and Space Systems
Date: 03 April 2023
Division
Mob: s22
Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul
Head Air Defence and Space Systems Division
Consultation: Strategic Policy Division
Date: 03 April 2023
Andrew Hodgkinson
Mob: s22
Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 28 April 2023
Major General Christopher Field
Ph: s47E(d)
DSR Task Force – ADF Integration
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 24 May 2023
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force
Air Force
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Kimonides
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Space Strategic Plans
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Defence Space Command
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
7 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
Fast Facts
Project Number
DEF6014
Project Name
MQ-28A Ghost Bat
Project Schedule
Planned
Achieved
Initial Operational Capability N/A
Final Operational Capability
N/A
Key Financial Measures
(Price Basis – Budget figures provided are on 2023-24 PBS Price Basis as 31 March 2023)
Total Approved $608 million
(including $76 million contingency in Phase 2)
Across all Phases comprising
- $457 million for Phase 2
- $115 million for Phase 1B
Project Budget
- $40 million for Phase 1.
Total Spend to Date $136 million as at 30 June
2022 ($96 million PH1B and $40 million PH1)
Total Year to Date Spend $149 million as at 31
March 2023 ($16 million PH1B and $132
million PH2)
Detailed Acquisition Measures
Life to Date Spend
$136 million (30 June 2022) ($96 million PH1B
and $40 million PH1)
2022-23 Budget Estimate
$254 million ($19 million PH1B and $235
million PH2)
2023-24 Budget Estimate
$146 million (PH2 only)
2022-23 Year to Date Expenditure
$149 million as at 31 March 2023 ($16 million
PH1B and $132 million PH2)
Talking Points
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
What has Defence invested in the MQ-28A Ghost Bat Program?
Government has approved more than $600 million to support the MQ-28A Ghost Bat
program. Additionally, Defence has provided significant non-financial support to the
project, including the provision of specialised equipment, personnel, and access to test
facilities and subject matter experts during live and digital testing.
If pressed: How much does a MQ-28A Ghost Bat cost?
Boeing Defence Australia is aiming for the cost of each aircraft to be one-tenth of the
cost of a fifth generation fighter aircraft. Defence will continue to monitor costs as the
project matures to inform future decisions.
The investment in the Program to date is reflective of the large amount of research and
development required for the novel Collaborative Combat Aircraft capabilities and
initial project stand-up.
What testing is being done with the MQ-28A Ghost Bat aircraft?
Boeing Defence Australia is executing a flight test program with Air Force support to
expand the aircraft flight envelope (operating altitude and airspeed).
Flight testing will subsequently concentrate on autonomy capabilities and behaviours,
sensor performance, and integration/teaming with crewed platforms.
Digital testing (utilising representative mission systems) is being conducted with Air
Force involvement.
Specific details of the test program, teaming and autonomous capabilities, and mission
payload systems testing are both commercial in confidence and highly classified.
How many MQ-28A Ghost Bats will you order?
Any decisions on future production, force mix, or follow-on development will be made
as the capability is proven.
Will the MQ-28A Ghost Bat build/construction/production remain in Australia?
Boeing Defence Australia has committed to maximising MQ-28A Ghost Bat construction
in Australia.
What is the Australian Industry component of the MQ-28A Ghost Bat?
70 per cent of the Program is being directed towards Australian Industry content,
which will deliver substantial benefits to Australian Industry.
Over 150 Australian companies have contributed to the Program, including over 50
Australian small and medium enterprises within the supply chain.
The Program has created about 400 jobs (predominately high technology), as well as
expanded opportunities across the supply chain.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
The application of advanced software programming in avionics and autonomy for both
the MQ-28A Ghost Bat and in manufacturing robotics is a major opportunity for
Australian Industry to grow a significant sovereign capability.
Is the MQ-28A Ghost Bat ethical?
The MQ-28A Ghost Bat Program is a pathfinder for integrating autonomous systems to
create smart human-machine teams.
An important part of developing these concepts is to examine the potential use of
autonomous systems with levels of artificial intelligence while ensuring new systems
meet ethical requirements.
Early production aircraft will not carry weapons, however Defence will gain an
understanding of how weapons may be incorporated in the future, and how the system
can meet all of Australia’s obligations under international law.
All MQ-28A Ghost Bat operations will comply with the same Laws of Armed Conflict,
regulations, and standards that apply to crewed platforms.
Is the MQ-28A Ghost Bat safe?
Defence will take a risk-based approach to issuing operating permits and airworthiness
certifications—as they do for a crewed platforms—including ensuring appropriate
controls are in place should the aircraft face inflight emergencies.
What was the incident that occurred during testing in late 2021?
A landing incident occurred during a test flight at the Royal Australian Air Force
Woomera Range Complex, South Australia, in late 2021.
No personnel were injured as a result of this incident.
Damage was sustained to the landing gear and airframe panels. The aircraft recovered
under the control of a Boeing test pilot with no risk to safety of personnel, and the root
cause of the incident has since been resolved.
Events like this are likely at this stage of development, and is why testing is conducted.
What comes next for the MQ-28A Ghost Bat?
To make an informed decision on the future of the Program, Defence continues to
analyse capability maturity, and is developing concepts of operation with the crewed
platforms the MQ-28A Ghost Bat is designed to team with. This is being conducted in
collaboration with the United States.
Background
Under DEF6014, Defence contracted Boeing Defence Australia to develop the
MQ-28A Ghost Bat capability.
Defence invested $40 million via DEF6014 Phase 1 in December 2018.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
A further $115 million was invested through DEF6014 Phase 1B for three aircraft
and associated ground support services.
In March 2022, Government approved $454 million to procure additional
MQ-28A aircraft under DEF6014 Phase 2.
Current approvals only cover material acquisition of the system.
Whilst DEF6014 is heavily focussed on the aircraft, the MQ-28A Ghost Bat is much
more than an aircraft. Its supporting elements are critical to the capability, including
sensors, payloads, datalinks, behaviours and control architectures. That does not
diminish the fact that development of the aircraft remains challenging.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate: 28 September 2022
QoN 837, MQ-28A Ghost Bat, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal, South
Australia) asked to be updated on the MQ-28A Ghost Bat Program, including project
risks, opportunities to Industry and requested copies of any briefings and reports
provided to the Government post 22 May 2022.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
The Deputy Prime Minister has regularly referenced ‘drones’ during public speeches
and media statements. He doesn’t specifically / directly reference the
MQ-28A Ghost Bat, Defence’s co-development program with Boeing Defence Australia,
or collaboration with military partners.
Relevant Media Reporting
Collaboration with the United States has been implied through media releases by the
United States, although the extent of this collaboration is yet to be formally
acknowledged.
Division:
Air Force
PDR No:
SB23-000406
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Air Commodore Ross Bender,
Air Vice-Marshal Wendy Blyth
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
Director General Air Combat Capability
Head of Air Force Capability
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 27 April 2023
Date: 27 April 2023
Consultation: Aerospace Systems Division
Date: 03 April 2023
Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Sokha Sar, Acting Assistant Secretary
Date: 1 May 2023
Finance, Air Force
Ph: s47E(d)
Cleared by CFO / DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy Defence Strategic Ph: s47E(d)
Review Task Force
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 27 April 2023
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
28 September 2022
MQ-28A Ghost Bat
Senator Simon Birmingham
Question
Senator BIRMINGHAM: What is the status of the production, ADF acquisition and
implementation of the MQ-28 Ghost Bat program (Program)?
Senator BIRMINGHAM: What issues/risks have been identified with the Program during the
current year?
Senator BIRMINGHAM: What opportunities for Australian defence industry have been
identified to further commercialise and apply technology, developed by the Program, or the
MQ-28 itself, and what is the status of these opportunities?
Senator BIRMINGHAM: What briefings and reports have been provided to the Minister, and
the Government, relating to these matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Answer
Production of MQ-28A prototypes for testing has continued, as has development of the
production system, tooling, and robotics at the Boeing site. Under DEF6014 Phase 2, Defence
has committed to procure up to ten MQ-28A air vehicles and associated support systems.
The DEF6014 Phase 2 program remains on track to deliver the contracted MQ-28A capability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
7
Senate Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000406
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Ghost Bat
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice-Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 21
The MQ-28 program will deliver substantial benefits to Australian industry with over 70% of
the program value being Australian Industry Content.
Defence routinely briefs the Government on this matter. The release of information
regarding the MQ-28A Ghost Bat into the public domain may adversely affect Defence and
commercial sensitivities.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Force Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000407
Last updated: 26 May 2023
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul; Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 22
There have been significant and cumulative project delays due to:
Lengthy tender negotiations (2015-2018); and
Thales’ slow progress during the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
integrated design and testing phases (2020-2022) over and above the COVID-19
schedule impacts already agreed between the customer and Thales.
Thales Australia has:
failed to deliver to schedule;
not completed critical elements of system design; and
suffered from staff shortages in critical skills.
What was the timeline to announce the elevation of the project to the Project of Concern?
In September 2021, Defence was advised that the Minister for Defence had provided
written advice that the project should be elevated to a Project of Concern.
From October 2021, Defence undertook extensive consultation with Airservices
Australia and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and
Communications regarding the imminent elevation of the project.
In April 2022, the Government of the day entered the caretaker period before the
upcoming election.
In October 2022, the current Minister for Defence Industry considered the
performance of the project and announced the project would be elevated to the
Project of Concern list.
Between September 2021 and October 2022, to assist in remediation planning
activities, Defence with Airservices increased the frequency of the Program’s quarterly
senior governance committees to monthly. These committees included both the Joint
Executive Committee, between Defence and Airservices, and the CMATS Executive
Committee, which includes Defence, Airservices and Thales Australia. The project
continued to receive additional executive oversight and management in accordance
with Defence’s Projects of Concern and Interest processes, including reporting.
What is Defence doing to remediate the Project’s underperformance?
Defence will be working closely with Airservices Australia and Thales Australia to address
the issues that have resulted in the contractor’s inability to meet milestones to date.
To assist in remediation planning activities, Defence, with Airservices, has increased the
frequency of the Program’s senior governance committees, forums and one-on-one
engagements to develop a credible schedule by end of April 2023, and costings and key
performance indicators by June 2023.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Project Director AIR5431PH3
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Air Defence and Space Systems Division
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000407
Last updated: 26 May 2023
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul; Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 22
Release criteria for removal from the Projects of Concern is currently in development and
will be guided by the outcomes of the schedule and cost activities being completed in
Quarter two 2023.
Why would listing Civil Military Air Traffic Management System as a Project of Concern help
remediate the project?
The Projects of Concern framework is a proven and effective method to successfully
remediate an underperforming project.
This is achieved by implementing an agreed plan to resolve any significant difficulties
being faced, and increasing senior Industry and Defence management and Ministerial
oversight.
Intensive engagement will continue to ensure adequate oversight of the project and to
get the project back on track.
If pressed: What is the exit criteria for Civil Military Air Traffic Management System from the
Projects of Concern list?
While focus of the release criteria will be remediation of the Civil Military Air Traffic
Management System issues, it will be extended to include all areas of the Project to
ensure there is no other element of the project causing failure.
This agreed release criteria will lay out a plan for what the enterprise must do to have the
project removed from the Projects of Concern list.
The specifics of the criteria are yet to be finalised based on the remediation
decisions in Quarter two 2023; they will focus on achieving a demonstrated and
sustained level of performance of the Project.
Government and Defence have applied more regular and increased oversight on project
delivery.
Background
The joint AIR 5431 Phase 3/OneSKY Program is a collaboration between Airservices
Australia and Defence to deliver a harmonised Civil Military Air Traffic Management
System, supporting both civil and military operations.
The OneSKY Program will deliver the Thales Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
solution to Defence at eight sites through the On Supply Agreement with Airservices
Australia.
Airservices will also be delivering four, less complex, towers for Defence through the On
Supply Agreement, using the same subcontractors being used to supply its Regional
Tower Solution program.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Project Director AIR5431PH3
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Air Defence and Space Systems Division
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000407
Last updated: 26 May 2023
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul; Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 22
The Project will accommodate growth in air traffic, facilitate advancements in aviation
technology, reduce complexity for controllers and pilots, bolster air traffic service
resilience and enhance national security.
Thales Australia is the prime contractor to Airservices Australia for the provision of the
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System, with an On-Supply Agreement contract in
place between Airservices Australia and Defence.
Defence does not have a direct contractual relationship with Thales Australia on this
Project.
The Minister for Defence Industry announced in October 2022 that Civil Military Air
Traffic Management System had been listed as a Project of Concern due to ongoing
contractor underperformance and schedule delays.
This Project was previously a Project of Concern from June 2017 to May 2018 during
contract formation activities on the basis of schedule delays and cost risks, and was
classed as a Project of Interest after acquisition and support contracts were signed in
February 2018.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 85, Civil Military Air traffic Management System, Senator Nita Green (Labor,
Queensland) asked has there been any changes to: 1. Scope 2. Cost 3. Schedule a. If
yes, please provide details and the impact of any changes, and how these are being
addressed.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
None identified.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Project Director AIR5431PH3
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Air Defence and Space Systems Division
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000407
Last updated: 26 May 2023
Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul; Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Document 22
Division:
Air Defence and Space Systems
PDR No:
SB23-000407
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Project
Air Vice-Marshal David Scheul, Head Air
Director AIR5431 Phase 3, Air Defence and
Defence and Space Systems Division
Space Systems Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 11 April 2023
Date: 10 April 2023
Consultation:
Date: 03 April 2023
Air Commodore David Titheridge, Director
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
General – Air Capability Enablers (Air Force),
Air Force Headquarters
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 12 April 2023
Chris Deeble, Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition
and Sustainment Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates
Civil Military Air traffic Management System
Senator Nita Green
Question
With respect to the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System, has there been any changes
to: 1. Scope 2. Cost 3. Schedule a. If yes, please provide details and the impact of any
changes, and how these are being addressed.
Answer
1. There has been no change of scope of the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System
project (AIR5431 Phase 3). There have been some minor system solution changes as a result
of updates to interfaces, such as radios; however, these have not changed the overall scope
of the project.
2. The cost of the project remains unchanged. The current forecast cost of the project is
within the budget of $1,010 million, which includes contingency of $148 million.
3. The schedule for the Defence Initial and Final Operating Capability delivery has slipped a
total of 31 and 28 months respectively since contract signature in 2018, with two years of the
slip being declared in the last two years. This has resulted in the Minister for Defence
Industry announcing that the project has been listed as a Project of Concern on
27 October 2022.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Chris Deeble
Position: Project Director AIR5431PH3
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Air Defence and Space Systems Division
Group/Service: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
5
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
Key Financial Measures
(Price Basis – Budget figures provided are on March 2023-24 PBS Price Basis as at 31 March 2023)
Total Approved $16.456 billion
(including $2.804 billion contingency)
Project Budget
Total Spend to Date $10.743 billion (30 June
2022)
Total Year to Date Spend $742.141 million
Detailed Acquisition Measures
Life to Date Spend
$10.743 billion
(30 June 2022)
2022-23 Budget Estimate
$934.135 million
2022-23 Year to Date Expenditure
$742.141 million (31 March 2023)
2023-24 Budget Estimate
$870.034 million
Detailed Sustainment Measures (2022-23 Budget is at PBS October 2022 Prices)
2022-23 Budget Estimate
$367 million
2022-23 Year to Date Expenditure
$267 million (31 March 2023)
2023-24 Budget Estimate
$484 million
Talking Points
What has the money spent on F-35A given RAAF/Defence so far?
Australia has accepted 62 F-35A aircraft and associated support equipment.
Australia’s F-35A Integrated Training Centre has been delivered at RAAF Williamtown,
where all training for Air Force and contracted F-35A personnel is conducted. It is the
largest F-35 training facility outside the United States.
The F-35A building program under Project R8000, worth $1,700 million (including
contingency) has been delivered. R8000 includes buildings, aircraft shelters, and
upgraded aircraft runways and taxiways.
RAAF Base Williamtown - $1,050 million
RAAF Base Tindal - $650 million
What is required for the F-35A to maintain its capability against the threat?
The F-35A is a leading edge combat capability. When packaged with other Joint and
Partner military technologies, its full potential can be exploited. Maintaining this
capability has three parts:
Preserving technical relevance – this will be achieved by maintaining through life
system upgrades and modifications via the Project AIR6000 Phase 6, with
complementary investments in F-35 weapons.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
Building capacity – continue maturing the F-35A logistics and support
infrastructure to grow the operational capacity of the F-35A force.
Continued development of the human capability – ongoing development of the
knowledge, skills and experience of the F-35A technical, supporting and pilot
workforce through operationally relevant training activities.
Is F-35A on track for Final Operational Capability in 2023?
Air Force continues to monitor the delivery and realisation of F-35A capabilities.
Acceptance of the final tranche of aircraft, acquired under the Project AIR6000 Ph2A/B,
is scheduled for December 2023. Air Force will continue to work with the F-35 Joint
Program Office to manage any risks to the delivery schedule as delays may impact
aircraft delivery and, subsequently, Final Operational Capability realisation.
What is the state of the F-35A workforce?
Air Force faces challenges across workforce attraction, generation and retention.
Although most of the F-35A workforce has successfully transitioned from the
F/A-18A Classic Hornet capability to F-35A, there are shortages across the technical,
support and pilot workforces.
Is Australian F-35A sustainment affordable?
F-35A sustainment is affordable. The revised cost estimates remain within the overall
funding allocation.
Defence recently received Government approval for the next seven-year tranche
(FY2025-26 to FY2031-32) of F-35A sustainment funding totalling $4,765 million based
on revised cost estimates.
With more than eight-years of operations, and more than 22,000 flying hours achieved,
Australia’s sustainment estimates have proven accurate and remain aligned with the
approved sustainment budget.
How is Australia’s involvement in the global F-35 Program helping Australian Industry?
More than 70 Australian companies have shared in excess of $3 billion (as of 31
December 2022) worth of contracts as part of the global F-35 Program, an increase on
the 2020 figure of $2,700 million.
Funding for the new Joint Strike Fighter Industry Support Program recently increased
from $4 million at the launch of the program in December 2020, to $64 million.
An additional $36.4 million of funding was secured from Phase 2A/B approved scope to
support component sustainment activation costs through Government furnished
equipment and contracted services. The new funding will help Australian companies
develop new and improved capabilities that will enhance their chances of securing
contracts in the global F-35 Program.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
DSR Recommendations for F-35A
The Defence Strategic Review recommends the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and Joint
Strike Missile
should be integrated onto the F-35A.
Defence is working with the United States F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office to
investigate the integration of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile onto the F-35A Lighting
II. Defence is also working with the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office, the United
States and Norway to investigate the integration of the Joint Strike Missile onto the F-
35A Lighting II. Both these capabilities will require the F-35A Block 4 hardware and
software configuration.
Background
Initial Operating Capability, declared on 28 December 2020, was defined as one
operationally ready squadron and one unit providing a sovereign training capability.
Final Operating Capability, defined as three operational squadrons and one training
unit, capable of sustained deployed operations, is scheduled for December 2023.
The number of trained F-35A pilots meets interim project milestones; however, future
milestones are trending below planned numbers. Pilot training improvements are being
investigated across Air Force.
Over the next five years, and through the routine Defence Capability Assessment
Program, Defence will seek Government approval of the remaining AIR6000 projects.
Since 2019, the Australian F-35A has participated in 17 exercises in Australia and
16 exercises overseas where introduction into service testing was completed.
The average cost of Australia’s first 63 aircraft (airframe and engine, excluding mission
systems) is USD $84 million. The following table details the cost of aircraft by Lot.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
Lot
Number of aircraft / Status
Average cost per Lot
Low Rate Initial Production 6
Two aircraft contracted and
USD $123 million
(delivery year 2014)
delivered
Low Rate Initial Production 10
Eight aircraft contracted and
USD $95 million
(delivery year 2018)
delivered
Low Rate Initial Production 11
Eight aircraft contracted and
USD $91 million
(delivery year 2019)
delivered
Lot 12 (delivery year 2020)
15 aircraft contracted and delivered
USD $81 million
Lot 13 (delivery year 2021)
15 aircraft contracted and delivered
USD $79 million
Lot 14 (delivery year 2022)
15 aircraft, delivery under way
USD $78 million
Lot 15 (delivery year 2023)
Nine aircraft on contract
USD $83 million
Lot 15 contract details announced in the US
The cost of Australia’s remaining nine aircraft to be delivered under production Lot 15
has slightly increased when compared to Lots 12–14. This reflects both global
inflationary pressures and a substantial increase in software and hardware capabilities
over previous Lots.
F-35 accidents
To-date, Air Force has been immediately notified of F-35 accidents and been able to
make informed decisions on Australian F-35A operations. It is not appropriate for
Air Force to publically share accident findings relating to other F-35 nations.
Defence is aware that, in response to a United States F-35B crash at Lockheed Martin’s
Fort Worth facility on 15 December 2022, the F-35 Joint Program Office suspended
new F135 engine deliveries and provided engineering risk advice to F-35 users.
Air Force made a precautionary decision to pause flying 16 F-35A aircraft, which did not
impact F-35A combat capability.
The modification rectifying the issue has been incorporated on the production line and
aircraft deliveries have resumed.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 30 March 2023, The Drive published an article titled
F-35 Engine Running Too Hot
Due To 'Under-Speccing,' Upgrade Now Vital. Journalist, Joseph Trevithick, reported
that the U.S. military sees planned engine upgrades for all the variants of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter as critical.
In March 2023, BNN Bloomberg published an article titled
Pentagon Says Only Half of
Its F-35 Jet Fleet Is Mission-Ready reporting that only about half of the Pentagon’s fleet
of F-35 fighter jets are considered mission-capable, well below the target of 65 per
cent and a state of readiness the program manager terms “unacceptable.”
On 28 March 2023, Aviation Week published an article titled
Kendall: F135 Upgrade
The Only Option For All F-35 Variants. Journalist, Brian Everstine, reported while the
U.S. Air Force would have wanted other services to help shoulder the cost of a full
engine replacement for all variants of the Lockheed Martin F-35, it simply was not
possible.
On 6 March 2023, Breaking Defense published an article titled
Pentagon, Pratt finalize
F-35 lot 15-17 engine deal. Journalist, Michael Marrow, reported that the agreement
between the F-35 Joint Program Office and Pratt & Whitney for F135 engines started as
an undefinitized contract action in June 2022. The total value could reach as high as $8
billion.
On 7 March 2023, Defense News published an article titled
Lockheed Martin resumes
F-35 flights with engine vibration fix in hand. Journalist, Stephen Losey, reported that
Lockheed Martin resumed conducting acceptance flights of newly built F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters, nearly three months after an
engine problem grounded new jets and halted
deliveries.
On 7 September 2022, Breaking Defense published an article titled
F-35 deliveries
suspended after finding Chinese alloys in magnets. Journalist, Valerie Insinna, reported
that the Pentagon temporarily stopped F-35 deliveries after officials discovered that an
alloy used in magnets on the jet’s turbomachine pumps was produced in China.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000199
Last updated: 10 May 2023
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Air Vice Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 23
International media have reported on the grounding of numerous newer F-35 Lighting
II in response to the December 15 incident in which a hovering fighter crashed on a
Texas runway and its pilot ejected.
Division:
Air Force
PDR No:
SB23-000199
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Air Commodore Ross Bender,
Air Vice-Marshal Wendy Blyth
Director General Air Combat Capability
Head of Air Force Capability
Mob: s22
Mob: s22
Date: 01 May 2023
Date: 05 May 2023
Consultation: Capability Acquisition and
Date: 01 May 2023
Sustainment Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Air Vice-Marshal Leon Philips, Head of
Aerospace Systems Division
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 19 April 2022
Sokha Sar,
Acting Assistant Secretary Finance – Air Force
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date:: 10 May 2023
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Chief of Air Force
Air Force
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Air Commodore Ross Bender
Name: Air Marshal Robert Chipman
Position: Director General Air Combat Capability
Position: Chief of Air Force
Division: Air Combat Capability
Group/Service: Air Force
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
Development of advanced undersea intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
systems will be accelerated to help enhance shared maritime domain awareness.
AUKUS partners share a collective ambition to improve industry cooperation and
information sharing under Pillar II by:
boosting targeted industry and academic engagement within and across our
national eco-systems;
breaking down barriers to intellectual property transfer; and
encouraging domestic manufacturing and maintenance of key weapons,
technologies, and capabilities.
The six key areas chosen for Pillar II; undersea warfare, electronic warfare, hypersonics
and counter-hypersonics, advanced cyber, quantum technologies and artificial
intelligence, are those that will make the most significant contribution to future war
fighting by:
helping build resilience and increasing survivability for our war fighters, for
example through increased autonomy;
conveying and protecting critical information during operations to enhance
decision making; and
enabling Australia to operate seamlessly with allies and partners.
If pressed: Defence Strategic Review implications for AUKUS Pillar II
As part of AUKUS Pillar II Advanced Capabilities, the Government has agreed the
development of selected critical technology should be prioritised.
As agreed by Government, a new senior official with the sole responsibility and singular
focus on AUKUS Pillar II Advanced Capabilities implementation will be appointed to
enable expedited focus on capability outcomes.
The creation of the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA) will help turbo-
charge Australia’s contributions to Pillar II.
ASCA missions could be established to help accelerate discrete AUKUS Advanced
Capabilities lines of effort that require an innovative solution [Refer to DSTG for further
questions relating to ASCA refer to SB23-000416 ].
If pressed: Has Defence identified the senior official?
Recruiting is currently underway.
If pressed: How will AUKUS Pillar II be funded?
Defence has funded the initial costs of Pillar 2 lines of effort from within existing
resources.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
2 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
The long-term costs will be considered as part of Defence Strategic Review
implementation.
If pressed: Did the Prime Minister and US President discuss Pillar Two during their meeting in
the margins of the G7?
I cannot comment on the nature of discussions between the Prime Minister and the US
President in the margins of the G7; however, AUKUS Pillar II remains a key priority for
both leaders.
If pressed: Additional Partners
Australia, the United Kingdom and United States are focused on entrenching a
sustainable trilateral partnership that meets the strategic needs of the three nations.
At this stage no countries have been invited to participate.
If pressed: Does AUKUS commit Australia to support the United States in a conflict with China
over Taiwan?
No. The Deputy Prime Minister has been unequivocal on this matter. This undertaking
was never given, and nor was it sought, by the United States.
Decisions about the employment of military capability will always be a decision, at that
time, for the Government of the day.
If pressed: Will AUKUS impact Australia’s sovereignty?
Defence capability is a key factor in sovereignty. It does not define sovereignty.
Partnerships like AUKUS expand our strategic options, make us less vulnerable to
coercive action, and enable Australia to pursue national security interests far beyond
what we could achieve alone.
If pressed: Why were the six capability areas chosen?
The six capability areas were selected after a comprehensive trilateral assessment and
consultation process.
The assessment process involved a robust study of potential initiatives, focusing
on their alignment with Defence’s strategic objectives, capability requirements,
and their suitability for trilateral cooperation.
If pressed: What does AUKUS mean for our partners in the region?
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its security architecture remains central
to Australia’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
AUKUS complements this and other international partnerships – the Five Eyes,
the Quad, the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and Australia’s deep and close ties
with the Pacific family.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
3 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
If pressed: What role will Australian defence industry and academia play?
Defence recognises that defence industry and academia will be a critical enabler for
delivering these capabilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister and his counterparts agreed to intensify engagement
with industry academia in 2023 (AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting –
07 December 2022)
Background
AUKUS is a framework that will allow Defence to better share leading-edge military
technology and capabilities to ensure Australia remains a reliable and highly capable
partner for countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
The first AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting was held on 07 December 2022 in
Washington. AUKUS Defence Ministers noted the strong progress to date, and
announced further details on Advanced Capabilities cooperation.
This included the catalysing role that recent exercises have played in testing
advanced capabilities and agreeing to demonstrations of hypersonic and
autonomous systems over the next 18 months (2023-24).
This built on the April 2022 Leaders’ Statement that announced the AUKUS
Undersea Robotics Autonomous Systems and the AUKUS Quantum Arrangement.
On 09 December 2022, at a speech in Japan at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, the
Deputy Prime Minister noted his intent to grow defence industry integration with Japan
bilaterally and, when ready, via AUKUS Advanced Capabilities.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate Estimates: 09 November 2022
QoN 26, AUKUS workforce allocations, Senator James Paterson (Liberal, Victoria) asked
about the number of APS officers and consultants working on AUKUS Advanced
Capabilities.
QoN 45, AUKUS, Senator Jim Molan (Liberal, New South Wales) asked about the
continuation of AUKUS under the Albanese Government - governance, objectives and
resourcing.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
4 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 17 May 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister delivered a wide-ranging
speech to the
American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, including that “the creation of ASCA will
turbo-charge Australia’s contributions to pillar two of AUKUS”.
On 24 April 2023, at a
press conference following the release of the Defence Strategic
Review, the Deputy Prime Minister stated it was a priority “to provide for a much
quicker transition of new, innovative technologies into service… particularly with
respect to operationalising pillar two of the AUKUS arrangement.”
On 09 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister delivered a
speech on securing
Australia’s sovereignty which included references to AUKUS as promoting and
strengthening our sovereignty.
On 09 December 2022, at the
Sasakawa Peace Foundation Speech, the Deputy Prime
Minister said his intent was to, “grow defence industry integration with Japan:
bilaterally through our trilateral mechanisms with the United States and, when ready,
via our advanced capabilities work in AUKUS as well.” For the first time Japan’s
potential future involvement in AUKUS was articulated.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on
comments made by New Zealand
Defence Minister Andrew Little that New Zealand is considering an invitation to join
AUKUS Pillar II.
Division:
Strategic Policy Division
PDR No:
SB23-000408
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Colin McKenna, Assistant Secretary, AUKUS
Amanda Toms, Acting First Assistant
Initiatives Branch, Strategic Policy Division
Secretary, Strategic Policy Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 23 May 2023
Date: 24 May 2023
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 01 May 2023
Major General Christopher Field
Ph: s47E(d)
Deputy DSR Task Force – ADF Integration
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 24 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
5 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Question 26 (09 November 2022)
AUKUS Workforce Allocations
Senator James Patterson
Question
Senator PATERSON: How many departmental staff have been allocated to work on AUKUS?
Vice Adm. Mead: I will speak specifically on the Nuclear Powered Submarine Program. As you
know, there is another pillar, pillar 2, on advanced capabilities.
Senator PATERSON: I am interested in those answers, but I am also interested in the other
non-submarine components of AUKUS. You answer, but then anyone can add to that, please.
Vice Adm. Mead: In the submarine area there are currently 343 people associated with the
task force. They are not entirely Department of Defence people; we have a number of
cross-agency. It's a whole-of-government task force from Attorney-General's Department,
Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Education and also the
other nuclear agencies: the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; the
Australian regulatory organisation, ARPANSA; the waste organisation; and a number of other
government bodies.
Senator PATERSON: Thank you. Does anyone have an answer on the total?
Mr Jeffrey: The Strategy, Policy and Industry Group has carriage of AUKUS Pillar 2—that is,
advanced capabilities—in the Department of Defence. The specific numbers, though, are
more difficult to isolate because there's not a specific task force. You have the whole group
and, in addition to me, AUKUS sits within Strategic Policy Division, and within that there's a
branch that has specific carriage of ensuring that we're preparing for trilateral meetings of
the advanced capabilities group. But, of course, advanced capabilities cut across a whole
range of different areas in the Department of Defence. So, in taking this work forward,
Senator, I engage very closely with the vice chiefs of defence forces group, I engage closely
with the Chief Defence Scientist and her group and, indeed, I engage with all the capability
managers who would take these items forward.
Senator PATERSON: Thank you for that context. I appreciate it's not a simple answer. Perhaps
you could come back on notice with your best estimate of the Average Staffing Level working
on it.
Mr Jeffrey: I'd be happy to do so.
Senator PATERSON: Thank you. I'm also interested—and perhaps taking this on notice is
going to be a more efficient use of our time—in the number of consultants working on it who
are external to APS, who've been brought in.
Mr Jeffrey: With respect to pillar 2, we have not brought in any consultants at this point.
Senator PATERSON: Okay.
Vice Adm. Mead: Senator, we can get you a list of consultants that we have engaged with
over the past 13 months.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
6 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
Answer
The AUKUS Initiatives Branch, which engages closely with stakeholders across the Defence
portfolio and Government to identify and implement trilaterally-agreed advanced capabilities
lines of effort, has an Average Staffing Level allocation of 14 ongoing Australian Public Service
officers. Support for advanced capabilities lines of effort from capability managers and other
Defence stakeholders, including the Defence Science and Technology Group and Vice Chief of
the Defence Force Group, is provided utilising existing resources.
Consultants the Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce has engaged with over the past
13 months:
Bectech
Brinny Deep LLC
Burdeshaw Associates LLC
Delen Consulting Pty Ltd
Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd
Elysium
Frazer-Nash Consultancy
Gibbs & Cox (Australia) Pty Ltd
Gilding Consulting
Human Performance Engineering
Power Initiatives
Nous Group Pty Ltd
Neil Orme Consulting
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Consulting
Siyeva Consulting
Trautman International Services, LL
The Boston Consulting Group Pty Ltd
The Rand Corporation (Australia)
Wilson Psychology Pty Ltd
Senate Question 45 (09 November 2022)
Continuation of AUKUS under the Albanese Government
Senator Jim Molan
Question
1. What involvement has the Department of Defence (Department) had in the ongoing
governance of Australia’s relationship and contribution to AUKUS?
a. How many Departmental staff have been allocated to work on AUKUS?
b. Have additional staff been hired to work on AUKUS, or is it staffed by existing workforce?
c. What level of external (non-APS) consultant and other resourcing has been procured by the
Department to support AUKUS?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
7 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
d. What costs have been associated with the Department’s involvement in AUKUS
governance, outcomes and other priorities?
e. How many meetings, workshops and other engagements have been attended by
Departmental staff (APS and external consultants) in relation to AUKUS?
2. Which AUKUS priorities, tasks, ongoing actions and other commitments have
Departmental staff and consultants been involved with, and what have been the related costs
and expenses (including travel and related expenses) involved? Please provide details
3. Please provide details of which trilateral joint steering groups and other working groups
and committees Departmental staff have been involved with, including whether as members
or observers.
4. Have there been any changes to AUKUS terms of reference or agreement, or any of the
terms of reference or charters or other governing documents for any of the trilateral joint
steering groups or other working groups implementing AUKUS?
a. Please provide details
b. Why have changes been made, and were changes prompted by Australia, the
United Kingdom or the United States?
c. What change of personnel has occurred since 22 May 2022 associated with any working
groups?
d. What consideration has been given to the worsening strategic environment Australia
faces?
5. Have there been any new AUKUS steering groups or working groups established since 22
May 2022?
6. Have any AUKUS steering groups or working groups been discontinued since 22 May 2022?
7. Have any of the outcomes or objectives of AUKUS been changed or removed, or new
outcomes or objectives added?
a. Please provide details
b. Why have changes been made, and were changes prompted by Australia, the United
Kingdom or the United States?
c. What consideration has been given to the worsening strategic environment Australia
faces?
8. What role is the Department playing in advising on or assisting Australia and its AUKUS
partners to ensure that regulations within the United States, United Kingdom and Australia
do not hinder the implementation of AUKUS priorities and outcomes (eg. International Traffic
in Arms Regulations and export control regulations in the United States)? Please provide
details.
9. Are there any risk registers or reports on the risks and constraints that have been
identified for any aspects of implementing AUKUS, if yes, have any of the AUKUS
workstreams/steering groups/working groups identified any risks or barriers to progress (eg.
risks of unanticipated costs and timing delays to achieve outcomes)? Please provide details
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
8 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
10. Has the Secretary been briefed by the Department, or by the Department of Prime
Minister & Cabinet or the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, on any aspect of AUKUS
since 22 May 2022?
a. Have any material risks been identified in any such briefs?
b. What advice or recommendations have been provided to address those risks?
c. Please provide details
11. Has the Minister for Defence been briefed on any of the foregoing relating to AUKUS, by
the Department, or by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (or any other
Minister of the Government)?
a. Have any material risks been identified in any such briefs?
b. What advice or recommendations have been provided to address those risks?
c. Please provide details
12. What briefs and correspondence have been sent by, or received by, the Minister for
Defence, the Secretary, or the Department from government/administration Ministers,
Secretaries or other senior officials from the United States or United Kingdom? Please
provide details.
13. Please provide details of any reports or briefings received by the Minister for Defence, or
the Secretary, relating to progress of AUKUS initiatives, and if any delays or additional costs
associated with progress have been identified.
14. Given the rapidly worsening strategic environment Australia is facing, what is the
Department’s strategic plan to secure Australia, its people and its interests, through AUKUS,
and other initiatives? Please provide details.
Answer
There are two pillars of the AUKUS partnership – nuclear-powered submarines and advanced
capabilities – with separate governance arrangements both within the Department of
Defence and trilaterally. Classified Memorandum of Understanding outline governance and
objectives for each pillar. These Memorandums of Understanding have not changed.
The Nuclear Powered Submarine Joint Steering Group has met on ten occasions (five in
person; five virtual). In addition to the Joint Steering Group, nine working groups have been
established covering strategy and policy; workforce and training; program and trilateral
contributions; capability requirements and interoperability; stewardship; security; industrial
base; technical base; non-proliferation and safeguards and communications. These working
groups meet regularly to identify the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire nuclear-
powered submarines.
The Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce works closely with our AUKUS partners,
Australian nuclear agencies and stakeholders across the Defence portfolio and Government.
The Taskforce includes secondees from the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
Foreign Affairs and Trade; Attorney Generals and Education. In addition, there are secondees
from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, and the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
9 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000408
Last updated: 24 May 2023
AUKUS Advanced Capabilities
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Hugh Jeffrey; Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead
Document 24
Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. As at 7 November 2022, the Taskforce had a workforce
that included 202 Australian Public Service (APS) officers and 73 Australian Defence Force
members. The Taskforce has also engaged experts to assist with analysis of the optimal
pathway.
The AUKUS Initiatives Branch within the Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group coordinates
Australia’s involvement in the Advanced Capabilities Pillar of AUKUS. This includes working
closely with stakeholders across the Defence portfolio and Government to identify and
implement trilaterally-agreed lines of effort. The AUKUS Initiatives Branch consists of 14
ongoing APS officers. Support from capability managers and other Defence stakeholders,
including the Defence Science and Technology Group and Vice Chief of the Defence Group, is
provided utilising existing resources.
The AUKUS Advanced Capabilities Joint Steering Group has met on nine occasions
(five in-person; four virtual). In addition to the Joint Steering Group, eight working groups
have been established covering each of the six capability areas of focus (hypersonic and
counter-hypersonic, advanced cyber, undersea warfare, electronic warfare, artificial
intelligence and autonomy, and quantum technologies) and two enabling areas (information
sharing and innovation). These working groups meet regularly to progress lines of effort.
Defence routinely briefs Ministers, Government and senior departmental officials on both
pillars of AUKUS, including regarding risks and opportunities. These briefs contain sensitive
material that may adversely impact Defence, if released publicly.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Colin McKenna
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary, AUKUS Initiatives
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy Division
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Phone: s47E(d) M: s22
Page
10 of
10
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
On 8 May 2023, Air Marshal Phillips commenced his role.
Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
The Government has committed $2.5 billion over the forward estimates to accelerate
the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise.
This investment will include funding for:
Manufacturing guided weapons and their critical components, to improve
Australia’s self-reliance, including the development of options for Government
consideration by Q2, 2024.
Manufacturing of selected long-range strike missiles and increased local
maintenance of air defence missiles; and
Manufacturing of other types of munitions, including 155mm artillery
ammunition and sea mines.
Critical enablers required to underpin an expanded Guided Weapons and
Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, including increasing testing and research
capabilities and rapidly expanding the storage and distribution network to
accommodate a growing guided weapons and explosive ordnance inventory; and
Acquisition of more guided weapons to supplement other Defence weapons
acquisitions programs.
The longer term funding profile for the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Enterprise will be determined as part of the Defence Strategic Review implementation
process.
Investment in the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
The Government has committed $2.5 billion over the forward estimates to accelerate
the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, an increase of more than
$1.5 billion.
The previous Integrated Investment Program allocation for the Guided Weapons and
Explosive Ordnance Enterprise over the Forward Estimates was less than $1 billion.
The 2020 Force Structure Plan included a provision of approximately $36.7 billion for
the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise (including $9.0 billion
contingency and exchange rate adjustments).
Less than 10 per cent of this funding was previously programmed for the 2020s,
and less than $1 billion was programmed for the forward estimates.
$537.1 million (including $67.6 million contingency) has been approved to date:
$339.34 million to purchase of priority weapons including:
BLU-111 Aerial Bomb;
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Mk-48 Heavyweight Torpedoes;
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM); and
Hellfire Air-to-Ground Missiles.
$17.37 million for activities conducted by the Defence Science and Technology
Group.
$43.50 million for Joint Project 2093 Phase 1
GWEO Storage Tranche 1 to build
three Earth Covered Buildings.
$36.15 million for Lockheed Martin Australia to undertake detailed planning for
the Guided Weapons Production Capability (GWPC).
$105.88 million for tasking Strategic and Enterprise Partners, capability
development activities and contracted workforce.
Investment in Long Range Strike Capabilities
The ADF delivers long range strike capabilities through joint effects. All of the systems
in-service and being acquired are designed to enable joint capability effects to meet a
comprehensive range of threat profiles.
The Government is also committing $1.6 billion over the forward estimates for Army
Long Range Strike capabilities.
This investment will grow the ADF’s ability to accurately strike targets at longer-range
and expand the acquisition of long-range fires, including:
Accelerating the delivery of additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and
associated battle management and support systems; and
Accelerating the acquisition of Precision Strike Missiles to deliver multi-domain
strike effects.
s33(a)(ii)
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
s33(a)(ii)
Long Range Strike
In effecting our strategy of denial in Australia’s northern approaches, the ADF’s
operational success will depend on the ability of the Integrated Force to apply critical
capabilities, including an enhanced long-range strike capability in all domains.
The ADF does not operate within single domains. All of the systems in-service and being
acquired are designed to enable joint capability effects to meet a comprehensive range
of threat profiles.
Air Force delivers long-range munitions through a range of different effects. Current
munitions include Joint Stand-off Weapon. Air Force is enhancing its long-range
munitions capability through acquisition of Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile –
Extended Range and the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile.
Navy has strike capabilities across land, sea and air. Current munitions include the
Heavy Weight Torpedo and the Standard Missile. Navy is enhancing its strike
capabilities through the acquisition of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, the Naval Strike
Missile and Sea Mines.
Army’s longest range in-service capability is based on its artillery capability. Army is
enhancing its strike capabilities through the acquisition of HIMARS, the Artillery Tactical
Missile System and is participating in development of the Precision Strike Missile.
Domestic Manufacturing
The Defence Strategic Review recommends options for the increase of guided weapons
and explosive ordnance stocks, including the rapid establishment of domestic
manufacturing. The Government has agreed to this recommendation and should be
provided to Government by the second quarter of 2024.
Defence is currently working with industry partners, including its Strategic Partners,
Lockheed Martin Australia and Raytheon Australia, to develop detailed and costed
plans for domestic manufacture of guided weapons and explosive ordnance.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Industry Partners
The Government is working in close collaboration with industry. Defence has developed
an industry partnership model that includes Strategic Partners and Guided Weapons
and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Partners.
In April 2022, Raytheon Australia and Lockheed Martin Australia were formally
announced as the initial Strategic Partners of the Guided Weapons and Explosive
Ordnance Enterprise.
The Strategic Partners and their United States parent companies are working with
Defence to develop detailed, costed plans for manufacturing guided weapons and their
components in Australia.
Defence has also established a Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
Partner Panel comprised of solely Australian owned and controlled entities to help
develop and deliver the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise.
The initial Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Partners are:
Aurecon, which has strong capabilities in infrastructure design and development
(commenced August 2022); and
The Australian Missile Corporation (commenced September 2022).
United States Engagement
Support and assistance from the United States is critical to the success of the Guided
Weapons and Explosive Ordnance.
The United States reaffirmed its support for the Guided Weapons and Explosive
Ordnance Enterprise at the Australian-United States Ministerial Forum 2022.
It has committed to working with Australia to increase the level of maintenance,
repair and the overhaul of priority munitions undertaken in Australia.
If pressed: The Defence Strategic Review says there has been ‘little material gain two years
after [the Enterprise’s] establishment’. What has been achieved over past year? Why is
progress so slow?
Until now, the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise has lacked the
necessary resources to accelerate.
The provision of $2.5 billion over the forward estimates now enables Defence to
develop a comprehensive plan for accelerated domestic manufacturing of guided
weapons.
Despite the limited funding for the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Enterprise over the past two years, Defence has:
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Pursued the accelerated acquisition of a range of guided weapons including Joint
Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles – Extended Range long range strike missiles,
Kongsberg Naval Strike Missiles and sea mines;
Received approval from the United States Government for:
16 March 2023 – up to 200 Tomahawk Block V All Up Rounds (RGM-109E),
and up to 20 Tomahawk Block IV All Up Rounds (RGM-109E);
07 March 2023 – up to 255 Javelin FGM-148F missiles; and
27 February 2023 – up to 63 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles-
Extended Range, and up to 20 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles –
Extended Range Captive Air Training Missiles.
Commissioned domestic production of BLU-111 500lb high explosive aircraft
bombs;
Acquired a new Resonant Acoustic Mixer to enable faster, safer high explosive
manufacturing and, in due course, rocket motor manufacturing, at the
Commonwealth-owned munitions factory at Mulwala;
Established a new 155mm projectile large calibre filling capability under United
States licencing at the Benalla munitions factory;
Opened a new missile maintenance facility at Orchard Hills in Sydney;
Opened the Australian Hypersonics Research Precinct at Eagle Farm in Brisbane;
Begun construction of additional explosive ordnance storage and distribution
infrastructure across existing explosive ordnance depots; and
Refurbished the explosive ordnance handling wharf at Point Wilson, Victoria.
If pressed: The Deputy Prime Minister has said Australia will be manufacturing guided
weapons within ‘a couple of years’. How does he know this if Defence is still working on the
plans for domestic manufacturing?
We are working with industry to develop detailed, costed plans for manufacturing a
number of selected weapons in Australia.
Initial high-level planning has already confirmed the feasibility of manufacturing some
guided weapons within two years.
If pressed: Is Defence adhering to the estimated $40 billion in local production and export or
the potential to create 2,000 jobs?
As explicitly stated in the previous Government’s initial announcement of
31 March 2021, the figures of $40 billion and 2,000 jobs were based on industry
estimates. Defence has not attempted to independently validate these figures.
If pressed: When can we expect an announcement of Sovereign Missile Alliance as a Guided
Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Partner?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Negotiations with Sovereign Missile Alliance are confidential and ongoing.
If pressed: Is Defence working with Lockheed Martin Australia to deliver Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket Systems in Australia?
Defence, in collaboration with Lockheed Martin Australia, is developing a detailed and
costed plan for manufacturing Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems missiles in
Australia.
If the detailed planning confirms that manufacturing Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System is feasible and affordable, it will be the first step towards building more
advanced missiles in Australia, with increasing levels of Australian content.
If pressed: Black Sky has commenced production of Ammonium Perchlorate. Is Defence
working with Black Sky on this capability?
Ammonium Perchlorate is one of many critical components that contributes to the
manufacturing of guided weapons.
Defence is working with industry partners to assess the opportunities and costs of
manufacturing a range of guided weapons components in Australia, including
Ammonium Perchlorate.
If pressed: What is Australia contributing in regards to energetics to Ukraine and United
States posturing?
The Deputy Prime Minister announced a joint supply agreement with France of 155mm
artillery ammunition to Ukraine. Defence is currently finalising the agreement with the
French Government.
France currently employs a different European 155mm product type to Australia.
Australia will most likely provide high explosives worth around $40 million over the next
three years as part of its contribution.
Defence has also received interest from the United States to purchase a significant
volume of high explosives on a regular basis. Analysis is currently underway to
determine what volume Australia could potentially supply while still supporting its own
ADF requirements.
Timeline of Significant Events
Date
Action
05 May 2023
Air Marshal Leon Phillips was appointed as the Chief of the Guided
Weapons and Explosive Ordnance to lead the new Guided Weapons
and Explosive Ordnance Group, commencing 8 May 2023.
24 April 2023
2023 Defence Strategic Review released.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
7 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Date
Action
28 February 2023
Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Presentation at
Avalon Airshow.
02 December 2022 Lockheed Martin Australia signed Deed of Agreement.
29 November 2022 Raytheon Australia signed Deed of Agreement.
05 October 2022
Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Industry
Presentation at Land Forces.
15 September 2022 Australian Missile Corporation appointed to the Guided Weapons
and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Partner Panel and announced as
a Guided Weapons Explosive Ordnance Enterprise Partner.
31 August 2022
Aurecon announced as the inaugural Guided Weapons and Explosive
Ordnance Enterprise Partner.
13 July 2022
Aurecon appointed to the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Enterprise Partner Panel.
05 April 2022
The Navy Guided Weapons Maintenance Facility opened and initial
Strategic Partners announced – Raytheon Australia and. Lockheed
Martin Australia.
25 January 2022
Former Minister for Defence officially opened the Australian
Hypersonics Research Precinct in Brisbane.
12 July 2021
Defence released a Request for Information to Industry through
AusTender which closed on 2 August 2021. A total of 135 responses
were received from industry and academia.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 5, Guided weapons contract, Senator Nita Green (Labor, Queensland) asked for
the timeline around deed signature for Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Enterprise Strategic Partners.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
8 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Relevant Media Reporting
On 5 May 2023, Australian Manufacturing published an article titled,
Leon Phillips
named as Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance’s inaugural chief.
On 2 May 2023, Australian Defence Magazine published an article titled,
Black Sky
achieves local production of rocket fuel component. The article discussed Black Sky
Aerospace’s pilot program to produce ammonium perchlorate.
On 27 April 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Guided missile production
‘within two years’ despite another review after the release of the Defence Strategy
Review. The article reported that the Deputy Prime Minister was confident Australia
could produce missiles in the next two years.
On 27 April 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Guided missile production
‘within two years'. The article reported on Australia’s ability to produce missiles within
the next two years.
On 26 April 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
The missiles delivered in
slow motion. The article reported on perceived delays to Guided Weapons and
Explosive Ordnance manufacturing following the release of the Defence Strategic
Review.
On 26 April 2023, The Australia published an article titled,
Urgent long-range missile
orders and domestic guided weapons industry delayed for another Defence review.
The article reported on the Defence Strategic Review advice to urgently procure
missiles, however the recommendation for an additional review will delay these
deliveries.
On 26 April 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
'Missile focus of Defence
Strategic Review indicates shift away from peacekeeping, veteran says. The article
reported on the proposed increase in missile capabilities, and the shift away from
peacekeeping.
On 25 April 2023, the Canberra Times published an article titled,
Defence shifts $7.8b
in projects for rise of region's 'missile age'. The article reported on the shifting focus
and priorities of Defence, following the release of the Defence Strategic Review.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
10 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Division:
Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Group
PDR No:
SB23-000409
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Andrew Byrne
Assistant Secretary Guided Weapons and
First Assistant Secretary Guided Weapons
Explosive Ordnance Strategy and Plans
and Explosive Ordnance
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 16 May 2023
Date: 17 May 2023
Consultation: Defence Industry Policy
Date: 3 April 2023
Division, Strategy, Policy and Industry Group Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Brendan Gilbert, Acting Assistant Secretary
Defence Industry
Consultation: Guided Weapons and
Date: 31 March 2023
Explosive Ordnance Delivery Division,
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
Group
Air Commodore Mark Scougall, Director
General Explosive Materiel
Cleared by DSR:
Major General Christopher Field, Deputy
Ph: s47E(d)
Defence Strategic Review Task Force
Date: 28 April 2023
Cleared by Service Head:
Date: 17 May 2023
Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive
Ordnance
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone s22
Phone: s22
Page
11 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Guided weapons contract
Senator Nita Green
Spoken Question
Senator GREEN: I'll come back to that in a moment. I have some questions on that work. But
to be clear around the time though, the announcement around the strategic partners
happened on 5 April 2022, is that right?
Mr Byrne: Correct.
Senator GREEN: What has happened with regard to the strategic partners so far? Has a
contract been signed?
Major Gen. Bottrell: Initially we signed a deed which was essentially a cooperative
development phase. That allowed other things to occur, firstly for us to start a number of
work packages. Andrew can talk to those work packages, which talk to future manufacturing
options, so the work to analyse what is feasible. Essentially, it needed to be right for us. It
needed to be right for what the US Government needed. It needed to be right for industry as
well. That has been a complex undertaking. That has been done under that cooperative
development phase and will continue once our heads of agreement contract agreement is
signed.
Senator GREEN: When was the deed signed?
Major Gen. Bottrell: I would have to take that on notice. I may have the detail, otherwise I
will have to come back to you with that deed. Subsequent to that we are working on a
strategic partners heads of agreement, which we are working to have signed by late
November or early December this year.
Answer
The Collaborative Development Process Deeds with Raytheon Australia and Lockheed Martin
Australia were signed on 8 April 2022.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Missiles
Senator Jim Molan
Written Question
1. Has the Department of Defence been briefed on ADF missile and long-range strike
capabilities? Have those briefings assessed the lethality and durability of missile munitions,
and stock replacement? Has the Department been briefed on how long it would take to
exhaust, and replace, our current missile stocks in a conflict scenario? What level of stock
reproduction, and net production, is necessary to keep Australia defended? What is the plan
to address these risks? Please provide details
2. Has the Department been briefed on the supply chain and production capacity of the full
cycle of missile delivery (manufacturing, chemical, mineral and fuel components,
infrastructure)?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
12 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
3. Has the Department been briefed on offshore, allied and other markets that our missile
supply chains are dependent on? Have you been briefed on sovereign onshore production
and supply chain industrial capacity, and its preparedness to sustain missile production in the
event of conflict scenarios?
4. More specifically, has the Department been briefed on what manufacturing, chemical,
mineral, and fuel component production and supply Australia’s missile capability currently
relies on, and what are the risks regional conflict scenarios and other scenarios (eg. sanctions,
blockades and other trade disruptions) pose to availability of these components? What
sovereign and onshore sources and production and supply options currently exist and could
persist?
Answer
1. Yes. Details requested are classified.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes. Details of production and supply options are classified.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Munitions stockpile
Senator David Van
Written Question
1. What is our projected or planned munitions stockpile in Australia? Do we have a projection
of general armaments and how long it will last?
2. Has the department done any modelling to calculate how long these reserves will last for?
If so, Can the department provide this modelling?
Answer
1. Defence monitors the strategic environment and assesses the requirements for munitions.
2. Yes. Outcomes of Departmental modelling are classified.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
13 of
14
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000409
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Current Status of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Document 25
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Weapons stock holdings
Senator Linda White
Written Question
With respect to the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise announced by the
former Government on 31 March 2021, Mr Dutton said that the then-Government would
“ensure we have adequate supply of weapon stock holdings”:
1. Does Defence assess that it currently has adequate supply of weapon stock holdings?
2. What additional stock holdings were secured by the former Government following the
GWEO Enterprise announcement?
a. If additional stock were secured, when were those decisions taken, what funding was
allocated and when were they announced?
3. Does Defence have any concerns with respect to the storage and maintenance facilities
for:
a. guided weapons stock holdings
b. explosive ordnance stock holdings
4. Did the former Government approve the construction any storage facilities for guided
weapons and explosive ordnance following its 31 March 2021 announcement?
a. If yes, were the approved facilities sufficient for the storage of known stock holding and
on-order guided weapons and ordnance?
Answer
1. Information about Defence’s weapon stockholdings is classified.
2. Stock is considered secured once orders are confirmed by the supplier. Since March 2021,
Defence has secured additional stock of BLU-111 Aerial Bomb, Advanced Anti-Radiation
Guided Missiles, and Hellfire Air to Ground Missiles.
a. In December 2021, the previous Government approved the acquisition of these
additional stocks, as part of the approval for the acquisition of four priority weapons (BLU-
111 Aerial Bomb, Mk-48 Heavy Weight Torpedoes, Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided
Missile, and Hellfire Air to Ground Missiles). The funding allocation for the four priority
weapons was $276.6 million. Government approval of these acquisitions was not
publically announced.
3. a and b. Defence has no current concerns about the capacity of the guided weapons and
explosive ordnance storage network, which is sufficient for Defence’s existing GWEO
inventory. However, the network will need to expand significantly over the coming years to
accommodate a growing GWEO inventory. Defence is in the process of expanding the storage
network now and is developing plans for further expansion.
4. No.
a. Not applicable. See response to question 4.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name Dr Jasmine Cernovs
Name: Air Marshal Leon Phillips
Position: Assistant Secretary GWEO Strategy and Plans
Position: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Branch: Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Group: Chief of Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
14 of
14
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
Defence closely monitors the ADF’s fuel requirements and adjusts stock levels
accordingly. Stock levels are balanced against the need to ‘turn over’ fuel to ensure
quality specifications are maintained.
The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is the whole-of-
government lead for national energy security.
Australia receives crude oil from a variety of sources (some in small volumes). Ensuring
diversity of supply is important in managing disruptions and seeking alternative supply.
Defence does not dictate the origin of fuels supplied by its commercial providers. Defence
requires deliveries be in full, on time and meet the required quality specifications.
The Government imposed autonomous sanctions in relation to the Russian threat to the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The sanctions prohibit the importation of fuels, lubricants or petroleum products from
Russia.
Further information may be obtained from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The Fuel Security Act 2021
On 29 June 2021, the
Fuel Security Act 2021 and the associated
Fuel Security
(Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2021 came into effect.
The
Fuel Security Act 2021 gives effect to key measures announced in the Government’s
Fuel Security Package included in the financial year 2021-2022 Budget. These measures
include:
- establishing a domestic fuel reserve through the Minimum Stockholding
Obligation;
- maintaining domestic refining capability through the Fuel Security Services
Payment; and
- building additional storage capacity through the Boosting Australia’s Diesel
Storage Program.
The decision to increase Australia’s diesel storage will result in an additional capacity of
approximately 780 mega litres. Domestic refineries will also receive assistance to upgrade
their facilities enabling improvements in Australian fuel quality from 2024.
Defence strongly supports value for money and national approaches which increase the
resilience of Australia’s fuel supply chain.
Australia-United States Ministerial Joint Statement 2020
On 28 July 2020, the Australia-United States Ministerial Joint Statement announced a
United States funded and commercially operated strategic military fuel reserve. The
reserve would be constructed in Darwin to further advance cooperation and strengthen
the resilience of Defence’s supply chains.
On 16 September 2021, the United States advised the contract for the facility was
awarded to a United States based company, Crowley Government Services Inc.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
2 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
On 23 November 2021, Saunders International Ltd announced on the Australian Stock
Exchange, Crowley Government Services Inc. had awarded them a contract to build the
Reserve.
As a United States-funded project, specific questions about the facility should be directed
to the United States Department of Defense.
International Energy Agency
As an International Energy Agency member, Australia has committed to maintain oil
reserves equal to 90 days (of net imports of the previous year) by 2026.
Data from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
indicates Australia’s oil stocks were, on average, equivalent to 66 International Energy
Agency days in the first half of 2022.
Defence is exempt from Australia’s 90 day stockholding commitment.
Renewable Fuels
Renewable fuels are currently the primary option to reduce the carbon intensity of
existing military platforms while ensuring their energy requirements are supported over
the course of their service lives.
Defence can use renewable fuels which meet the relevant national and international
standards to ensure safety and effectiveness. When available, these fuels would be
accessed through established contracts (i.e. the Fuel Services Contracts).
Defence must be satisfied any renewable fuels used in its platforms are approved by the
original equipment manufacturer.
Defence is building mechanisms into its forthcoming Fuel Services Contract which will
provide the flexibility to source renewable fuels to meet the demand.
Grant to Licella Holdings Limited
On 17 May 2022, the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, as the then Shadow Minister for
Defence, announced the Labor Government would provide a (non-competitive) grant of
$5.1 million (over three years) to the Australian biofuel company, Licella Holdings Limited
to assist in the construction of a renewable fuels facility in the Burdekin region of
Queensland.
The production and certification of the Sustainable Aviation Fuels election commitment
was announced in the October 2022 Federal Budget. It is included as one of the measures
under the Government’s Powering Australia plan.
Defence is committed to working with renewable fuels producers and key strategic
partners to adopt sustainable liquid renewable fuels for use in military platforms. This
includes administering the $5.1 million grant to Licella Holdings Limited to further
develop and prove their proprietary technology to produce renewable fuels.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
3 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
Administration of the grant requires policy, legislative and financial authority. Defence is
currently working through the necessary parliamentary approvals process to obtain these
authorities.
In addition, Defence has formally entered into a Deed of Confidentiality with Licella
Holdings Limited to review their proprietary technology in depth.
Funding for the grant will become available once the related bills have passed through
Parliament and legislative authority is granted. Defence understands this will occur by
second quarter 2023.
The grant will be delivered through the Department of Infrastructure, Science and
Resources’ Business Grants Hub. Defence is working with the Business Grants Hub to
develop a comprehensive grant process, including grant guidelines consistent with the
Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017.
Licella Holdings Limited will need to apply for the grant, with their application being
assessed against the guidelines.
Based on information provided by Licella Holdings Limited, it is anticipated their
sustainable aviation fuel could take five or more years to gain certification.
If Pressed: What is Air Force’s position on Sustainable Aviation Fuel?
Air Force has taken a deliberate approach to introduce the usage of Sustainable Aviation
Fuel in a way that enhances air and space power whilst also delivering emission reduction
benefits.
Due to the primacy of our mission to prepare military capabilities, it is necessary for Air
Force to have a deliberate approach to increased Sustainable Aviation Fuel usage which is
climate conscious and risk-informed, but does not compromise capability or
preparedness.
Air Force is engaged with partner air forces to ensure commonality and interoperability
with respect to the usage of Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Air Force recognises coordinated
and collaborative action with international partners is essential if we are to remain
interoperable.
Timeline of Significant Events
Date
Action
17 May 2022
Labor election commitment - $5.1 million grant Licella Holdings
Limited for the development of a commercial biofuel refinery
capable of making certified sustainable aviation fuel to be used in
ADF platforms, in Queensland’s Burdekin region.
23 November 2021
Saunders International Ltd announced on the Australian Stock
Exchange Crowley Government Services Inc. had awarded them the
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
4 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
Date
Action
contract to build the United States funded and commercially
operated strategic military fuel reserve facility in Darwin.
16 September 2021
The United States advised the contract for the United States funded
and commercially operated strategic military fuel reserve facility in
Darwin was awarded to United States based company, Crowley
Government Services Inc.
Background
Defence’s fuel supply baseline budget for financial year 2022-23 is $627.782 million.
The Defence Fuel Transformation Program will reduce enterprise risk, increase Defence
fuel supply chain resilience and optimise total cost of ownership through a combination
of actions. This includes risk reduction, increased industry collaboration and targeted
investments in infrastructure.
Defence works closely with its fuel suppliers to ensure ongoing supply. Defence’s
suppliers can source fuel, including specialist fuels, from around the globe.
Defence’s fuel holdings generally range from several weeks (aviation and vehicular fuels)
to months (naval fuels) at normal rates of consumption.
Holding large quantities of fuel with little turnover, particularly aviation fuel, can result in
the stored fuel not meeting the necessary specifications for Defence use. Fuel shelf life is
considered as part of the ongoing management of ADF fuel requirements.
Defence has a number of options to enhance its fuel stockholdings where necessary,
including:
-
ensuring existing fuel storage is held at maximum capacity;
-
buying additional fuel and paying for its storage in commercial facilities;
-
hiring commercial ocean-going fuel tankers for additional storage capacity; and
-
accessing partner nation fuel stocks through international logistics agreements.
If a national fuel emergency was declared under the
Liquid Fuels Emergency Act 1984,
Defence may be exempt from rationing as an ‘essential user’. Fuel stocks requisitioned
under the
Liquid Fuels Emergency Act 1984 may also be provided to Defence for activities
in the ‘Defence of Australia’.
Renewable Fuels
Interest in decarbonising the transport sector is increasing considerably at both a national
and international level. While this is contributing to Defence’s consideration of renewable
energy technologies, the main driver is to assure Defence energy security for warfighting
capabilities and continued interoperability with strategic partners.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
5 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
The two broad renewable fuel types of interest to Defence are Sustainable Aviation Fuel
and renewable diesel. Sustainable Aviation Fuel is subject to rigorous certification
processes managed and approved by American Society of Testing and Materials
International.
American Society of Testing and Materials International certification requires
participation of an agreement by original equipment manufacturers for both platforms
and engines. Original equipment manufacturers involved in American Society of Testing
and Materials International certification processes include all major platform and engine
suppliers to Defence, as well as commercial operators of similar commercial platforms.
Australian industry is currently unable to produce value for money, renewable fuels in
commercial quantities approved for aviation (both civil and military) or naval applications.
For Defence to use renewable fuels, they must be costed competitively and in the short
term have capability to be used as a ‘drop in’ replacement, requiring no change in engine,
storage or distribution technology.
Domestic Renewable Fuels
There are currently no approved producers of certified sustainable aviation fuel in
Australia.
Defence anticipates Australian-sourced renewable fuels produced at scale and suitable
for Defence platforms are unlikely to become available before 2025.
Defence will only use sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel which meet strict
certification standards.
Appropriate fuel standards are essential to Defence capability to ensure the functionality
of airframes, platforms and propulsion systems and to ensure personnel safety and
mission effectiveness.
Fuel standards are a core focus of existing Defence safety management systems. Defence
achieves this through alignment with American Society of Testing and Materials
International approved fuel development pathways, particularly for sustainable aviation
fuel.
Defence fuel standards were recently revised to permit the use of American Society of
Testing and Materials International certified types of sustainable aviation fuel, up to a
maximum of 50 per cent blend ratio.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
6 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000410
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Australian Defence Force Fuel Resiliency
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Air Marshal Robert Chipman; Major General Jason Walk
Document 26
Division:
Joint Capabilities Group
PDR No:
SB23-000410
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Major General Jason Walk
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 26 April 2023
Date: 5 April 2023
Consultation: Defence Legal Division
Date: 04 April 2023
s47E(d)
, Special Counsel
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Consultation: Air Force
Date: 17 May 2023
Air Commodore Michael Durant, Director
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
General Strategy and Planning
Cleared by CFO /DPG:
Date: 04 April 2023
Emma McCarthy, Assistant Secretary Finance
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 01 May 2023
Major General Christopher Field
Ph: s47E(d)
Deputy DSR Task Force – ADF Integration
Cleared by Group Head:
Date: 27 April 2023
Lieutenant General John Frewen
Chief of Joint Capabilities
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Brigadier Gabrielle Follett
Name: Lieutenant General John Frewen
Position: Director General Fuel Services
Position: Chief of Joint Capabilities
Division: Joint Logistics Command
Group: Joint Capabilities Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s22
Page
8 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
We must also continue to develop our cyber and space capabilities.
What are the priorities for implementation?
The Government has directed that Defence must have the capacity to:
defend Australia and our immediate region;
deter through denial any adversary’s attempt to project power against Australia
through our northern approaches;
protect Australia’s economic connection to our region and the world;
contribute with our partners to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific; and
contribute with our partners to the maintenance of the global rules-based order.
The Government has also made decisions on six initial priority areas for immediate
action. These are:
investing in conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS
partnership;
developing the ADF’s ability to precisely strike targets at longer range and manufacture
munitions in Australia;
improving the ADF’s ability to operate from Australia’s northern bases;
lifting our capacity to rapidly translate disruptive new technologies into ADF capability,
in close partnership with Australian industry;
investing in the growth and retention of a highly-skilled defence workforce; and
deepening our diplomatic and defence partnerships with key partners in the
Indo-Pacific.
What is ‘National Defence’?
National Defence is focused on the defence of Australia in the face of potential threats
in our region.
Our nation and its leaders must take a much more whole-of-government and whole-of-
nation approach to security.
This approach requires much more active Australian statecraft that works to support
the maintenance of a regional balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
This requires deepening diplomatic engagement and stronger defence capabilities to
help deter coercion and lower the risk of conflict.
What is the Strategy of Denial?
A strategy of denial is a defensive approach designed to stop an adversary from
succeeding in its goal to coerce states through force, or the threatened use of force, to
achieve dominance.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Denial is associated with the ability and intent to defend against, and defeat, an act of
aggression.
What is Net Assessment?
The Review recommended a new, more focused approach to defence planning based
on net assessment.
Net assessment is an integrated methodology and planning process that identifies the
key challenges and risks of the strategic environment to inform response options,
aligning a range of core Defence planning functions.
This will be taken forward through the development of the 2024 National Defence
Strategy.
Net assessment will inform Defence’s investments to ensure Defence responds to
accelerating changes in our strategic environment through the best investment of
resources.
What is a Balanced Force vs. a Focused Force?
A balanced force is designed to be able to respond to a range of contingencies when
the strategic situation remains uncertain.
This force design required that the ADF respond to low-level threats related to
continental defence, regional operations in support of Australian interests and global
support to our Alliance partner, the United States.
The focused force conceptual approach to force structure planning will lead to a force
designed to address the nation’s most significant military risks.
The capabilities required to address identified threats will also provide latent capability
to deal with lower-level contingencies and crises.
What is the plan for the National Defence Strategy?
The Government’s response to the Review includes specific directions to Defence with
immediate effect, while establishing a methodical and comprehensive process for
long-term and sustainable implementation.
To inform this, the Government has accepted the Review’s recommendation for an
inaugural National Defence Strategy in 2024, which will be updated biennially.
The National Defence Strategy will encompass a comprehensive plan of Defence policy,
planning, capabilities and resourcing, including reprioritisation of the Integrated
Investment Program, in line with the recommendations of the Review.
Why did the Government commission the Review?
Australia’s region, the Indo-Pacific, faces increasing competition that operates on
several levels—economic, military, strategic and diplomatic—all interwoven and all
framed by an intense contest of narrative.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
A large-scale conventional and non-conventional military build-up, occurring without
strategic reassurance, is contributing to the most challenging circumstances in our
region for decades.
Combined with rising tensions and reduced warning time for conflict, the risks of
military escalation or miscalculation are rising.
At the same time, the effects of climate change across the region are amplifying our
challenges, while other actions that fall short of kinetic conflict, including economic
coercion, are encroaching on the ability of countries to exercise their own agency and
decide their own destinies.
These factors made it necessary for the Government to commission the Defence
Strategic Review to assess whether Australia has the necessary defence capability,
posture and preparedness to best defend Australia and its interests in the context of
our current strategic environment.
Is this in direct response to China?
The Government’s response to the Review is about shaping a region that reflects our
national interests and our shared regional interests.
Those interests lie in a region that operates by rules, standards and norms—where a
larger country does not determine the fate of a smaller country, and where each can
country can pursue its own aspirations and prosperity.
A stable relationship between Australia and China is in the interests of both countries
and the broader region.
Australia will continue to cooperate with China where we can, disagree where we must,
manage our differences wisely, and above all else, engage in and vigorously pursue our
own national interest.
Was this a truly independent review?
Yes, the Defence Strategic Review was undertaken by the Independent Leads rather
than Defence.
The Leads guided the process, led its development and were responsible for the
content and recommendations of the Review.
Defence officials (APS and ADF members) provided support to the Leads in the conduct
of the Review, including secretariat and administrative services.
By comparison, previous Defence white papers and the Defence Strategic Update and
Force Structure Plan were undertaken from within the Department of Defence.
How will the Review be implemented?
Defence has established a Deputy Secretary-led Defence Strategic Review
Implementation Taskforce.
Defence is finalising its implementation plans to deliver against the agreed Defence
Strategic Review recommendations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Is Government re-assessing the Defence budget?
The Prime Minister has affirmed the Government will ensure Defence has the
resources it needs to defend Australia and deter potential aggressors.
As the Government has stated publicly, Defence funding will increase over the next
decade above its current trajectory to implement the Review, including delivery of the
conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine program through AUKUS.
The Prime Minister has said we need to invest what we need to promote peace
and security in the region
(Anthony Albanese says defence spending must rise to
meet new needs).
The Government’s response to the Review includes specific directions to Defence, with
immediate effect, while establishing a methodical and comprehensive process for long
term and sustainable implementation.
Defence has been directed to conduct a holistic, integrated and fully costed
assessment of current plans and activities to ensure alignment with the strategic
intent set out in the National Defence Statement 2023 and the Review.
This will be considered in the context of the 2024 National Defence Strategy.
What projects have been delayed, cancelled or rescoped in response to the Review?
Decisions will be made to cancel or reprioritise Defence projects or activities that are
no longer suited to our strategic circumstances, as outlined in the Review.
This will involve reprioritising planned investments, while maintaining the overall level
of Defence funding over the forward estimates.
The Government will reprioritise Defence’s Integrated Investment Program to fund
immediate and longer-term priorities, as recommended by the Review, which will be
released as part of the inaugural National Defence Strategy in 2024.
When were/will allies and partners be briefed in on the Defence Strategic Review and its
recommendations?
Select regional and international stakeholders were, and continue to be, engaged and
briefed, as appropriate.
We regularly engage with our regional partners, including on assessments of our
regional security environment and actions we are taking in response.
I will not comment on private discussions with counterparts.
When were/will Industry be engaged on the outcomes of the Review?
Defence has, and will continue to conduct industry consultation and engagement.
Select Defence industry partners were engaged and briefed, as appropriate.
Phone calls were made to 14 Defence industry companies ahead of the public
release of the report. The calls were directly between the company Chief
Executive Officer’s and either Minister for Defence Industry, Deputy Secretary
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group or Deputy Secretary Naval
Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. The calls occurred on 21 and 23 April 2023.
After the release of the public report the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Defence Industry, supported by Defence officials, conducted three industry
roundtables:
Industry Primes and Unions – 26 April 2023 in Canberra;
Northern Bases Infrastructure (Infrastructure and Indigenous companies) –
27 April 2023 in Darwin; and
Innovation (SMEs and Universities) – 28 April 2023 in Sydney.
Why has the Government not released the detail of all 108 recommendations?
As identified by the Review’s Independent Leads, the public report is, necessarily, a
qualitatively different version of the report handed to Government in February.
It is less detailed, as many of the judgements and recommendations in the report are
sensitive and classified.
This is consistent with the approach of successive governments.
There are 62 recommendations that appear in the unclassified public report.
The remaining recommendations, and the Government’s response to them,
cannot be released due to their sensitivity.
What makes the DSR ‘the most substantial and ambitious approach to Defence reform
recommended to any Australian Government since the Second World War’?
When the Government commissioned the Defence Strategic Review on 3 August 2022,
it noted that changes in Australia’s strategic environment were rapidly accelerating.
Specifically, that military modernisation, technological disruption and the risk of
state-on-state conflict were complicating Australia’s strategic circumstances.
Further the Government acknowledged that it was vital that our defence force
remained positioned to meet our global and regional security challenges.
In their report, the independent leads noted that many of the challenges in the Review
will require significant effort and commitment to implement.
The underpinning theme of this review was that time matters, and this DSR is an
urgent call to action.
The final words of the leads’ report, ‘it will be challenging to effect’, is a
recognition that this report goes beyond others in its scope and ambition.
Implementing the Review requires transformational reform which will not be achieved
overnight.
Once the Review’s recommendations have been implemented, Defence will have:
a Navy with enhanced lethality through its surface fleet;
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
an Army optimised for littoral operations in our northern approaches and
long-range strike capability; and an
Air Force able to provide the air support for joint operations in our north by
conducting surveillance, air defence, strike and air transport.
Defence will also have fundamentally reformed its capability acquisition systems to
ensure capability gets into the hands of the ADF operator faster.
To enable
National Defence, there must also be a more holistic approach to Australia’s
defence and security strategy.
This requires a much more whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach
to security.
▪ For example, enhanced fuel security is not a matter Defence can solve by
itself.
The development of a biennial National Defence Strategy also means Defence
policy development will keep pace with a rapidly evolving strategic environment
and ensure consistency across government.
As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, “
The Governments response to the Defence
Strategic Review has re-tasked our Defence force for the first time in 35 years, giving it a
clear direction for a new strategic posture, because we are able to make the difficult
decision to prioritise money where it is needed most.”
What access to Defence and Government information did the Leads have?
The Review was informed by intelligence and strategic assessments of the most
concerning threats challenging Australia's security.
Input to the Defence Strategic Review was drawn from internal and external experts,
consultations with senior personnel, and numerous submissions from interested
parties.
How much time did the Independent Leads invest in engaging with key stakeholders?
The Independent Leads undertook an extensive program of consultation with
Australian stakeholders, including senior officials from federal, state and territory
governments, defence industry, think tanks, universities and key individuals.
Engagement by the Leads included:
Meetings with senior officials across government.
Senior-level war-games with Defence leadership and subject matter experts.
A visit to key defence sites across our northern network of bases in September 2022.
Roundtable discussions with academics, think tanks and defence experts.
A roundtable discussion with indigenous representatives.
Meetings with state and territory representatives.
Travel to Washington and Honolulu in October 2022 for consultations.
Travel to London in January 2023 for consultations.
The Leads also met with the New Zealand Secretary of Defence in November 2022.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
How did Defence support the Review?
Defence supported the Independent Leads by coordinating briefings from senior
officials, providing intelligence assessments, conducting war-gaming and
experimentation, and facilitating external consultation.
What contracts were in place to support the Review, and how much did it cost?
As per AusTender, the contracts for the Independent Leads were for a possible period
of eight months from August 2022 to March 2023.
Sir Angus Houston’s contract has been extended for an additional period through to
May 2023.
The remuneration for the Independent Leads took into account the importance and
profile of the role, including that both Leads stood down or reduced focus on other
commitments as a consequence of taking on the Defence Strategic Review.
Sir Angus Houston was paid
$521,125 including GST.
▪ Sir Angus Houston’s remuneration was appropriate for a former Chief of
the Defence Force with extensive experience relevant to the role.
His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith was paid
$195,600.49 including GST.
▪ His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith’s remuneration was appropriate for
a former Minister of Defence with extensive experience relevant to the
role. (ref SQ 59 response)
▪ His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith’s final invoice under his contract
with Defence as an independent lead for the DSR was received on
18 January 2023 and he has not sought any further payment.
▪ He was appointed as Australia’s High Commissioner to the UK on
26 January 2023.
Professor Peter Dean provided external support to the Independent Leads.
Professor Dean was paid
$226,791.48, including GST.
Did the Leads have conflicts of interest?
Standard contractual clauses and Departmental processes are in place to manage
conflicts of interest and disclosures.
How were conflicts managed in regard to His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith’s posting to
London?
His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith commenced his role as the UK High
Commissioner on 26 January 2023.
Questions regarding His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith’s appointment as High
Commissioner to the UK are a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
How were the public submissions considered?
All public submissions were provided to the Independent Leads for consideration.
368 submissions were received.
There is no intention to release the submissions publicly.
Some individuals/authors of submissions have chosen to release their submissions
publicly.
The submissions are for the Independent Leads, not for Defence’s consideration.
Supporting Information
The Defence Strategic Review was delivered to the Government on 14 February 2023
by Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Ret’d) and His Excellency the Hon Stephen Smith as
Independent Leads of the Review.
The public version of the Defence Strategic Review, and the Government’s response to
it, were released on 24 April 2023.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate: 18 November 2022
In
QoN 3, DSR briefings, Senator Jim Molan (Liberal, New South Wales) asked the
Department, upon notice, to provide the list of engagements the Defence Strategic
Review Leads have had with partners and other parts of government.
In
QoN 48, Commissioning of a Defence Force Posture, Senator David Van (Liberal,
Victoria) asked the Department, upon notice, if the Minister commissioned a Defence
Force Posture Review prior to commissioning the Defence Strategic Review.
In
QoN 53, Receipt of the DSR interim report, Senator Claire Chandler (Liberal,
Tasmania) asked the Department, upon notice, a series of questions relating to the
Prime Minister’s interview and an article written by Greg Sheridan in the Australian on
5-6 November 2022.
In
QoN 59, Selection of the Independent Leads: Senator Claire Chandler (Liberal,
Tasmania) asked the Department, upon notice, a number of questions relating to the
process for selecting the Leads, remuneration arrangements, travel undertaken and for
a list of written or verbal meetings the Leads have had with Ministers, Secretary of the
Defence Force, Chief of the Defence Force and Cabinet.
Senate: 10 October 2022
In
QoN 940, Hunter-class and future submarine programs, Senator the Hon Simon
Birmingham (Liberal, South Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for
Defence, upon notice, questions relating to media reporting in The Australian that
Hunter and future submarines would be excluded from the Defence Strategic Review.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Senate: 28 September 2022
In
QoN 832, conduct of the Defence Strategic Review, Senator the Hon Simon
Birmingham (Liberal, South Australia) asked the Minister representing the Minister for
Defence, upon notice a series of questions relating to the conduct of the Defence
Strategic Review.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
On 21 February 2023, an organisation sought access under Freedom of Information to
“all documents, including internal communications, relating to the purported
publication of findings of the Defence Strategic Review in the media. The scope of this
request covers from 12 February to 19 February 2023.”
The decision was made to
refuse the request under section 24A and the applicant was advised of the outcome on
21 March 2023.
On 1 November 2022, an individual from Australian Associated Press sought access
under Freedom of Information to a copy of “the interim report of the strategic review
of the defence force”.
This request was denied under Sections 33(a)(i) and 33(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act and the applicant was advised of the outcome on 23
December 2022.
On 12 October 2022, Defence received a Freedom of Information request for access to
a range of Defence question time briefs including “QB22-000190 Defence Strategic
Review including Defence Industry Development Strategy”.
The decision was made to
partially release the documents to the applicant on 19 December 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 22 May 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke at the News Corp's Defending
Australia, Australian War Memorial. He said, “The Defence Strategic Review –
commissioned within the first hundred days of our Government – and the
Government’s response to it has provided the first re-tasking of our Defence Force in
more than 35 years… Our Defence Force will now be a focussed force dedicated to
achieving these tasks. As most of these tasks involve activity beyond our shores, what
underpins them is a need to have a Defence Force with the capacity to engage in
impactful projection through the full spectrum of proportionate response… The
Defence Strategic Review and the Government’s response to it is providing our
Defence Force with clear direction for a new strategic posture.”
On 17 May 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke to the American Chamber of
Commerce in Australia and said, “The Defence Strategic Review argues that this now
demands that as a nation we need to act with a controlled sense of urgency. We have
no time to waste. Defence will need to prioritise and accelerate innovation. If we are to
develop these advanced capabilities, we need to adopt an innovation mindset – one
where we are not afraid to fail fast, learn, and adapt. That’s why we are investing in
making these capabilities a reality, and building the framework and organisations to
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
achieve this. Following the Government’s response to the Defence Strategic Review,
we announced the establishment of a new Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
– ASCA. And in the Budget we handed down last week, the Albanese Government is
taking the first steps to putting the funding behind ASCA – for $3.4 billion over the next
decade – to make it a reality. The creation of ASCA will turbo-charge Australia’s
contributions to pillar two of AUKUS.”
On 30 April 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke on Insiders. He said, “But the point
that we're really making is that when you look at the way in which great power contest
is playing out, and particularly in our region, you look at that military build up and you
look at our exposure to that through a much greater economic connection to the
world, we are much more vulnerable to coercion than we've ever been before. And we
need to be thinking about the way in which we posture our defence force to deal with
that. And what that means is we need a defence force which has a much greater power
or ability to engage in projection, because so much of what we need to do is beyond
our shores. So, to have a Defence Force with the capacity for impactful projection
across the full spectrum of proportionate response is now what we are seeking to
achieve. And that's really- as I said- the first re-tasking of our Defence Force in 35 years.
And we're now seeking to put in place as quickly as we can the equipment which
postures us for that.”
On 24 April 2023, the DSR was announced publically by the Prime Minister, Deputy
Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Industry.
The Prime Minister said “[The DSR] is the most significant work that's been done since
the Second World War … It demonstrates that in a world where challenges to our
national security are always evolving, we cannot fall back on old assumptions”. And
“The work we're undertaking as a result of this Review fits together with everything
that our Government is doing to repair our supply chains, upgrade our energy grid,
boost our cyber security systems and rebuild faith in our public institutions.”
The Deputy Prime Minister said “For the first time in 35 years, we are recasting the
mission of the Australian Defence Force, which will have five elements to it. Firstly, to
defend our nation and our immediate region. Secondly, to deter through denial, any
adversary that seeks to project power against Australia or our interests through our
northern approaches. Thirdly, to protect Australia's economic connection to the region
and the world. Fourthly, with our partners, to provide for the collective security of the
Indo-Pacific. And fifthly, with our partners, to provide for the maintenance of the global
rules-based order.” He also discussed the six initial priorities of the DSR.
The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned “The cost of the DSR over the forward
estimates will be around $19 billion. Much of that is already provided for in the Budget.
But as a consequence of the DSR and the Government's response to it, we're
reprioritising $7.8 billion worth of programs to enable us to put a focus on the six
priorities that I have described.”
The Minister for Defence Industry said “[The DSR is] A vote of confidence in saying that
we need a sovereign defence industrial base in this country if we are truly to be
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
independent and sovereign and have supply chain resilience. And two great examples
of that within the DSR is the commitment to manufacture guided weapons and
explosive ordinance within Australia as soon as possible. Second is the commitment to
continuous shipbuilding in this country.”
The Minister for Defence Industry also mentioned “We inherited 28 projects running
97 years late cumulatively and we need to do much better and we are working hard on
that right now.”
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Industry held a doorstop in
Darwin on 27 April and the DPM said “$2 billion of that will be focussed on our air
bases from RAAF Base Learmonth in Western Australia, through the Cocos Islands,
through the Territory and into Queensland. But that would include RAAF Base Darwin
and RAAF Base Tindall. $1 billion on land and joint estate, and that includes looking at
some of our training grounds, but improved investments in Robertson Barracks here in
Darwin. And $600 million to our maritime facilities and that includes what we're seeing
right here at HMAS
Coonawarra.”
Relevant Media Reporting
25 May 2023 The Australian - Defence supplement
“DSR: A case of ‘so much for so little’”, heavily criticises the DSR and suggests the
Review was written to meet political needs and lacks supporting arguments.
“Review steers national strategy for safer future”, Minister Conroy outlines the
Government’s directions in response to the DSR.
“Naval build program in holding pattern”, claims the DSR was expected to provide
clarity for Navy and Australia’s shipbuilding industry and creates nervousness for
industry.
“Do we have a viable military strategy?”, says ‘The public DSR provides little detail
on what this focused force looks like and further discusses the Defence budget and
DSR funding shortfalls and workforce.
“Hope fades of progress on IFV’s”, maintains the DSR does not provide clarity on
IFV’s.
“AUKUS drives strategic vision”, criticises the short timeline the DSR was conducted
under and says it ‘lacks the comprehensively detailed argument which might create
a national consensus behind major changes in policy and governance’.
24 May 2023 Australian Financial Review “Marles in Seoul defence talks to counter China”
speculates on discussions between DPM and his counterpart in South Korea next week will
provide an opportunity to explain scaled-back defence contracts for ROK companies under
the DSR.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
23 May 2023 The Australian, “Maturity on China boosts our global status: Marles”, was
written off the back of last night’s Newscorp event in Canberra and discusses speeches
made by DPM, VCDF and Minister Dutton.
22 May 2023 The Daily Advertiser “Australia to be a long-range missile maker”, mentions
Government investment of $4.1bn for GWEO.
20 May 2023 The Australian “Emergency training program would help plug the ADF gap”,
discusses the ADF in relation to domestic crisis response and the relative DSR
recommendation.
19 May 2023 ABC “Former defence chief Angus Houston hits out at China, warns of
‘miscalculation’ leading to possible military conflict”, discusses Sir Angus’ US interview and
commentary surrounding Australia’s Navy.
18 May 2023 The Advertiser “Ready to fail fast, learn & adapt”, discusses short
timeframes for DSR implementation and DPM comments.
16 May 2023 The Australian “Navy needs greater capability in defence build up”,
discusses the DSR specifically in relation to Navy capability.
25 April 2023 News.com “Labor rejects suggestions it timed release of Defence review with
Anzac Day discusses the timing of the DSR release, with suggestions that the Government
‘timed the release’ of The Review to coincide with Anzac Day and deflect coverage away
from cancelled programs in the review”.
Division:
Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
PDR No:
SB23-000411
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Defence Strategic Review
Amy Hawkins, Acting First Assistant
Implementation Task Force
Secretary, Policy and Engagement, Defence
Strategic Review Implementation Task
Force
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 25 May 2023
Date: 25 May 2023
Consultation: NA
Cleared by Deputy Secretary
Date: 26 May 2023
Tom Hamilton, Deputy Secretary
Defence Strategic Review Task Force
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
13 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates:
Defence Strategic Review
Senator Jim Molan
Question
Senator MOLAN: Are you able to provide details not of the content of the briefings but of the
times that government has provided the DSR with briefings indicating its desire for missiles or
drones or five or 10 years or any indication like this?
Senator Wong: I'm surprised you'd even ask a question like that, given your background.
We're not going to be talking about particular capabilities until decisions are made, but we
will take on notice what you are seeking, if I can try and put it in a more reasonable scope.
What are you seeking?
Senator MOLAN: I'm seeking a list of the occasions on which a briefing has been provided by
government to the DSR subsequent to the terms of reference.
Senator Wong: Why don't we look at what we can provide in relation to—I'll perhaps turn it
the other way around—the DSR's activities and engagements with partners and other parts
of government, and we'll take that on notice.
Answer
The Independent Leads of the Defence Strategic Review have consulted widely with domestic
and international stakeholders including Department of Defence officials, defence industry,
think tanks and academia and former government officials.
Representatives from state and territory governments have been engaged, as has the
Opposition.
The process of consultation is ongoing.
Budget Estimates:
Defence Force Posture Review
Senator David Van
Question
1. Did the Minister commission a Defence Force Posture (DFP) review, prior to commissioning
the Defence Strategic Review (DSR)?
2. What work went into the DFP?
3. Were there costs involved in this? What were these costs and where did the funding come
from?
4. Were resources diverted away from other defence projects or activities for the DFP
review?
5. Exactly what work was done on the DFP, before it was scrapped for the DSR? Can the
department outline specifically the items of work, time, and personnel involved?
6. Whose decision was it to cancel the DFP review? On what date was this decision made?
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
14 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Answer
No, a Defence Force Posture Review was not commissioned prior to the announcement of
the Defence Strategic Review on 3 August 2022.
Budget Estimates:
Defence Strategic Review Interim Report
Senator Claire Chandler
Question
With reference to the Government’s receipt of the interim report and advice from the
Defence Strategic Review (DSR), and the Prime Minister’s interview and statements published
by Greg Sheridan in the Weekend Australian, 5-6 November 2022:
1. The article stated that the Prime Minister plans to change the structure of the Australian
Defence Force (ADF). Has the Department of Defence been briefed by the Prime Minister, or
the Deputy Prime Minister, on what the Prime Minister plans to change? Has the Department
provided advice or briefed the Government on any proposed changes in the structure of the
ADF? Please provide details.
2. The article also states that the Prime Minister intends to increase the Defence budget, and
is determined and fully committed. Has the Department been briefed by the Prime Minister,
or the Deputy Prime Minister, on what magnitude of increase is contemplated, and what
assumptions and priorities govern the increase? Has the Department provided advice or
briefed the Government on any increase to the Defence budget? Please provide details.
3. The Prime Minister has stated that his Government will do whatever is necessary. Has the
Department been briefed by the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister, on what is
considered necessary? Has the Department provided advice or briefed the Government on
what the Department considers is necessary for Defence and the ADF to achieve in this term
of Government? Please provide details.
4. Has the Department been asked by the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister, to
commence work on implementing the Prime Minister’s stated intentions to restructure the
ADF, increase the Defence budget, and otherwise do what is necessary for achieving national
defence and security outcomes? Please provide details.
5. Has the Department been asked by the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister, to
commence work on responding to the interim advice of the DSR? Please provide details.
Answer
The Defence Strategic Review will consider the priority of investment in Defence capabilities
and assess the Australian Defence Force's structure, posture and preparedness. The objective
is to optimise Defence capability and posture to meet the nation's security challenges over
the next decade and beyond. The Review will ensure that Defence’s capability and force
structure is fit for purpose, affordable and delivers the greatest return on investment.
The Independent Leads provided interim advice to the Deputy Prime Minister on 03
November 2022 on progress of the Review and will provide the final report in early 2023. As
this is an Independent Review, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the recommendations
of the Review.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
15 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Budget Estimates
Defence Strategic Review Lead Appointment
Senator Claire Chandler
Question
1. Can the Department outline the process that was undertaken to select the Two
Independent Leads for the Defence Strategic Review (DSR)?
2. How many candidates were considered for the roles?
3. When were Professor the Hon Stephen Smith and Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston
AK AFC informed of their appointments to lead the DSR?
4. What is the remuneration for each Lead?
5. How was the remuneration determined?
6. Have the Leads been provided with offices and staff?
a. What is the location and cost of the offices?
b. Was any refurbishment work done to the offices for the Leads? If yes, what was the
cost?
c. How many staff are working for the Leads and on the DSR? And what are their ranks or
APS levels?
7. Have the Leads undertaken domestic and international travel in their roles?
a. Please provide a breakdown of all domestic trips and the costs of the trips including
flights and accommodation.
b. Please provide a breakdown of all international trips and the costs of the trips
including flights and accommodation.
8. How has Defence managed any conflicts of interest or probity issues on the DSR given
both Lead’s relationships with Defence and Defence Industry?
9. How many times and on what dates have the Leads providing written or verbal briefings
or reports on the DSR to the:
a. Prime Minister
b. Defence Minister
c. Finance Minister
d. Minister for Defence Personnel
e. Minister for Defence Industry
f. Assistant Defence Minister
g. Secretary of Defence
h. Chief of the Defence Force
i. National Security Committee
j. National Security Investment Committee
k. Expenditure Review Committee
l. Cabinet
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
16 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Answer
1. Selection and appointment of the two DSR Independent Leads was handled by discussion
between the Secretary of Defence, the Deputy Prime Minister and the two Independent
Leads. The Deputy Prime Minister asked Professor the Hon Stephen Smith and Air Chief
Marshal Sir Angus Houston AK AFC to lead the DSR in July 2022.
2. Refer to question 1.
3. Refer to question 1.
4. As per AusTender, the contracts for the Independent Leads are for a possible period of
eight months from August 2022 to March 2023. The contract value for Sir Angus Houston is
an estimated maximum value of $470,000 including GST, and is paid in arrears on a monthly
basis. Professor Smith’s contract has a maximum value of $306,496 including GST, and is paid
in arrears on a monthly basis.
5. The remuneration for the Independent Leads takes into account the importance and
profile of the role, as well as the fact that both leads stood down from or reduced focus on
other commitments as a consequence of taking on the DSR. Sir Angus Houston’s
remuneration is appropriate for a former Chief of the Defence Force with extensive
experience relevant to the role. Professor Smith’s remuneration is appropriate for a former
Minister for Defence with extensive experience relevant to the role.
6. The Independent Leads are supported by a small secretariat team from within the
Department. Established offices within the Defence estate have been utilised for the DSR.
There has been no requirement to refurbish office space. As of 24 November 2022, 10
people work in the DSR Secretariat, ranging from the equivalent of an Australian Public
Service Level Five to a Senior Executive Service Band Two.
7. The Independent Leads have undertaken domestic and international travel to support the
development of the Review. The total of all domestic and international commercial travel for
both of the Independent Leads as at 09 December 2022 is approximately $140,000. Due to
the integrated nature of Defence support to the DSR, costs are being managed from within
the Department’s budget.
8. Standard contractual clauses and Departmental processes are in place to manage conflicts
of interest and disclosures. After the leads stepped down from a range of other roles, conflict
of interest arrangements were put in place in respect of the Independent Leads to ensure
actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest were addressed. These arrangements
included comprehensive conflict of interest disclosures and agreement on mitigation
strategies in respect of each matter raised by the Independent Leads.
9. The Independent Leads provide regular briefings to Government as appropriate. On 03
November 2022, the Independent Leads
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
17 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
Senate
Defence Strategic Review
Senator Simon Birmingham
Question
With reference to media reporting in The Australian regarding the Hunter Class and Future
Submarine programs being excluded from consideration in the DSR, and statements by the
Minister for Defence Industry that Land 400 Phase 3 is a Cabinet matter:
Please confirm that these programs are not going to be considered as part of the DSR.
Are any other current Defence procurement programs, tender processes, or sustainment
programs excluded from consideration as part of the DSR; if so, please provide details.
Why weren't exclusions from the DSR identified in the terms of reference, and when was the
decision made to make exclusions.
What are all the current or announced procurement programs, tender processes, or
sustainment programs that are being examined in the DSR; please provide an itemised list.
Will any Government decisions on capability be delayed as a result of the DSR, if so, please
provide details.
Answer
The Minister representing the Minister for Defence provided the following answer to the
Senator’s question:
The Defence Strategic Review Terms of Reference make clear that the Independent Leads
must consider all elements of the Integrated Investment Program.
There have been no changes to the Defence Strategic Review Terms of Reference.
Government does not comment on Defence capability decisions that are pre-Government
approval.
Senate
Defence Strategic Review
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Question
Which individuals, agencies and other parties (Parties) were consulted in the formation of,
and continue to be consulted, in relation to, the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) (provide a
list). How many submissions have been provided to date, will these be made public. Please
provide documentation relating to the process for selection and appointment of the two DSR
Independent Leads. What is the total remuneration, reimbursements and costs budgeted for
the personnel resources working on DSR, and how much has been spent to date. What
briefings and reports have been provided to the Minister, and the Government, relating to
these matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Answer
The Minister representing the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the
Senator’s question:
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
18 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000411
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Defence Strategic Review
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Tom Hamilton
Document 27
The Department has facilitated the attached list of consultations (Attachment B) in relation to
the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) as at 30 September 2022.
Public submissions can be made through the Defence website at
www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review, and are open until
30 November 2022. The deadline for submissions was extended from 30 October to 30
November, due to stakeholder requests. As at 11 October 2022, 116 public submissions have
been received. Public submissions are for the consideration of the Defence Strategic Review
and will not be made public.
Selection and appointment of the two DSR Independent Leads was handled by discussion
between the Secretary of the Department, the Deputy Prime Minister and the two
Independent Leads.
As per AusTender, the contracts for the Independent Leads are for a possible period of eight
months from August 2022 to March 2023.
The contract value for Sir Angus Houston is an estimated value of $470,000 including GST,
and is paid in arrears on a monthly basis. As at 11 October 2022, Defence has paid a total of
$71,500 including GST to Sir Angus Houston.
Professor Smith’s contract has a maximum value of $306,496 including GST, and is paid in
arrears on a monthly basis. As at 11 October 2022, Defence has paid a total of $31,420 to
Professor Smith.
The Independent Leads are supported by a small secretariat team from within the
Department. Due to the integrated nature of Defence support to the DSR, costs are being
managed from within the Department’s budget, and are not being separately accounted.
Professor Peter Dean is providing external support to the Independent Leads. The contract
value for Professor Dean is an estimated value of $283,440, including GST.
The Independent Leads have provided updates to the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter.
These updates contain sensitive material and may adversely impact Defence if released
publicly.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Tom Hamilton
Position: Director Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Group/Service: Defence Strategic Review Implementation Task Force
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
19 of
19
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
If pressed: What is the alignment between the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement and
the Defence Industry Development Strategy?
The Defence Industry Development Strategy will evolve the strategic approach to
defence industry policy to reflect the changing strategic drivers and lessons learnt since
the release of the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement.
The 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement recognised industry as a
fundamental input to capability and acknowledged Defence is reliant on a robust,
resilient, internationally competitive and sovereign defence industrial base. This
industrial base is fundamental to Defence capability and Australia’s national
power.
Defence cannot succeed in its mission without an Australian industrial base that is
able to provide and deliver capability into our supply chains and deliver strategic
effect.
If pressed: AUKUS Advanced Capabilities and Defence industry
[Please direct any AUKUS Pillar Two questions to Amanda Toms, Acting First Assistant
Secretary Strategic Policy].
If pressed: Nuclear Powered Submarine Taskforce
[Please direct any Nuclear Powered Submarine questions to Vice Admiral Mead].
If pressed: Has the Defence Industry Development Strategy included Public Consultations?
Over 120 organisations from across Australia have been consulted. Consultations
included a mix of face-to-face and virtual engagements. They were held:
with State and Territory Governments, primes, small and medium enterprises,
universities and peak industry groups; and
in every state and territory.
The key themes discussed as part of the consultations included:
attracting and retaining a skilled workforce;
growing the capacity of our industrial base in areas of priority; and
harnessing Australian innovation.
Defence may conduct additional consultations as the Defence Industry Development
Strategy is developed.
If pressed: Why did you not go out for broad public consultation?
The consultations were designed to elicit feedback on Defence’s industry policy to
inform the development of the Defence Industry Development Strategy.
It was not intended to be exhaustive, and included representatives from all key
stakeholder groups.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Defence may undertake additional consultations as the Defence Industry
Development Strategy is developed.
If pressed: What is the cost of developing the Defence Industry Development Strategy?
The Defence Industry Development Strategy is being developed by Defence staff.
However, Defence engaged an external service provider to assist with some of the
initial industry consultation.
The total expenditure for this contract was $229,077.22, including travel.
If pressed: Is there funding in the Defence Industry Development Strategy for programs to
develop industry, what will happen to existing grant programs?
The Defence Industry Development Strategy will examine different Government levers
to support Australian defence industry. It is too early to pre-empt the analysis that will
inform the Defence Industry Development Strategy.
If pressed: How can entities who were not consulted engage the Department?
Defence regularly engages with stakeholders, including defence industry, peak bodies
and State and Territory Governments.
If pressed: What has the consultation told you so far?
A range of themes have been identified from the consultation, including industry
requests for:
more clarity from Defence on its industrial capability priorities;
certainty on future demand;
shorter timeframes for, and simplification of, procurement processes; and
consistent communication in a language industry can understand (i.e. do not talk
in Defence terms but industry terms).
If pressed: When will the Defence Industry Development Strategy be released?
The Defence Industry Development Strategy will be released in the second part of this
year.
If pressed: When is the Defence Industry Development Strategy due to be delivered to
Government?
It is not appropriate to answer that question as it forms advice to Government.
If pressed: Will the Defence Industry Development Strategy talk about [topic]?
I do not wish to pre-empt the analysis that will inform the Defence Industry
Development Strategy.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Background
Since the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement was released, there has been
significant changes in our security, strategic and business environments. The
Defence Strategic Review, the establishment AUKUS, as well as the COVID-19 Pandemic
have underscored the importance of a sovereign industrial base and securing critical
defence capabilities.
As a result, whilst the key themes of the Defence Industry Policy Statement remain
appropriate, there is a need to revise the strategic approach to defence industry policy
to reflect the changing strategic drivers and lessons learnt since the release of the
Defence Industry Policy Statement.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
2022-23 Budget Estimates October and November: 28 November 2022
In
QoN 74, Defence Industry Strategy, Senator Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) asked
a range of questions on the development of the Strategy including timing, lead area,
consultation, funding and links to the Defence Strategic Review.
In
QoN 75,
Defence Industry Package, Senator Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) asked
if there are going to be any expenditure to Defence Industry Package related programs
and if so will the cuts make the current skills shortage in the Defence industry worse.
Inquiry into the management and assurance of integrity by consulting services: 23 March
2023
In
QoN 05, Budget Allocation, Senator Pocock (Greens, South Australia) asked how
many reports had been commissioned from consultants, and how many had been
publically released.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In October 2022, a media organisation sought access to documentation under FOI for a
copy of the current version of Question Time Briefs, including a brief related to the
Defence Industry Development Strategy. This decision was finalised in December 2022,
with an agreed version of the Question Time Brief released.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Recent Ministerial Comments
Address to the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Defence Industry Conference: The Assistant
Minister for Defence highlighted that the third critical element of the
Government’s defence reform agenda is the Strategy.
Address to Defence Industry Dinner 2023: The Deputy Prime Minister highlighted
the Government’s commitment to delivering a new Strategy.
Address to the ACCI Business Leaders Summit 2022: The Deputy Prime Minister
highlighted the Labor Government is committed to growing Australia’s industrial
base to provide the game-changing capabilities we need which is why they have
commissioned the Strategy.
Speech to Defence Industry Day 2022: The Assistant Minister for Defence
highlighted the Government’s commitment to delivering a new Strategy.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 23 January 2023, the Australian Defence Magazine interviewed the Minister for
Defence Industry (MINDI) the Hon. Pat Conroy MP.
On 27 February 2023, The United States Studies Centre published an article, Eight
Expectations for the AUKUS Announcement, which stated that an “important
component of the AUKUS costing will be Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy’s
Defence Industry Development Strategy, which will align defence procurement plans
with Australian industry participation”.
On 3 March 2023, The Geelong Advertiser published an article, DTC says government
should pick local winners if it’s serious about a homegrown defence industry, which
outlined frustrations from companies in the Australian defence supply chain. Minister
for Defence Industry the Hon. Pat Conroy MP was quoted saying “the Albanese
Government is committed to spending over 2 per cent of GDP on defence… [t]his
includes billions on Australian defence industry.
On 16 March 2023, the Australia- China Relations Institute published an article on
AUKUS, Visionary proposal or pipe dream? AUKUS poses challenges for Australia, which
included a discussion on Australia’s capacity constraints. It highlighted that while
“these [capacity] issues being discussed, and will be addressed in a more
comprehensive fashion in the upcoming Defence Industry Development Strategy. Yet
they continue to be understated”.
On 5 April 2023, The Australian published an article, We need advanced technology,
ready to use and deploy, written by Minister for Defence Industry the Hon. Pat Conroy,
where he highlighted the “Defence Industry Development Strategy… will set the
framework and principles for the direction of defence industry policy for what will be a
consequential decade for Australia’s national security”.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Division:
Defence Industry Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000652
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Dr Kate Cameron, Assistant Secretary
Kylie Wright, Acting First Assistant Secretary
Defence Industry Domestic Policy, Defence
Defence Industry Policy
industry Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 15 May 2023
Date: 15 May 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 16 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Budget Estimates
Topic Defence Industry Development Strategy
Senator David Fawcett
Question
On 23 January 2023, the Australian Defence Magazine interviewed the Minister for Defence
Industry (MINDI) the Hon. Pat Conroy MP.
On 27 February 2023, The United States Studies Centre published an article, Eight
Expectations for the AUKUS Announcement, which stated that an “important component of
the AUKUS costing will be Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy’s Defence Industry
Development Strategy, which will align defence procurement plans with Australian industry
participation”.
On 3 March 2023, The Geelong Advertiser published an article, DTC says government should
pick local winners if it’s serious about a homegrown defence industry, which outlined
frustrations from companies in the Australian defence supply chain. Minister for Defence
Industry the Hon. Pat Conroy MP was quoted saying “the Albanese Government is committed
to spending over 2 per cent of GDP on defence… [t]his includes billions on Australian defence
industry.
On 16 March 2023, the Australia- China Relations Institute published an article on AUKUS,
Visionary proposal or pipe dream? AUKUS poses challenges for Australia, which included a
discussion on Australia’s capacity constraints. It highlighted that while “these [capacity] issues
being discussed, and will be addressed in a more comprehensive fashion in the upcoming
Defence Industry Development Strategy. Yet they continue to be understated”.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
On 5 April 2023, The Australian published an article, We need advanced technology, ready to
use and deploy, written by Minister for Defence Industry the Hon. Pat Conroy, where he
highlighted the “Defence Industry Development Strategy… will set the framework and
principles for the direction of defence industry policy for what will be a consequential decade
for Australia’s national security”.
Answer
The Government is developing a new Defence Industry Development Strategy, in line with its
election commitment. The Strategy will establish the framework for, and articulate the
principles and direction of, defence industry policy, and will be informed by the Defence
Strategic Review. The development of the Strategy is currently underway by the Department
of Defence and has already included consultations with industry and industry associations. It
is being prepared from within Departmental resources.
Budget Estimates
Topic Defence Industry Development Strategy
Senator David Fawcett
Question
With reference to the Incoming Government Brief; Part 5.1.8, page 84. $151.6 million for a
Defence Industry Package from 2021-22 to the end of the forward estimates. It includes
funding for the following programs: School Pathways, Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry
Grants, Defence Industry Internships, and Sovereign Industrial Capability Priority Grants;
1. Are there going to be any expenditure cuts to below Defence Industry Package related
programs?
a. School Pathways
b. Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry Grants
c. Defence Industry Internships
d. Sovereign Industry Capability Priority Grants
e. If so, which programs?
2. Does the Department believe that those cuts will make the current skills shortage issue in
the Defence industry worse?
Answer
No decision has been taken to reduce funding.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000652
Last updated: 16 May 2023
Defence Industry Development Strategy
FOI 789/22/23
Document 28
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
23 March 2023 - Inquiry into the management and assurance of integrity by consulting
services
Topic Consulting services
Senator Barbara Pocock
Question
How many reports did [agency] commission from consultants in the last three financial years:
a.
Of any reports commissioned in the last three financial years, how many have been
publicly released (in whole or in part)?
Answer
Defence does not specifically forecast consultancy services spend. The nature of consultancy
services is intermittent which makes forecasting a full year spend very difficult. Information
regarding expenditure on consultancy services is published in Defence’s Annual Report.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr Kate Cameron
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Secretary Defence Industry Domestic Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
JSCFADT final report on the ‘Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making.’
Acknowledge the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has
released its final report on the ‘Inquiry into international armed conflict decision
making.’
Thank the Defence Sub-committee for its consideration of this important issue
following the Deputy Prime Minister’s referral in September 2022.
The Government is considering its formal response in the coming months.
It would be premature to further comment on the report or its
recommendations.
If pressed: What is the status of the Government’s response to the JSCFADT inquiry?
We are currently preparing a draft response for Government consideration.
If pressed: When will Government’s response to the JSCFADT inquiry be tabled?
Following submission to the Government, it is a matter for the Government on the
suitable time for tabling.
Stress we are still preparing the response for Government consideration and
tabling must also follow careful consideration and endorsement by the
Prime Minister.
If pressed: JSCFADT recommendation for a new Joint Statutory Committee on Defence
It would be premature to further comment on this recommendation.
If pressed : Further on the recommendation to establish a new Joint Statutory Committee on
Defence
Defence has a long-standing commitment to operating with transparency and
accountability.
As part of this commitment, Defence engages with a number of existing parliamentary
committees that play an oversight role, including the Joint Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Parliament also has opportunities to scrutinise Executive decision-making relating to
deployment of the ADF, including through urgency motions, Senate Estimates and
Question Time.
If pressed: Other JSCFADT recommendations
It would be premature to further comment on these recommendations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
If pressed: Australian Greens Dissenting Report
Understand the Australian Greens have included a dissenting report to the final
JSFADT report.
It would be premature to comment on this report noting the Government must work
with Defence to consider its formal response.
If pressed: The Australian Green’s reintroduction of ‘Defence Amendment (Parliamentary
Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020’
Openness and transparency in government are at the heart of any democracy; and
decisions to commit Australia’s armed forces to international armed conflict are among
the gravest that a government is required to make.
Understand the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service)
Bill 2020 was restored to the notice paper in July 2022, but the Bill has not changed
since its previous submission in 2020.
The Bill was not supported by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation
Committee in November 2021 for a range of reasons which are set out in the report of
that Committee.
Understand The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service)
Bill 2020 did not proceed past through the second reading stage in the Senate on
29 March 2023.
Background
Since 1985, several draft bills have proposed conferring the authority to go to war from
the Executive to the Parliament.
Long-standing Westminster convention allows the Executive to exercise the discretion
to commit forces to operations overseas. In practice, this power is exercised by the
Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
On 30 September 2022, at the Deputy Prime Minister’s referral, the Joint Standing
Committee established an inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making
following a referral by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The first public hearing for the inquiry was held on 9 December 2022. Defence
witnesses included the Vice Chief of the Defence Force; Acting Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy and Industry; Head Military Strategic Commitments; Chief Counsel;
Acting Deputy Chief of Joint Operations; and Director General Military Legal Service.
The hearing followed a public submission process that closed on 18 November 2022.
Over 100 submissions were provided to the inquiry, including one from Defence.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
On 31 March 2023, the JSCFADT released its final inquiry report which includes seven
recommendations. While broadly reaffirming the prerogative of the Executive on
decisions to enter into international armed conflict, the report also outlines potential
steps, subject to Government agreement, that could facilitate enhanced parliamentary
debate and awareness following a decision by the Executive to deploy the ADF.
Attachment A provides the report’s recommendations in full.
The Government response is currently being drafted and consulted with other relevant
agencies. The response will then be submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister for
consideration and then to the Prime Minister for finalisation. Defence continues to
engage closely with ODPM on timelines.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
JSCFADT Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making: 19 December 2022
QoN 1, International Armed Conflict Decision Making, Senator the Hon David Fawcett
(Liberal, South Australia) and Julian Hill MP (Labor, Bruce) asked a question about the
committees report considerations.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
At Senate Estimates on 15 February 2023 Senator Wong reiterated the Government’s
position that decision-making remains with the executive. Relevant excerpts:
o ‘…the government’s view…is that the decision to commit troops and to deploy
the ADF…should remain a decision for the executive.’
o ‘…we do think parliament has an important role in terms of the scrutiny of
decision, accountability for the decision and for the conduct of operations.’
Letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Chair of the JSCFADT (27 September
2022) referring Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making. Relevant
excerpts:
o ‘[Under] Australia’s Westminster system of government, decisions about the
deployment of the ADF into international armed conflicts are within the
prerogative powers of the Executive. I am firmly of the view that these
arrangements are appropriate and should not be disturbed. They enable the
duly elected government of the day to act expeditiously on matters of utmost
national importance in the interests of the safety and security of our nation and
its people.’
o ‘There is, however, an important role of public discussion and scrutiny,
including by the Parliament, when the ADF is deployed in hostilities abroad.
Governments have typically, as a matter of practice rather than necessity,
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
provided explanations to the Parliament of their decisions to deploy the ADF
into hostilities abroad. This has provided an important opportunity for scrutiny
by the Parliament of such decisions.’
o ‘I note that the aforementioned practice was substantively strengthened under
the former Labor Government during Australia’s involvement in the conflict in
Afghanistan. In 2009, then Defence Minister Faulkner committed to providing
regular reports on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, a practice that was
subsequently adhered to throughout the life of the former Labor Government.
The frequency of such statements decreased significantly, however, from
around 2014 onwards.’
Relevant Media Reporting
Domestic media reporting was critical in response to comments by the Deputy Prime
Minister and the Foreign Minister in February2023 that the Government did not support
war powers reform.
In an article,
Can Australia's defence stay independent?, published in the Canberra
Times on 5 May 2023, journalist Cameron Leckie wrote about the release of the
Defence Strategic Review. It touches on issues raised by Australians for War Powers
Reform.
In an article,
Proposed legislative changes accelerate Australia’s lust for war,
published in the Sydney Sun on 26 April 2023, journalist Bevan Ramsden touches on
the recommendations released from the recent inquiry into war powers reform.
In an opinion piece,
Alison Broinowski | Who makes the call to send us to war should
Australia be engaged in conflict with China, published in The Mercury on 16 April
2023, former diplomat Alison Broinowski discusses the recommendations from the
inquiry.
In an article,
Rules of war decision-making and transparency ‘need amending’,
parliamentary committee says, published in The Australian on 31 March 2023,
journalist Joe Kelly outlines the report’s key recommendations and debates the rules of
war decision-making based on the report.
In an article,
No veto powers, but parliament should debate when Australia goes to
war: report,
published in The Age on 31 March 2023, journalist Matthew Knot noted
the release of the joint standing committee’s report, which will be carefully considered
by Government in due course.
In an article,
One person can decide if Australia goes to war. Here's why that needs to
change,
published in The Age on 20 March 2023, a member of the Australians for War
Powers organisation draws on the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War to advocate for
reform to improve transparency, scrutiny and accountability for decision making on
entering conflict.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
In an article,
Labor’s opposition to Iraq war ‘vindicated’, Richard Marles says, published in
The Guardian on 20 March 2023, journalist Daniel Hurst highlighted comments made
by DPM Marles in an interview coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War.
Comments by President of the Australian for War Powers Reform organisation Dr
Alison Broinowski, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John and independent MP Andrew
Wilkie were also included, all of which advocated for increased parliamentary control
over decision making.
In an analysis,
What would war with China look like for Australia? Part 2 published in ABC
News publications on 21 February 2023, journalist John Lyons wrote about what a
potential war with China would look like. The author made reference to the JSCFADT
inquiry and critiqued the view that parliament should not have authority to decide on
Australia’s involvement in conflict.
In an article,
Defence says the Parliament should have no say on whether Australia goes to
war,
published in Crikey on 13 December 2022, journalist Maeve McGregor compares
Defence’s position with that of war power reform advocates, academics and law
experts. The articles notes that of the 111 public submissions to the inquiry, only three
entirely opposed parliamentary oversight or control for decisions on entering armed
conflict.
In an article,
Call for vote before Aussies sent to war,
published in The West Australian
on 13 December 2022 Tess Ikonomou highlights arguments put forward by the
Australians for War Powers Reform organisation, which advocate for increased
transparency of the decision-making process. They argue that top secret information
would not be compromised if parliamentary debate was held on the issue.
In an article,
Government must retain unfettered power to send Australians to war,
published in ASPI Strategist publications on 8 December 2022, Tess Ikonomou
advocates that decisions on the deployment of the ADF should remain the prerogative
of the Government in line with the constitution and long standing precedent. Agreeing
with Defence’s submission to the inquiry, the article states that pre-notification of ADF
deployments to Parliament would put ADF personnel at risk, weaken our reliability
from ally and partner perspectives, harm deterrence and give advantage to
adversaries.
In an article,
We need to talk about war decisions, published in The Lowy Interpreter
publications on 8 December 2022, Josh Wilson raises criticisms on past decisions to
deploy ADF into armed conflict and notes historical examples to argue that change to
current arrangement is necessary. It also notes that similar reforms have been pursued
in other democracies such as the US and UK.
In an article,
War decisions must not change: Defence, published The West Australian on
6 December 2022, Tess Ikonomou outlines the arguments put forward by Defence at
the JSCFADT inquiry and notes that the Greens remain committed to introducing war
power legislation. (Syndicated)
In an article,
The way to keep Australia out of a losing war in our region, published in the
Canberra Times on 22 October 2022, Alison Broinowski notes the Deputy Prime
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
Minister’s letter of referral for the JSCFADT inquiry and states that positions on War
Powers reform vary across parties.
Division:
Strategic Policy Division
PDR No:
SB23-000651
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Hugh Passmore, a/AS, Strategic Policy and
Air Commodore Matt Hegarty, a/FAS,
Guidance
Strategic Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 15 May 2023
Date: 15 May 2023
Consultation: International Policy Division
Date: 10 May 2023
s47E(d)
, AS Global Partners
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Consultation: Defence Legal Division
Date: 10 May 2023
Anna Rudziejewski, Defence General Council Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Consultation: Joint Support Services
Date: 10 May 2023
Air Commodore Patrick Keane, Director
Mob:s22
Ph: s47E(d)
General Military Legal Service
Consultation: Military Strategic
Date: 10 May 2023
Commitments
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Commodore Don Dezentje, Director General
Military Strategic Commitments
Consultation: Joint Operations Command
Date: 10 May 2023
Commodore Peter Leavy, Chief of Staff HQ
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Joint Operations Command
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 16 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, DEPSEC, Strategy, Policy and Industry
Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000651
Last updated: 17 May 2023
Inquiry into armed conflict decision making
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 29
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
JSCFADT Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making
Senator the Hon David Fawcett and Julian Hill MP
Question
SENATOR FAWCETT: ‘I'd welcome Defence's views, on notice, as to how they could see [a
process similar to PJCIS, as recommended by the November 2018 JSCFADT report] informing,
in a timely and classified manner, the two parties of government so that a decision to deploy
troops actually had a degree of parliamentary oversight in a controlled manner, which would
give the public the same confidence that they have around the operation of our national
intelligence agencies.’
JULIAN HILL MP:
‘My supplementary question is: if the committee was of a mind to consider
such a proposal, what might be the considerations which, from a security and defence point
of view, we would need to be cognisant of?’
Answer
Defence has a longstanding commitment to operating with transparency and with
accountability. As part of this commitment, Defence already engages with a number of
existing parliamentary committees that play an oversight role, including the Joint Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and the Senate Standing Committees on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Parliament also has opportunities to scrutinise Executive
decision-making relating to deployment of the ADF, including through urgency motions,
Senate Estimates and Question Time.
The role and functions of the PJCIS are constituted under Part 4 and Schedule 1 of the
Intelligence Services Act 2001 (the Act). The primary functions of the PJCIS are to review of
the administration and expenditure of specific intelligence agencies and to review the
operation of specific legislation. The activities of the Committee are limited and must not
require the disclosure of operationally or otherwise sensitive information. Committee
membership is comprised of 11 members, five of whom must be Senators and six of whom
must be members of the House of Representatives, with the majority of Committee
members required to be from Government.
The establishment of an additional parliamentary committee to inform, and provide
parliamentary oversight of, decisions to deploy the ADF beyond existing arrangements is a
matter for the Government and Parliament. As stated in Defence’s submission, Defence
assesses that current Executive-led decision-making arrangements, as they relate to ADF
deployments into international armed conflicts, remain appropriate.
Relevant security factors in considering any proposal to establish a PJCIS-like body would
include the critical importance of maintaining timely and flexible decision-making for ADF
deployments, and ensuring the ongoing confidentiality of highly classified information. Any
such proposal would also need to consider the potential impacts on the ADF’s operational
security; the ADF’s relative strategic and tactical advantages over adversaries; and Australia’s
international credibility as a security and intelligence partner.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Hugh Passmore
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Strategic Policy and Guidance
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
8
OFFICIAL
FOI 789/22/23
Document 29
Attachment A – JSCFADT List of Recommendations
Attachment 1
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that in implementing these recommendations the Government
reaffirm that decisions regarding armed conflict including war or warlike operations are
fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive, while acknowledging the key role of parliament
in considering such decisions, and the value of improving the transparency and
accountability of such decision-making and the conduct of operations.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Handbook be amended to clarify that:
• Executive power in relation to armed conflict and the deployment of military force
flows from section 61 of the Constitution
• In the modern era, Executive power is in practice exercised collectively via the
National Security Committee of the Cabinet, whose decisions can be given effect via
section 8 of the Defence Act or by advice to the Governor-General as Commander in
Chief under section 68 of the Constitution
• In the event of war or warlike operations:
o It is preferable that section 68 of the Constitution be utilised, particularly in
relation to conflicts that are not supported by resolution by the United Nations
Security Council, or an invitation of a sovereign nation given that complex
matters of legality in public international law may arise in respect of an overseas
commitment of that nature
o A written Statement be published and tabled in the Parliament setting out the
objectives of such major military operations, the orders made and its legal basis
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends the Government include a new section in the Cabinet
Handbook outlining expectations for practices to be followed in the event of a decision to
engage in major international armed conflict including war or warlike operations. This should
include:
• a requirement that the Parliament be recalled as soon as possible to be advised,
unless this was not possible due to extenuating and appropriate circumstances (e.g., it
was unsafe for the Parliament to meet due to conflict)
• a requirement that the Executive facilitate a debate in both Houses of Parliament at
the earliest opportunity, either prior to deployment of the Australian Defence Force or
within thirty (30) days of deployment. Debate should occur after a formal ministerial
statement is made which explains the reasons for the operation, based on the 2010
Gillard model, as well as a statement of compliance with international law and advice
as to the legality of the operation
These practices should contain the caveat that the Governor-General is able to approve
deferral of any of these requirements in specific circumstances, such as high risks to national
security or imminent threat to Australian territories or civilian lives.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends the Government introduce standing resolutions of both Houses
of Parliament to establish Parliament’s expectations in relation to accountability for decisions
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
FOI 789/22/23
Document 29
in relation to international armed conflict, providing for sensible exemptions to enable timely
Attachment 1
and flexible national security responses and requiring at a minimum that, when war or warlike
operations are occurring:
• a Statement to both Houses of Parliament be made at least annually from the Prime
Minister and Government Senate Leader and debate facilitated
• an Update to both Houses of Parliament be provided at other times during the year (at
least twice) from the Minister for Defence and Minister representing the Minister for
Defence in the other Chamber and debate facilitated
These practices should be replicated in the Cabinet Handbook.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends the Government:
• revert to a traditional approach whereby Defence white papers and national security or
strategy updates should be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 30 days of their
presentation to the Minister
• consider and apply mechanisms to codify this practice, such as embedding them in
the Cabinet Handbook or by Standing Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends the Government introduce legislation to establish a Joint
Statutory Committee on Defence to supersede and enhance the Defence related functions
currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
This committee should have its powers set out in legislation, including oversight and
accountability functions in relation to the Australian Defence Force, the Department of
Defence and specified portfolio agencies including:
• scrutiny of Defence portfolio annual reports
• consideration of white papers, strategy, planning and contingencies
• scrutiny of Defence capability development, acquisitions, and sustainment
• consideration of matters relating to Defence personnel and veterans’ affairs
• inquiry into matters referred by the Minister for Defence or either House of Parliament
• general parliamentary oversight of war or warlike operations, including ongoing
conflicts and involvement in significant non-conflict-related operations domestically
and internationally
The proposed committee should be explicitly permitted to request and receive classified
information and general intelligence briefings while also being subject to clear legislative
constraints to its mandate, including restrictions on access to:
• individual domestic intelligence reports
• intelligence sourced from foreign intelligence bodies where such provision would
breach international agreements
• detail regarding operational matters or information regarding highly sensitive
capabilities or protected identities, except where specifically authorised by the Minister
for Defence
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
FOI 789/22/23
Document 29
Statutory restrictions should be placed on members, their staff (one of whom should be able
Attachment 1
to obtain a security clearance at minimum NV2 level) and secretariat staff regarding the
disclosure or publication of classified information with appropriate penalties including
imprisonment for breaches.
Notwithstanding the proposed committee’s powers and ability to receive and request
classified briefings, the legislation should also provide that the Minister for Defence should
have an overarching power to veto the provision of any classified information to the
committee whenever the Minister considers that the provision of the classified information in
question would compromise national security.
The committee’s membership should be appointed by the Prime Minister, and, in consultation
with the Leader of the Opposition, constituted by:
• Six Government members and five non-Government members, with a minimum of:
o One Government Member of the House and one Government Senator
o One Opposition Member of the House and one Opposition Senator
• One Government Member as committee chair
The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence should be provided with the ability to authorise
specified members of Parliament (Ministers or senior Opposition Shadow Ministers) to be
part of particular meetings, briefings or activities of the committee, during which they would
not be considered members of the committee but would be able to participate subject to the
same statutory restrictions regarding the disclosure or publication of classified information as
committee members.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that, subject to Recommendation 6, the Cabinet Handbook
codify an expectation that the Prime Minister or Minister for Defence will facilitate appropriate
briefings of the Defence Committee regarding the conduct of significant military operations,
subject to ongoing national security considerations as determined by the Prime Minister and
Minister for Defence. This would include necessary authorisations to enable Ministers or
senior Opposition Shadow Ministers to participate in such meetings.
OFFICIAL
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000412
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Attempts to recruit former ADF pilots
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 30
This work is being progressed as a priority and any legislative proposals will be
introduced by the Government as soon as possible.
All Defence personnel are required to acknowledge the applicable laws of the
Commonwealth. This acknowledgment includes specific references to the applicability
of law and policy post-employment.
On leaving Defence, personnel sign a Declaration of Secrecy on Cessation of Duties that
reinforces that they are still under an obligation not to disclose official information to
any unauthorised person.
Former Defence personnel who retain a security clearance also continue to have
security and reporting obligations.
Australian law already criminalises certain actions relating to involvement with a
foreign military, but whether any of these offenses would apply would be a matter for
the Attorney-General’s Department and law enforcement agencies.
Defence is working with the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce in the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation to support their investigations and prevent any
compromise of Defence information.
For national security reasons, Defence is not able to provide details of the
investigations in an unclassified forum.
If pressed: What did the Defence inquiry find?
As the inquiry report is classified, Defence cannot comment on the recommendations
specifically, but in general terms the inquiry made eight recommendations related to:
strengthening internal Defence training and employment security policies;
expanding outreach with the veteran community to ensure they understand their
enduring obligations; and
establishing channels for former Defence personnel to report security incidents
or seek personal security advice.
The Inquiry’s ninth recommendation related to developing, with other departments
and agencies, legislation to provide the Government with greater ability to control and
prevent the transfer of sensitive Defence information to foreign militaries.
If pressed: What has the Deputy Prime Minster done with the report?
The Deputy Prime Minister directed Defence to implement the inquiry
recommendations as a priority, which Defence is currently doing.
Defence has completed work on four of the nine recommendations, and expects that
the remainder will be closed by October.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Peter West
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: First Assistant Secretary
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: : s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000412
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Attempts to recruit former ADF pilots
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 30
If pressed: What legislative changes is Defence preparing?
Defence is working with other departments and agencies on draft legislation for
Government consideration, and introduction as soon as possible.
The legislative approach has not yet been finalised with Government, so Defence is not
able to provide details on the draft legislation.
Defence is also working with other departments and agencies to review and strengthen
existing legislation.
If pressed: How does Defence protect against the Foreign Intelligence Service threat?
Defence has a range of security policies and procedures to protect its personnel,
information, capabilities and assets from intelligence collection.
Defence is working with national security agencies to provide information on this threat
to Defence personnel and encourage reporting on any contacts of concern, by both
current and former ADF members.
If pressed: Security checks prior to and during employment
For all Defence personnel, the personnel security clearance vetting process evaluates
risks related to ‘external loyalties, influences and associations’.
As part of the security vetting process, Defence personnel acknowledge applicable laws
of the Commonwealth relating to official secrecy.
Defence personnel and security clearance holders have an obligation to report any
approaches or contacts with a foreign national that seems suspicious, unusual or
persistent in any way, or that becomes ongoing.
Outgoing personnel are reminded of their continuing obligations under the
Crimes Act
1914 and other relevant legislation, prior to cessation of employment.
Defence service providers or contractors that have access to classified information
must hold an appropriate security clearance, which requires acknowledgment of the
applicable laws of the Commonwealth including official secrecy.
Background
Defence Inquiry Recommendations
Defence provided the inquiry report to the Deputy Prime Minister on
14 December 2022, who endorsed all recommendations and directed Defence to
implement the inquiry recommendations as a priority.
In-line with the review findings, Defence is also preparing new legislation to provide the
Government with greater ability to control and prevent the transfer of sensitive
Defence information to foreign militaries.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Peter West
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: First Assistant Secretary
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: : s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000412
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Attempts to recruit former ADF pilots
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 30
Security Vetting Checks
The vetting ‘external loyalties, influences and associations’ assessment involves an
examination of connections or associations with:
foreign entities; or
individuals or groups of a national security concern whose activities are contrary
to Australia’s national interests.
Timeline of Significant Events
07 February 2023, the Prime Minister wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister agreeing to
legislative reform. Defence is currently progressing this work.
29 January 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking
authority to bring forward legislation.
14 December 2022, Defence provided the inquiry report to the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister.
28 October 2022, Defence provided the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister with Terms
of Reference for an internal inquiry into the adequacy of current policies and
procedures to prevent and discourage the recruitment of former Australian Defence
Force personnel by hostile foreign actors.
21 October 2022, Defence provided classified advice to the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister on foreign actors targeting former Australian Defence Force personnel.
19 October 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister directed Defence to investigate claims
former ADF personnel may have been approached to provide military training to
foreign agencies.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
QoN 1897, Former ADF personnel training other countries, Senator David Shoebridge
(Greens, New South Wales) asked six questions regarding personnel training other
countries.
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 4, Defence awareness of ex-ADF personnel training, Senator James Paterson
(Liberal, Victoria) asked when Defence became aware of issues with ex-ADF personnel
training.
Freedom of Information Requests
On 24 February 2023 Defence received a request from lawyers acting on behalf of an
individual, for a copy of the report into the adequacy of its policies and procedures
concerning the employment of former ADF personnel commissioned by the Defence
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Peter West
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: First Assistant Secretary
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: : s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000412
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Attempts to recruit former ADF pilots
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 30
Minister Richard Marles in November 2022.
Access to the documentation was denied.
Correspondence advising of denial of request was released on 28 March 2023.
On 15 February 2023, Defence received a request from lawyers acting on behalf of an
individual, for all documents pertaining to the request for information or assistance
made by the United States of America on 23 June 2016 to Australia in relation Mr
Daniel Edmund Duggan (‘the Request’), to which Australia responded on 14 March
2018.
Access to the documentation was denied under Section 7(2A)(a)(vi) of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982, as documents requested were considered exempt
intelligence agency documents. The FOI was considered as withdrawn.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 15 February 2023, during an interview with
Ben Fordham 2GB, The Deputy Prime
Minister announced the establishment of new legislation as a recommendation of the
inquiry.
Relevant Media Reporting
Australian media has reported extensively on foreign actors targeting Defence
personnel.
On 26 March 2023, The
Guardian reported on Australia’s inspector general of
intelligence and security launching a formal investigation into the ongoing
incarceration of Daniel Duggan.
On 20 March 2023, The
Guardian and
Reuters reported on concerns put forward by
Daniel Duggan’s legal team regarding a fair trial in the United States, and concerns
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was involved in luring Mr Duggan back to
Australia through provision of a security clearance.
On 09 and 10 November 2022
multiple outlets reported on statement about
examination of adequacy of current Defence policies and procedures.
On 18 October 2022
multiple outlets reported on the threat alert disseminated by the
UK and their confirmed concerns around ex-members’ recruitment to foreign
militaries.
Division:
Security Division
PDR No:
SB23-000412
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Simon Buckley, Assistant Secretary, Security Peter West, First Assistant Secretary,
Policy and Services
Security Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Peter West
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: First Assistant Secretary
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: : s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000412
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Attempts to recruit former ADF pilots
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 30
Date: 03 April 2023
Date: 03 April 2023
Consultation: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 11 April 2023
Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary, Security and Estate
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
2022-23 Budget estimates
Defence awareness of ex-ADF personnel training
Senator James Paterson
Question:
CHAIR: Has the department been made aware from allies or other countries of this
behaviour?
Mr West: We are aware of the press reporting out of the UK and the fact that they have
highlighted these security risks, but it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on the details of
the investigation and any cooperation with allies.
CHAIR: But you are aware, okay. And was this something that the department was made
aware of before it made it to the media?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Chair.
Senator PATERSON: I acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister's statement this morning and
the sensitivity of these issues. I also acknowledge that the opposition has been offered a
briefing on this, and I'm appreciative of that, on behalf of opposition members. But I do just
want to ask some follow-up questions, given the chair has opened up this issue for
questioning, and I'm grateful that you've been candid in your responses to him. Just on that
last question that you answered from him, to be clear, the department was aware of this
issue before the press reports in the Australian?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator PATERSON: When did the department first hear about this issue?
Ms Perkins: I might take that on notice, Senator, both to be precise but also to engage with
other security agencies on how much they're prepared to share.
Answer
Defence first became aware of this issue as a result of a security report submitted on 29 June
2021.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Peter West
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: First Assistant Secretary
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group/Service: Security and Estate
Phone: : s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
6
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
Australia and China agreed that it was important to rebuild trust and continue
defence dialogue.
Our goal continues to be the stabilisation of the bilateral relationship.
If pressed: Will there be further engagement with the People’s Liberation Army?
Australia is seeking further dialogue through the Secretary/CDF Defence Strategic
Dialogue.
Further dialogue is key to stabilising the relationship.
No further commitments have been made.
s33(a)(iii)
China’s expanding presence and growing military capabilities
[Refer to SB23-000499 Regional Military Trends for greater detail on China’s military
capabilities.]
Defence closely monitors military capability developments in the region, including
those of China.
China’s military build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the
end of the Second World War.
This build-up is occurring without transparency or reassurance to the Indo-Pacific
region of China’s strategic intent.
China’s assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea threatens the global
rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific in a way that adversely impacts Australia’s
national interests.
China is also engaged in strategic competition in Australia’s near neighbourhood.
Australia wants to see China exercise its power in a way that enhances stability, and
reinforces the international rules-based order.
We expect Beijing to be transparent about its capability and intentions.
If pressed: People’s Liberation Army attempted recruitment of ADF pilots
[Deferral to Deputy Secretary Security and Estate Group for specifics on the review
requested by the Deputy Prime Minister.]
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
Recent United States interaction with Chinese surveillance balloon
We share the United States concerns about the presence of foreign surveillance aircraft
in US sovereign airspace without permission and appreciate US efforts to manage this
issue in a careful way.
Australia remained in close contact with US counterparts as the high altitude Chinese
balloon tracked across the continental United States.
If pressed: How would Australia respond if there were a similar occurrence over Australia?
Not going to comment on a hypothetical scenario, but the Government would respond
to protect our sovereign interests.
Taiwan
Australia remains committed to our one China policy, and our approach to Taiwan has
not changed.
In accordance with our one China policy, Australia does not have a military-military or
defence relationship with Taiwan.
Any resolution of cross-Strait differences should be peaceful and in accordance with
the will of the people on both sides, without resorting to threats or coercion.
[For further information refer to SB23-000468 Taiwan.]
ADF activities in the South China Sea
The ADF has a long history of operating in the South China Sea as part of Australia’s
robust program of international engagement with countries in and around the region.
Our position on the South China Sea is consistent and clear.
We continue to speak up – and act – in our national interest, to support a region
which is open, secure and prosperous.
In 2022, the ADF undertook routine port visits, routine maritime surveillance flights,
and cooperative activities with partners, and transits to and between Southeast and
North Asia.
We will continue to conduct these activities across 2023.
Our cooperative activities have included combined maritime activities with the
United States, Japan and Canada. These activities are always conducted in
accordance with international law.
We have a substantial interest in the stability of the South China Sea and the norms and
laws that govern it.
83 per cent of Australian merchandise trade [by value] is carried by sea.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
Our operations support these freedoms and underpin prosperity by ensuring
waterways are open for trade.
ADF vessels and aircraft exercise Australia’s rights under international law to freedom
of navigation and overflight, including in the South China Sea.
In the current environment, it is vital parties refrain from destabilising actions as these
have the potential to provoke escalation.
All parties should comply with international law, particularly the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
If asked: Has the ADF experienced recent unsafe encounters with the People’s Liberation
Army?
The People’s Liberation Army’s expansion in size and operating areas means the ADF is
operating in closer contact with the People’s Liberation Army more often.
The ADF’s priority at all times is to conduct activities safely and professionally,
and in accordance with international law.
Sometimes, we do have concerns and have experienced unsafe and
unprofessional behaviour by the People’s Liberation Army.
When this occurs, we raise our concerns with China directly, both in Beijing and
Canberra, including at ministerial level.
In response to an unsafe intercept of a RAAF P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance
aircraft on 26 May 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister stated publicly [6 June 2022] that
this was a ‘very dangerous’ incident, in which the Australian P-8 crew ‘responded
professionally and in a manner which would make us all feel proud.’
Are Australia’s activities in the South China Sea intended to send a message to China?
No. The ADF conducts regional presence activities as a matter of course, and has
operated in the South China Sea for decades.
Our deployments are not directed at any particular country.
Is China militarising the South China Sea?
We regularly raise our concerns with China about the militarisation of disputed features
in the South China Sea through diplomatic channels.
As well as actions to disrupt other countries’ resource exploitation activities and the
dangerous and coercive use of coast guard vessels and so called ‘maritime militias’.
Are Australia’s activities in the South China Sea contributing to tensions in the region?
ADF vessels and aircraft have been operating in the South China Sea for decades.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
Our pattern of activities has been longstanding and consistent, and reflect Australia’s
commitment to the rules and norms that are vital to the stability and prosperity of the
region.
Is the Government response to the Defence Strategic Review aimed at China?
The Government’s response to the Defence Strategic Review is not directed at a
specific country, but at the maintenance of regional stability.
The Government’s response to the Review is about shaping a region that reflects our
national interests and our shared regional interests.
Those interests lie in a region that operates by rules, standards and norms.
A stable relationship between Australia and China is in the interests of both
countries and the broader region.
Background
On 24 April 2023, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Mao Ning, was
asked for China’s reaction to the release of the Defence Strategic Review in a routine
press conference. Mao stated: “China pursues a defensive national defense policy and
stays committed to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and the wider world. We do
not pose a challenge to any country. We hope certain countries will not use China as an
excuse for military build-up and will refrain from hyping up the “China threat”
narrative.”
On Wednesday 22 March 2023, the Department of Defence hosted a delegation from
the People’s Liberation Army in Canberra for a half day Defence Coordination Dialogue.
This was the first official dialogue between the Department of Defence and the
People’s Liberation Army since 2019.
The Deputy Prime Minister has not yet met with the current Minister of National
Defense, General Li Shangfu.
The Deputy Prime Minister has met with General Wei, former Chinese Minister of
National Defense on two occasions – at the Shangri-La Dialogue (12 June 2022) and at
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defence Ministers Meeting Plus
(22 November 2022).
The Prime Minister met President Xi on 15 November 2022 at the G20, discussing a
range of issues including Taiwan, Xinjiang and trade sanctions.
The Foreign Minister met with China’s former State Councillor and Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, in Beijing on 21 December 2022.
The last Secretary/CDF-level Defence Strategic Dialogue was held in Sydney on
14 November 2019.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
At 0641 Sunday 5 February 2023 AEDT, the US military downed a high-altitude balloon
originating from China within US territorial waters. The balloon had been tracking
across the United States for several days, including above sensitive US military facilities.
s33(a)(iii)
.
The ADF undertook five maritime South China Sea transits in 2022: 13-14 February-
HMAS Arunta and USS Ralph Johnson (bilateral with the United States),
14-15 March-HMAS Arunta, USS Momsen and JS Yuudachi (trilateral with the
United States and Japan), 2-3 June – HMAS Parramatta (unilateral), 10-11 July – HMAS
Sydney (unilateral) and 4-5 October – HMA Ships Arunta, Hobart and Stalwart with
HMCS Winnipeg, JS Suzutsuki, JS Kirisame, USS Higgins and USS Milius (coordinated
activity in multiple task groups over two days with Canada, Japan and the
United States).
On 15 November 2022, ABC News reported two Australian warships had been closely
tracked by the People’s Liberation Army in October while transiting the South China Sea
with the United States and Japan, but noted Defence’s comment that all interactions
were safe and professional.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In November 2022, an individual sought access under FOI to documents on expected
Australian casualties in the event of a war between the United States and China
received by the Minister for Defence and/or his office.
No documents were found to be
within scope.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 4 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to queries about a Chinese
spy balloon, commenting “he was unaware of any such Chinese surveillance across
Australian skies” and that this was “an issue being managed between the US and
China” and on 5 February 2023 said that “Chinese violation of sovereignty was a
serious matter for which China needed to provide further explanation".
On 17 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to a question about
military conduct in the South China Sea in an interview with ABC News.
On 6 December 2022, following the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations
(AUSMIN) in Washington DC, Ministers Marles and Wong and Secretaries Blinken and
Austin issued a joint statement reiterating their strong opposition to destabilising
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
actions in the South China Sea, including attempts to disrupt freedom of navigation,
militarisation of disputed features and dangerous encounters at sea and in the air.
On 30 November 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that disputes in the South
China Sea should be resolved through peaceful negotiation.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 25 April 2023,
Sky News reported on China’s response to the release of the
Defence Strategic Review. This report included a statement from Chinese Foreign
Ministry’s spokeswoman Mao Ning saying that “’some countries’ should stop using
China as an excuse to boost its military and not ‘hype up’ baseless Chinese threat
theories”.
On 06 March 2023,
The Australian reported on comments from Chief of Air Force and
Air Commander Australia on unsafe interactions in the South China Sea, which included
the false claim that Australia pre-notifies China of sensitive operational activities.
From 04-06 February 2023, the
Australian Financial Review, The Australian and other
outlets reported on a Chinese surveillance balloon operating over United States skies,
the United States shooting down this balloon on 5 February and on United States and
Australian responses to this incident.
On 30 November 2022,
The Washington Post and
ABC News reported on the release
of the United States Department of Defense Annual Report to Congress –
Military and
Security Developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2022. The Report refers
to the unsafe intercept of an ADF P-8A aircraft in 2022, highlighting that chaff released
from China’s J-16 aircraft was ingested into the engine of the our P-8A.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000413
Last updated: 15 May 2023
China and South China Sea
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnson; Hugh Jeffrey
Document 31
Division:
International Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000077
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Director East Asia, International
Samantha Higgins, Acting First Assistant
Policy Division
Secretary International Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s47E(d)
Ph: s22
Date: 12 May 2023
Date: 15 May 2023
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 01 May 2023
Amy Hawkins, Deputy Lead Defence Strategic
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Review
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 16 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy and Industry
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director, East Asia
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Americas, United Kingdom and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
If climate change accelerates over the coming decades it has the potential to
significantly increase risk in our region.
s33(a)(i)
The Defence Strategic Review also notes that climate events already place concurrency
pressures on the ADF and this has negatively affected force preparedness, readiness
and combat effectiveness.
Defence is frequently required to make large contributions to domestic disaster
relief efforts as well as support to the civil community.
Defence is not structured or appropriately equipped to act as a domestic disaster
recovery agency concurrently with its core function, in any sustainable way.
Government has agreed-in-principle to the Defence Strategic Review recommendation
that Defence should be the last resort for domestic aid to the civil community, except
in extreme circumstances.
During a natural disaster, States or Territories can request Commonwealth assistance,
including ADF assistance, through the National Emergency Management Agency. Such
requests are known as Defence Assistance to the Civil Community.
This occurred most recently during the 2022-2023 floods in New South Wales,
Queensland and Western Australia.
The ADF will continue to provide regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
while managing the risks of concurrency pressures. For further information on ADF
preparedness refer to SB23-000443.
What is Defence’s position on climate change?
The Defence Strategic Review states that climate change is a national security issue,
recognising the importance of building national resilience to overcome the challenges
from climate change.
Defence supports the Government in implementing its agenda. This includes reducing
emissions, accelerating our transition to clean energy, adapting to a changing
environment, and building resilience against more frequent and severe weather events.
The 2016 Defence White Paper identified climate change as one of the causes of state
fragility and a key driver of Australia’s security environment to 2035 and beyond.
The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan enhanced planning
and investment to increase strategic lift, situational awareness and resilience for both
domestic and regional disaster relief operations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
What is Defence doing to address and mitigate climate change?
Defence’s role, consistent with Government policy, is to:
Ensure our capabilities can perform well amidst the impacts of climate change.
Prepare for long-term challenges, including from greater demands for disaster
relief in a more competitive security environment.
Look for opportunities to lower our environmental footprint in ways that also
deliver operational benefits.
The Defence Strategic Review recognises that the clean energy transition will be critical
for decarbonisation efforts.
Defence will accelerate its transition to clean energy, as directed by the
Defence Strategic Review, with a plan to be presented to the Government by
2025.
Defence tracks its greenhouse gas emissions and has a variety of initiatives under way,
including testing alternate fuel sources with lower emissions profiles and changes to
land management practices. Refer to SB23-000424 – Climate Risk Mitigation and
Adaptation for further information on emissions.
For example, at exercise Pitch Black 2022, Defence announced it would build two solar
farms at RAAF Base Darwin and Robertson Barracks in the Northern Territory that will
provide up to 40 per cent of each base’s power requirements.
At the 2022 Australia – United States Ministerial Consultations held on
06 December 2022 in Washington, Australia and the United States committed to
pursuing action on climate change as a pillar of the United States-Australia Alliance.
The Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of
Defense will strengthen information sharing and exchange best practices to
accelerate progress towards climate resiliency objectives.
At the 2023 Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations held on
02 February 2023 in Portsmouth, Australia and the United Kingdom committed to
reducing and mitigating the climate impacts of our respective defence activities.
The Australian Department of Defence and United Kingdom Ministry of Defence
will hold a senior officials meeting in 2023.
How does Defence support the region in addressing climate change?
Defence works with our Pacific partners to enhance their resilience, including through
infrastructure development that is environmentally sustainable, climate resilient and
supports Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief activity.
Working with the Republic of Fiji, Defence planned and redeveloped the
Blackrock Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Camp.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
Environmentally sustainable design features were incorporated into all aspects of
the redevelopment.
Defence also supports our region in extreme weather events and natural disaster relief.
For example, the ADF recently provided assistance to the Republic of Vanuatu
following Tropical Cyclones Judy and Kevin in March 2023.
Defence will continue to play an important role in humanitarian assistance.
Defence’s Pacific Support Vessel, ADV Reliant, will provide additional capability to
respond to the priorities of Pacific countries, building regional resilience and
facilitating humanitarian assistance and disaster management relief.
What is Defence’s role in disaster relief?
The ADF’s primary responsibility is to defend Australia and its national interest.
ADF capabilities are used to provide Defence Assistance to the Civil Community and
Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief support as directed by the Government.
Defence has established an Emergency Support Force in each state and territory. This
force, comprising about 130 ADF members, can provide command and control,
engineering, transport and logistics functions.
Background
Timeline of Significant Events.
On 24 April 2023, the Defence Strategic Review was released by the Prime Minister.
On 02 February 2023 the most recent Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial
Consultation was held in Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
On 06 December 2022 the most recent Australia-United States Ministerial
Consultations was held at the Pentagon.
In November 2022 the Office of National Intelligence led national climate assessment
was delivered to the office of the Prime Minister.
On 13 September 2022 the Climate Change Bill 2022 passed through both the Houses
of Parliament and received Royal assent.
On 22 June 2022, the Office of National Intelligence was publically announced as the
appointed lead agency on the national climate assessment.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
Office of National Intelligence Climate Risk Assessment
In line with the Government’s pre-election commitment, Office of National Intelligence
coordinated a national assessment on the implications of climate change for Australia’s
national security.
s33(a)(i)
The national assessment has been delivered to the Prime Minister.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In June 2022, a media organisation
sought access under Freedom of Information to
correspondence and briefings between the new Defence Minister and Defence on the
security implications of climate change, and how Defence can respond.
It was closed as
the only relevant document, the Incoming Government Brief, was released under a
separate Freedom of Information request.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 03 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister released the
Joint Statement on
Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations, committing to reducing and
mitigating the climate impacts of our respective defence activities.
On 08 December 2022, the Minister for Home Affairs delivered a
National Press Club
address noting the Department of Home Affairs will develop a cross-government
picture on the domestic implications of the climate and security environment.
On 07 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister released the
Joint Statement on
Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations 2022, committing to pursuing urgent action on
climate change as a new pillar of the United States-Australia Alliance.
On 04 August 2022, the Prime Minister issued a
Media release on the passing of the
Climate Change 2022 Bill through the House of Representatives.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
Relevant Media Reporting
On 25 April 2023,
The Conversation published an article criticising the Defence
Strategic Review for its lack of clarity on what Defence is doing about climate change.
On 05 April 2023,
The Australian, The Guardian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald
and
The Canberra Times all published comments by former Chief of Defence Force
Admiral Chris Barrie (Rtd) calling for the Government to release the Office of National
Intelligence climate risk assessment to the public.
On 24 March 2023, Australian Strategic Policy Institute published
The Threat Spectrum.
Journalists Afeeya Akhand, Luisa Gyhn, Marcus Schultz, and Shivangi Seth again
advocated for the release of a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence
risk assessment.
On 21 March 2023, Australian Strategic Policy Institute published
Government must be
up front with Australians about climate risk. Journalist Robert Glasser argued the
Government should be upfront regarding the threat of climate change, advocating
release of a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence risk assessment.
On 01 March 2023, The Conversation published
Political instability and damage to
infrastructure: how climate change could undermine Australia’s national security,
stating climate change is impacting critical infrastructure, straining Defence capacity
and possibly of increasing political instability in the region.
On 08 December 2022,
The Guardian published
Australia needs ‘wartime mobilisation’
response to climate crisis, security leaders say. Journalist Tobias Ide covered
statements from the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group made to a Defence
policy review.
On 06 December 2022,
The Guardian published
Australia and the United States are
firm friends on defence – now let’s turn that into world-beating climate action.
Journalist Peter J. Dean highlighted calls for deeper climate action in tandem with the
United States.
Division:
Strategic Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000414
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Catherine Bell, Acting Assistant Secretary
Amanda Toms, Acting First Assistant
National Security and Resilience
Secretary Strategic Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 31 March 2023
Date: 12 April 2023
Consultation: Department of Prime Minister Date: 31 March 2023
& Cabinet, s47F
, Acting Senior Mob: s47F
Ph: s47F
Adviser, Climate Change
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000414
Last updated: 27 April 2023
Climate Change
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Vice Admiral David Johnston; Hugh Jeffrey; Celia Perkins
Document 32
Consultation: Department of Home Affairs,
Date: 31 March 2023
s47F
, Acting Senior Director, National
Mob: s47F
Resilience Taskforce
Consultation: Department of Foreign Affairs Date: 31 March 2023
and Trade, s47F
, Director
Mob: s47F
Ph: s47F
Climate Change Mitigation and Investment
Consultation: The Office of National
Date: 31 March 2023
Intelligence, s47F
Ph: s47F
Consultation: Military Strategic
Date: 31 March 2023
Commitments, Commodore Don Dezentje,
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Director General Military Strategic
Commitments
Consultation: Force Design, Commodore
Date: 31 March 2023
Michael Turner, Director General Force
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Exploration
Consultation: International Policy Division,
Date: 31 March 2023
Lisa Clutterham, Acting Assistant Secretary
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
AUKEA
Consultation: Security & Estate Group, Lyn
Date: 31 March 2023
Harvey, A/AS Environment and Engineering
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 01 May 2023
Amy Hawkins, FAS Policy and Engagement
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 27 April 2023
Teresa Blair, Acting Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy,
and Industry
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: a/Assistant Secretary
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: National Security and Resilience
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
Why do you approve permits to countries known for human rights abuses?
Not every person or organisation in those countries is implicated in human rights
violations.
Not every controlled export is relevant to such allegations.
If the export does not raise a material risk to human rights, a permit may be approved.
If pressed: Can you guarantee that approved Australian Defence exports are not being used in
human rights abuses in Yemen?
To the best of my knowledge, these exports are not used in Yemen.
If a permit is approved, it is because those risks were not identified.
If pressed: Does Australia export loitering munitions, or kamikaze drones, to countries with
poor human rights records?
An export permit would be refused if overriding risks to Australia’s security, defence or
international relations were identified.
Australia assesses the risk of misuse, including diversion and alleged human rights abuses
as part of the export permit assessment process. A permit would be refused if these
overriding risks were identified.
Why doesn’t Defence apply blanket prohibition for countries with a poor human rights
record?
Defence Export Controls takes a case-by-case approach to all export applications,
carefully assessing each application on its own merits irrespective of the export
destination.
Exports may be granted because the goods or technology are not relevant to the risks
identified, are in support of low-risk entities, such as United Nations’ peacekeeping
activities, or are for legitimate commercial or sporting activities.
Export assessments also consider compliance with United Nations Security Council and
Australian autonomous sanctions [refer to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for
any specific sanction related questions].
Do any of these permits represent weapons sales?
Permit approvals should not be conflated with weapons sales.
Permits are required for a broad range of goods and technologies, such as
software, radios or chemicals that have legitimate civilian and commercial
purposes.
A permit would not be granted for weapons if there were concerns that they may be used
in a way inconsistent with Australia’s human rights obligations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
What is the approach to export permit transparency?
Defence remains committed to transparency measures that also protect commercially
sensitive information for Australian industry.
Defence publishes export permit statistics on the Defence Export Controls public
webpage.
These statistics reflect permit decisions only – not whether the export took place.
Our transparency measures reflect the relatively small size of the Australian industry
sector. Where information is too specific, this may “tip-off” business competitors to
market opportunities.
Transparency measures will vary between countries, proportionate to the nature
and scale of their industry sectors.
Background
Concerns are periodically raised by the media, Parliament and the community that
Australia may be exporting weapons to countries with poor human rights records
(particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). These media reports can also be
critical of the lack of transparency on the exact nature of the exports.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate Estimates (15 February 2023)
QoN 33, Defence Export Permits, Senator David Shoebridge (Greens, New South Wales)
asked when Defence Export Controls was established and for a breakdown of the
number of the total number of permits approved, refused and refused for reasons
including human rights in the last 5 years.
Budget Estimates (9 November 2022)
QoN 38, Defence Export Permits, Senator David Shoebridge (Greens, New South Wales)
asked for statistics on the number of export permits granted to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates in 2021 and 2022.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
On 09 March 2023, Philippa Lysaght from Save the Children sought access under
Freedom of Information to the total number of defence export licenses that have been
granted from Australia to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from
26 March 2015 to 1 March 2023.
The document was released on 11 April 2023.
In October 2022, a media outlet sought access under Freedom of Information to a
table of permits by year approved from January 2015 to October 2022 for Papua New
Guinea, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Timor-Leste, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau,
Samoa and Tonga.
The document was released on 24 November 2022.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
Recent Ministerial Comments
The Deputy Prime Minister has issued statements announcing gifting of lethal and non-
lethal aid to Ukraine.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 07 January 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
Weapons export permits
granted by Defence to send lethal technology to accused human rights violators.
Journalist Andrew Greene sought information regarding permits issued for Saudi
Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Indonesia. He also sought comment on the status of
the 2018 Defence Export Strategy, including the goal of making Australia a top 10
global arms exporter. The permit statistics were published in the article.
On 19 December 2022, the Adelaide Advertiser published an article titled,
Human
Rights Watch Australia urges federal government to end the export of military good to
Saudi Arabia and UAE. Journalist Gabriel Polychronis sought and reported on
information on the export destinations with the highest number of permits and how
human rights were considered in the decision to grant permits to Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates.
Division:
Defence Industry Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000532
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Alison Harriden, Acting Assistant Secretary
Stephen Moore, First Assistant Secretary,
Defence Export Controls
Defence Industry Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 03 April 2023
Date: 04 April 2023
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 06 April 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy, and
Industry Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Estimates 15 February 2023
Defence Export Controls
Senator David Shoebridge
Spoken Question:
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Was defence export controls established in 2018? Is that right?
Mr Moore: No, I would think it would be much earlier than that. I don't know the exact date.
We can get that for you.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: If we can go back five years for the operation of defence export
controls, are you aware how many, if any, defence exports were rejected by defence export
controls on the basis of human rights grounds, such as the military or the nation to which the
proposed export was being sought had a human rights record that led to the application
being rejected?
Mr Moore: I would have to take that on notice. I don't have the specific details about why
individual permit applications would have been rejected.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Could you identify on notice—year by year for both that question and
my next question—how many permits have been granted, how many applications for permits
have been rejected each year and the reasons for the rejection?
Mr Moore: Sorry, can I clarify that you want the number of export permits that have been
granted over the last five years as well as those rejected?
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: And, where they've been rejected, the reasons, including but not
limited to whether or not human rights grounds was ever used.
Mr Moore: To answer your question on the number that have been approved—we receive
around 4,000 applications a year, so the numbers will be quite large—we'll have to work
through that to get you those figures. There are a handful that are rejected each year. We
will see what we can do about getting you the information around the reasons that they
were rejected.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: If we just go back last year and the little dribble of this year that we've
had, have any defence export permit applications been rejected to your knowledge?
Mr Moore: There have been some rejected in the last 12 months, yes.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What were the reasons for the rejections in the last 12 months?
Mr Moore: I would need to take that on notice. There would be a number of reasons for
rejection both on national security grounds and human rights grounds. I may have to take
that on notice. I don't have that detail with me.
Answer:
Australia’s defence export controls functions have been in place since at least the 1980s. The
Australian Defence Export Office (ADEO), which is separate to Defence Export Controls, was
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
established in 2018. The ADEO coordinates the whole-of-government effort to support the
export success of Australian defence industry.
In the last five years, Defence has issued the following export permit approvals and refusals:
Year
Number of approved permits
Total number of permits refused
(including for human rights
considerations)
2018
2, 672
0
2019
2, 744
4
2020
2, 483
6
2021
2, 476
5
2022
2, 523
13
2023 (as at 10 May
964
1
2023)
Total (as at 10 May
13, 862
29
2023)
Defence Export Controls cannot disclose details for individual refusals due to commercial
confidentiality obligations.
Budget Estimates (9 November 2022)
Defence Export Controls
Senator David Shoebridge
Question on Notice:
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: How many Defence export licences has Defence granted to Saudi
Arabia since 1 January 2021? Mr Moore: I will have to take that on notice. I don't have the
details for that date range. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What details do you have there? What date
ranges do you have? Mr Moore: I will have to take that on notice. I don't have the details
broken down. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You don't have to take on notice what date ranges you
have. CHAIR: I think the witness can indicate if they do or don't have something. Mr Moore: I
don't have it broken down by country. I don't have the details broken down. It's regional; I
don't have it broken down by country. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What region is Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Emirates in? Mr Moore: They are in Middle East. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What
countries are contained in that designation? Mr Moore: I would have to— Senator
SHOEBRIDGE: I am happy for you to provide that on notice. How many Defence export
licences has Defence granted to the Middle East from 1 January 2021 to today? Mr Moore: I
don't have from 1 January 2021. I can tell you in 2022, there were 89 permits for controlled
goods. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You don't have 2021; is that right? Mr Moore: Not with me.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: On notice, can you inform us how many Defence export licences, or
permits as you describe them, has Defence granted to Saudi Arabia? How many were granted
in 2021 and how many in 2022? Mr Moore: We will come back to you on that. I will say that
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000532
Last updated: 13 April 2023
Export Controls
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Stephen Moore
Document 33
we tend to not break permits down with more granularity than region. Because of the nature
of the Australian defence industry, we start getting into problems of confidentiality around
businesses that have applied for licences because they are small numbers. With businesses
working in the industry sector, you can start to infer what their competitors might be
applying for licences for. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I have asked about Saudi Arabia and you have
taken it on notice. I will ask the same for the United Arab Emirates. I assume you'll take that
on notice as well? Mr Moore: Yes. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: In terms of weapon sales to
Indonesia, I will ask again, how many defence export licences has Defence granted for sales
to Indonesia? Mr Moore: I don't have that data with me. I will have to take it on notice.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I've asked that for 2021 and 2022. I assume you'll take that on notice.
Mr Moore: Yes.
Answer:
Number of permits issued for military or dual-use exports
Country
2021
1 January 2022 – 9 November
2022
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
17
21
United Arab Emirates
36
25
Indonesia
52
49
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Alison Harriden
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Export Controls
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Industry Policy
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
Defence must draw imaginative ideas and practical solutions from traditional and non-
traditional sources, from research organisations, start-ups and small businesses.
This will support and accelerate the transition of this innovation into capability solutions
that are acquired by Defence for the ADF with an urgency driven by the deteriorating
strategic environment.
The Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator will take a strategically directed, mission-
based approach to pull asymmetric innovations into capabilities with identified transition
pathways into acquisition.
This is the most significant reshaping of defence innovation in decades that will deliver
vital capabilities for the ADF, as well as create more jobs in the Australian defence
industry commercialising the technologies. It will support innovative Australian solutions
to the challenges we face.
The missions will be aligned to Defence Strategic Priorities with priorities determined by
the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and mission specifications agreed by the relevant
Capability Manager.
Missions will be time-limited to typically three years with clear performance
targets.
The fundamental difference that the Defence Accelerator will bring to Defence innovation
is the requirement for an endorsed acquisition pathway for each mission, with Capability
Manager commitment to pull successful prototypes into acquisition.
To directly support the missions that are at the heart of the new approach, the Defence
Accelerator will also establish:
An innovation incubation program to identify innovations that can be rapidly
adapted, tested and acquired for military purposes addressing capability priorities
identified by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force.
This will be funded at approximately $25 million per year.
An emerging and disruptive technologies program to monitor, investigate and
research technologies that may either disrupt existing capabilities or provide new
knowledge that helps identify opportunities for development of asymmetric
capabilities for Defence.
This will be funded at a value of up to 20 percent of the budget per year.
A phased transition will be implemented to ensure management and oversight of in-train
activities within the existing programs. This will ensure the existing Australian innovation
ecosystem continues to build the sovereign capabilities required to deliver solutions
addressing Defence's capability priorities.
Agility, speed, and working in collaboration with partners will be the fundamental
principles to accelerate breakthrough technologies and innovation for Defence.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
Intersection with AUKUS
The Defence Accelerator will support the outcomes of the Defence Strategic Review by
helping accelerate discrete AUKUS Pillar II Advanced Capabilities lines of effort.
It would not serve as the overall delivery mechanism for AUKUS Pillar II. The Defence
Strategic Review states that the Government has agreed for a senior official or officer
with sole responsibility and a singular focus on AUKUS Pillar II Advanced Capabilities
implementation should be appointed to enable expedited focus on capability outcomes.
Resourcing for the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
Establishment of the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator will involve the transfer
of staffing and funding from the existing Defence Innovation Hub and Next Generation
Technologies Fund.
The existing innovation programs will contribute $591 million over the forward estimates
with an additional $157.4 million of funding over the forward estimates offset from
within Defence.
The plan is to grow the initial workforce of 50 positions in the existing innovation
programs, by an additional 40, resulting in a total of 90 Average Staffing Level for the
mature Defence Accelerator.
The resources planned for the Defence Accelerator incorporates efficiencies obtained
situated within Defence and leveraging existing Defence enabling services and innovation,
science and technology partnership networks.
Link to the Defence Strategic Review
The Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator is included in the Defence Strategic
Review at Page 73. This included the view of the independent reviews that the Advanced
Strategic Capabilities Accelerator should be an entity external to Defence.
Consultation
155 participants from across Australia representing state and territory governments,
industry, academia, think tanks, and research organisations were invited to participate in
targeted stakeholder consultation sessions during November and December 2022.
Background
On 28 April 2022, the Australian Labor Party announced an election commitment to
establish the Australian Strategic Research Agency.
On 09 February 2023, the Minister for Defence Industry approved the name change to
the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator.
On 28 April 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles and Minister for Defence
Industry, Pat Conroy announced the Government will invest $3.4 billion over the next
decade to establish the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
The establishment of the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator delivers on this
election commitment.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate: 28 September 2022
QoN 820, Advanced Strategic Research Agency, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
(Liberal, South Australia) asked to be provided with an update on the progress on
establishing an Advanced Strategic Research Agency.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
Government announces most significant reshaping of Defence innovation in decades to boost
national security and follow up interviews:
28 April 2023—DPM Interview ABC News Radio (+52 stations)
28 April 2023 – MINDI Interview with Andy Park, ABC Radio National Drive
28 April 2023—MINDI - ABC News Radio - The Drum
28 April 2023—DPM Radio Interview, ABC AM
28 April 2023—Sky News - DPM News Conference
Relevant Media
29 April 2023 – Government earmarks $3.4b for developing defence tech (+3 outlets)
28 April 2023 – $3.4b to fire up defence technology
28 April 2023—Australia News Live – Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
28 April 2023—The Guardian—Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
28 April 2023—Govt overhauls Defence innovation programs with $3.4bn accelerator
28 April 2023—Defence industry set for $3.4bn shake up
28 April 2023—Government to reshape defence innovation
28 April 2023—Transforming Australia’s Defence Innovation Ecosystem
28 April 2023—Multi-billion dollar boost for defence technology to help Australia beat
'ticking clock'
28 April 2023—Govt pumps $3.4B into new Defence innovation accelerator
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
28 April 2023—Govt Boosts Natl Security with Major Defence Innovation Reshaping
28 April 2023— 6PR Radio - Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
28 April 2023—6IX 1080AM Radio - Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
28 April 2023—National cabinet seeks health solutions
28 April 2023—PoliticsNow: National cabinet agrees to slice NDIS growth rate to 8pc per
year amid ballooning costs (mentions ASCA)
28 April 2023—Government earmarks $3.4b for defence tech research (+20 outlets)
28 April 2023—A New Defense Review for Australia
28 April 2023—Shakeup announced of defence innovation
28 April 2023—Government announces most significant reshaping of Defence innovation in
decades to boost national security
28 April 2023—Leading radar tech snapped up for $500m
28 April 2023—$3bn ‘accelerator' puts war hi-tech on fast track
27 April 2023—Let the private sector's 'kaleidoscope of capital'' come to our defence:
Baxter (mentions ASCA)
27 April 2023—Defence review hones in on cyber capabilities
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
Division:
Science Strategic Planning and Engagement Division,
Defence Science and Technology Group
PDR No:
SB23-000416
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Prof Michelle Gee, Chief Technology Officer Dr David Kershaw, Chief Science Strategic
Innovation and Strategic Research
Planning and Engagement
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 11 April 2023
Date: 30 April 2023
Consultation:
Date: 11 April 2023
Brigadier G Craig Dobson, Director General
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Workforce Planning, Defence People Group
Ms Ariana Kornek, Acting First Assistant
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Secretary Financial Performance &
Management, Defence Finance Group
Mr Colin McKenna, Assistant Secretary
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
AUKUS, Strategic Policy & Industry Group
Cleared by CFO / DPG:
Brigadier G Craig Dobson, Director General Workforce
Date: 12 April 2023
Planning, Defence People Group
Ms Ariana Kornek, Acting First Assistant Secretary
Date: 11 April 2023
Financial Performance & Management, Defence Finance
Group
Date: 01 May 2023
Alison West, Acting First Assistant Secretary
Implementation
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Professor Emily Hilder, Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Date: 1 May 2023
Defence Science and Technology Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000416
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Professor Emily Hilder
Document 34
Senate: 28 September 2022
Advanced Strategic Research Agency
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Question
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for
Defence —
1. What progress has been made on Labor’s pre-election commitment to establishing an
Advanced Strategic Research Agency (ASRA) to fund research in future national
security technology and technology sharing.
2. How much ongoing funding is required to found ASRA and to support its
functions.
3. Where will ASRA be formed and what leadership, governance, oversight will it be
subject to.
4. What performance indicators and outcomes are sought and how will these be
measured.
5. What briefings and reports have been provided to Government, relating to these
matters, since 22 May 2022, and please provide them.
Answer
Defence is currently developing options for Government’s consideration in how best to
establish an Advanced Strategic Research Agency to meet strategic intent and maximize the
opportunity to develop Australian leap-ahead military capability. Advice provided to
Government is subject to Cabinet consideration and not able to be publically disclosed.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Dr David Kershaw
Name: Professor Emily Hilder
Position: Chief Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Position: Acting Chief Defence Scientist
Division: Science Strategic Planning and Engagement
Group/Service: Defence Science and Technology Group
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000417
Last updated: 24 May 2023
France
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 35
In their joint statement, leaders reaffirmed their, “commitment to building a
closer and stronger bilateral relationship based on mutual trust and respect.”
To take the relationship forward, leaders agreed to “establish a new agenda for
cooperation based on three pillars: defence and security; resilience and climate
action; and education and culture.”
Senior officials have been working closely with French counterparts in Canberra
and Paris; and have developed ambitious proposals for the roadmap.
The Defence Strategic Review confirms the priority of the Indo-pacific region to
Australia’s security.
It reiterated the necessity of working with likeminded partners to shape our
regional environment.
As a capable, likeminded, and resident Indo-Pacific nation, France is a key partner for
Australia in pursuing our strategic objectives.
When will the final roadmap be announced?
Officials are working together to finalise the Roadmap as soon as possible, as agreed by
Ministers at the 2+2 meeting.
It is for Prime Minister Albanese and President Macron to announce the final Roadmap.
What proposals are being developed under the defence and security pillar of the roadmap?
Defence has developed three broad proposals to be further explored:
Enhanced Reciprocal Access, Exercises, and Operations – which will see increased
support of each other’s deployments, the conduct of more joint maritime
activities and better reciprocal access to defence facilities;
Defence Policy Alignment and Information Exchange – to strengthen our
collaboration and exchange on shared security interests; and
Defence Industry Cooperation to deepen our industry policy relationship.
How much will the defence and security pillar initiatives cost?
The bilateral roadmap is still under negotiation with France.
Any associated costs will be subject to usual Budget processes.
What is Australia’s financial commitment to supporting Ukraine with 155mm ammunition?
Australia and France will share the cost of this initiative equally.
On 09 May 2023, the 2023/24 Budget allocated an additional $40 million for the 155mm
artillery ammunition joint initiative with France.
What quantity of ammunition will be delivered to Ukraine and when under this proposal?
It will be a quantity which makes a meaningful contribution to Ukraine’s defence, and
that can be delivered in a timely manner.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Director Western and Southern Europe
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Europe Section, Global Partners
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000417
Last updated: 24 May 2023
France
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 35
For operational security reasons, the precise number of rounds will not be made public.
What roles will Australia and France play in this joint proposal to deliver 155mm
ammunition?
The initiative draws on our respective industry capabilities and would be an equal
partnership.
It is a real and practical demonstration of like-minded partners working together to
maximise our industrial strengths and contribute to a shared goal.
These details are still being finalised between the two governments and industry
partners. The intent is that Australia will provide explosive materiel to France which
would manufacture and deliver the 155mm artillery ammunition.
Australia is one of the few countries in the world that can produce the explosive
materiel.
What capability will use the 155mm ammunition?
155mm artillery ammunition is appropriate for multiple weapons platforms which is
why it is so useful on the battlefield.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces will determine the most effective use of this ammunition
on the battlefield.
What will the Declaration of Intent on Space cooperation deliver?
A key function of the Declaration of Intent on Space will be the establishment of a
working group to progress broad cooperation in relation to space military capabilities.
An initial meeting was held at the 2023 Avalon Airshow to discuss the terms of
reference of the proposed working group.
If pressed: will France and Australia negotiate a reciprocal access arrangement?
As the Deputy Prime Minister said at the recent 2+2 in Paris, we wish to deepen our
operational cooperation with France, including to enhance access to defence facilities.
A number of legal frameworks are in place to facilitate this.
Exploration is underway with France to discover whether there are any gaps, including
through inviting French planners to visit Australia in 2023 to tour facilities, explore
access requirements, and confirm practical arrangements.
Will France participate in TALISMAN SABRE 2023?
France will participate in Exercise TALISMAN SABRE in 2023.
France’s participation will send an important signal that France and Australia are
partners in the Indo-Pacific region and share a commitment to regional stability and
security.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Director Western and Southern Europe
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Europe Section, Global Partners
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000417
Last updated: 24 May 2023
France
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 35
How has Defence been working with France in the Pacific?
Defence works closely with France in the Pacific, through the French Armed Forces in
New Caledonia and French Polynesia.
The ADF participated in the French led, multinational humanitarian and disaster
relief exercise CROIX DU SUD from 24 April to 6 May 2023.
The Chief of the Defence Force visited New Caledonia on 23 January 2023 to
engage with the Commander of the French Armed Forces in the Pacific.
France is an integral member of the Pacific family, one that brings significant and
valuable capability, and makes important contributions to regional security.
Embedded with the ADF and Republic of Fiji Military Forces, the French Armed Forces
in the Pacific, provided assistance to Tonga following the January 2022 tsunami.
France and Australia cooperate with each other and regional partners through the
Pacific Quadrilateral Defence Coordination Group, France-Australia-New Zealand
Arrangement and South Pacific Defence Ministers Meeting.
Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Exercises like CROIX DU SUD
[kwa-doo-SOOD], EQUATEUR [ek-wa-TEUR] and MARARA [ma-ra-RA] offer our forces
the opportunity to build Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief capability with our
pacific neighbours.
If pressed: Did defence engage industry and foreign partners (including France) about its
concerns?
Defence has engaged industry and foreign partners consistently about its concerns.
Defence engaged Airbus Australia Pacific (as prime contractor) and its parent company
Airbus Helicopters continuously regarding the unsatisfactory performance of the MRH
system for Australian requirements.
Engagement has included Project of Concern summits since 2011.
Handling note: For MRH90 capability and technical matters refer to Lieutenant General
Simon Stuart, Chief of Army.
If pressed: Was France advised of the decision to acquire the UH-60M Black Hawk ahead of
the public announcement?
Reflecting our commitment to trust and respect, the French Government was advised
well ahead of the public announcement to acquire the UH-60M Black Hawk.
Including by the Deputy Prime Minister and Australia’s Ambassador in Paris.
On 18 January the Deputy Prime Minister said:
‘The most important thing here is dealing with the French in an honest way. And I've
been talking with my counterpart, Minister Sébastien Lecornu, about the Taipan issue.
We've had many conversations about it. We've been trying to work through it. This is
not a surprise to the French. Obviously, we've forecasted to them a long time ahead of
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Director Western and Southern Europe
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Europe Section, Global Partners
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000417
Last updated: 24 May 2023
France
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 35
this announcement where we're going here. So we're confident that this won't interrupt
the relationship – the renewed relationship with France.’
If pressed: Is Australia disengaging from French defence industry?
No. Defence continues to value French defence industry.
On 18 January the Deputy Prime Minister said:
‘
French industry is a huge part of Australian defence industry. You only need to look at
Thales, for example, which makes the Bushmasters, which we've been talking about,
which are a big part of our own Army, and we've obviously been sending to Ukraine.
Thales make those Bushmasters in Bendigo. Airbus is a big company still in Australia,
Safran. So French defence industry remain a big part of Australian defence industry.’
If pressed: Was France advised of the decision on the AUKUS Optimal Pathway ahead of the
public announcement?
Yes. Australian officials in Canberra and Paris briefed their counterparts on the decision
prior to the public announcement.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 30 January 2023, French and Australian foreign and defence ministers issued a
joint
statement on the 2+2 meeting, reiterating commitment to the bilateral relationship.
On 01 July 2022, the Prime Minister and President Macron issued a
joint statement to
reaffirm their commitment to building a closer and strong bilateral relationship. They
also announced the Australia-France roadmap.
On 01 September 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the French Armed
Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, issued a
joint statement on strategic cooperation under the
defence and security pillar of the Australia-France roadmap.
On 16 and 18 September 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to questions
from Sky News and ABC Insider on one year since the AUKUS announcement.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Director Western and Southern Europe
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Europe Section, Global Partners
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000417
Last updated: 24 May 2023
France
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 35
Relevant Media Reporting
On 6 May 2023,
multiple media outlets reported on Australia’s participation at the
French led humanitarian and disaster relief Exercise CROIX DU SUD 2023.
On 31 January 2023,
multiple media outlets reported on outcomes of the 2+2 meeting,
primarily focused positively on joint development of 155m ammunition for Ukraine.
On 18 January 2023,
multiple media outlets reported on the Government’s decision to
acquire US built Blackhawk helicopters to replace the European built MRH90 platform.
In November 2022 multiple media outlets reported on President Macron’s comments
following the Bali G20 meeting in Bali that a
French interim submarine option was still
available.
In September 2022 Australian media reported on the
anniversary of the cancellation of
the submarine contract and leaked defence documents.
On 21 September 2022, multiple media outlets reported on French lobbying efforts
regarding the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter capability:
West Australian, the Australian,
Canberra Times.
On 01 September 2022 there was much reporting on the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit
to France on:
SBS, ABC, Australian Financial Review, The West Australian.
On 01 September 2022 the Deputy Prime Minister published an
opinion piece in
French newspaper Le Figaro.
Division:
International Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000417
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Assistant Director, Europe Samantha Higgins, Acting First Assistant
Section, International Policy Division
Secretary, International Policy Division
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 09 May 2023
Date: 10 May 2023
Consultation: Land Capability
Date: 27 January 2023
Major General Jeremy King, Head Land
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Capability
Cleared by Deputy Secretary: Hugh Jeffrey
Date: 24 May 2023
Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Acting Director Western and Southern Europe
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Europe Section, Global Partners
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000418
Last updated: 11 May 2023
Pacific Engagement
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 36
Pacific Infrastructure - What progress has been made on Pacific Infrastructure commitments
and at what cost?
The Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement Infrastructure program seeks to deliver
security-related infrastructure with partner nations, contributing to building a region
that is economically stable, strategically secure, capable and politically sovereign.
For Financial Year 2022/2023 to date, Pacific infrastructure projects have contributed
an estimated $97 million to Australian companies through the procurement of goods
and services, and an estimated $28 million to Indo-Pacific small and medium
enterprises.
Since 1 July 2018, Defence’s infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific have contributed
an estimated total of $326 million to Australian companies through the procurement of
goods and services, and an estimated total of $105 million to Indo-Pacific small and
medium enterprises.
Infrastructure projects are supporting around 3,000 jobs in the Pacific (as measured by
number of inductions) with approximately 94 per cent of positions filled by local
population, as reported by industry.
Papua New Guinea – Lombrum Joint Initiative (Refer to [SB23-000418 Pacific Engagement]
for additional points on Lombrum and head contractor Clough)
Australia and PNG announced the commitment to jointly redevelop
Lombrum Naval Base in 2018. The value [up to $175 million] of the tender was
announced publicly on AusTender.
On 5 December 2022 the Head Contractor for the project, Clough, entered voluntary
administration and was subsequently acquired by Webuild on 16 February 2023. This
acquisition included the Lombrum Joint Initiative and works have now recommenced
on-site under amended contract arrangements.
The project now has an estimated completion date of 30 June 2024 (18 month delay)
and a cost increase associated with the delays due to the administration period. The full
quantum of these costs is currently being assessed.
Defence remains committed to the delivery of Lombrum Naval Base Redevelopment on
Manus Island.
Vanuatu – Cook and Tiroas Barracks Redevelopment
The Governments of the Republic of Vanuatu and Australia are working together to
deliver a large infrastructure project for the Vanuatu Police Force in Port Vila and
Luganville, as part of the strong and enduring security partnership between our two
nations.
The enhanced and resilient infrastructure and facilities will support the Vanuatu Police
Force’s growth and operational capability.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Regional Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000418
Last updated: 11 May 2023
Pacific Engagement
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 36
The Cook Barracks and Tiroas Barracks redevelopments aims to maximise Vanuatu
industry and commercial benefit for the local economy – employing, training and
upskilling local workers and using local material and services whenever possible.
Fiji – Maritime Essential Services Centre
Maritime Essential Services Centre – Australia committed to the development and
construction of this new facility to enable Fiji’s Maritime Surveillance and Rescue
Capability Centre in Lami, Suva.
Defence awarded a construction head contract on 11 July 2022 with works
commencing on 31 Aug 2022. Defence expects construction of the Maritime Essential
Services Centre to be completed Q3 2024.
Progress to date includes: civil earth works, procurement of materials, and concrete
works.
If pressed: Solomon Islands – Western Border Outpost and Eastern Border Outpost
Defence is supporting Australia-Solomon Islands joint projects to construct border
outposts in Solomon Islands’ Western and Eastern provinces.
The new facilities and infrastructure will support Solomon Islands’ Guardian-class Patrol
Boats – bringing together police, customs and immigration officials to reinforce the
security of Solomon Islands’ borders and bolster its natural disaster response capability.
Preliminary activities are in progress at the Western Border Outpost with preparatory
works commencing in April 2023, and main construction works expected to commence
in Q1 2024, with initial operating capability expected in 2025.
Construction for the Eastern Border Outpost is expected to commence in Q2 2024, with
completion anticipated 18 months post land acquisition.
If pressed: Solomon Islands - Police Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility (Hells Point)
Hells Point, in Honiara, is the home and training grounds to the Royal Solomon Islands’
Police Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts. Solomon Islands has one of the
largest concentrations of Unexploded Ordnance and Explosive Remnants of War in the
Pacific.
We are proud to partner with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force to
redevelop their facilities at Hells Point, Honiara to enable safe and effective
explosive ordnance disposal activities.
Site establishment occurred in January 2023 and preparatory works at the Hells
Point Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility commenced in March 2023.
The project is expected to be completed in 2024.
Also includes the gifting of a blast protected High Mobility Engineering Excavator
for use at the site.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Regional Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000418
Last updated: 11 May 2023
Pacific Engagement
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 36
Australia-Pacific Defence School
The inaugural joint defence training program between Australia and Fiji has been
delivered through the new Australia Pacific Defence School.
Ongoing training programs will see the School continue to strengthen ties
between Australia and our regional counterparts.
Australian Defence Force (ADF) and Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) personnel
partnered to jointly deliver vital pre-deployment training to Fijian and Australian
peacekeeping forces at the Blackrock Camp training facility in Nadi, Fiji.
Completed in March 2022, Blackrock Camp was delivered by Australia in
partnership with the RFMF.
The training program has prepared participants to deploy to United Nations global
peace operations.
14 RFMF personnel and 10 ADF members took part in the first round of training.
Pacific Support Vessel
The Pacific Support Vessel (ADV
Reliant) is boosting Australia’s maritime support to the
Pacific family through engagement and capacity building, as well as providing an initial
humanitarian assistance and disaster response capability.
The ADV
Reliant has completed its first 2023 deployment including visits to;
Palau (17-18 January 2023), Federated States of Micronesia (26-27 January 2023),
Republic of Marshall Islands (1-2 February 2023), Nauru (7-8 February 2023),
Solomon Islands (14-16 February 2023) and to New Caledonia (April 2023) to
participate in Exercise CROIX DU SUD.
ADV
Reliant represents a whole-of-government capability and her activities are guided
by the needs of our Pacific partners.
In the case of unforeseen or crisis events, ADV
Reliant can be re-tasked to
respond as this forms the key mission set for the vessel.
If asked: Bilateral Security Agreement with Vanuatu
On 13 December 2022, a treaty-level agreement between Australia and Vanuatu on
closer security relations – Bilateral Security Agreement – was signed by the Foreign
Minister during a bipartisan Australian visit to Vanuatu. The treaty has been published
on the DFAT website.
The Bilateral Security Agreement provides a legal framework for the Australia-Vanuatu
security partnership and strengthening practical cooperation to meet shared security
challenges, including on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, policing, defence,
and maritime security.
The Bilateral Security Agreement has been under development since 2018. Our security
cooperation is longstanding – from the time of Vanuatu’s independence in 1980.
If pressed: Is Australia militarising the region?
No, Australia’s defence cooperation with the Pacific is longstanding.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Regional Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000418
Last updated: 11 May 2023
Pacific Engagement
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 36
Australia’s position is that security is the shared responsibility of the Pacific family, of
which we are a member.
If asked: Creation of New Military Forces in the Pacific
The creation of any defence force is the sovereign decision of the nation.
Australia will consider any request for security support from our Pacific family.
If pressed: Is Defence planning to establish a Pacific Regiment?
There are no plans to establish a Pacific Regiment.
Nonetheless, the ADF and the Pacific security forces already work closely together and
we are continuing to increase the ways in which we do so.
Background
Commitments October 22/23 Budget: Australia-Pacific Defence School and additional Aerial
Surveillance
A new Australia-Pacific Defence School ($6.5 million over 4 years) to bring greater
coordination to existing ADF training activities.
Doubling of existing funding for aerial surveillance activities from FY24/25 to bolster
support to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The future program will
increase the number of flights to enhance maritime domain awareness and regional
security.
Defence is scoping the implementation of this commitment by consulting the FFA
members on their needs for the future program.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
13 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister stated the Australia-Vanuatu Bilateral
Security Agreement was a practical expression of the family first approach to peace and
security in our region.
On 13 December 2022, the Foreign Minister during her visit to Vanuatu stated that the
signed Australia-Vanuatu Bilateral Security Agreement was a reflection of the ongoing
commitment to working together as members of the Pacific family.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Regional Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000418
Last updated: 11 May 2023
Pacific Engagement
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 36
Relevant Media Reporting
Electronic article,
No Geste: ‘Foreign Legion’ call for ADF, published electronically by
The Age on 01 May 2023 referenced calls for the Australian government to consider
allowing foreigners to enlist in the Australian Defence Force to address the recruitment
crisis. [
Link]
Reporting in The Guardian,
The Asia-Pacific flashpoints fuelling an arms race across the
region, on 30 March 2023, reports on regional challenges and how the Pacific Islands
do not want to be drawn into strategic competition between the United States and
China. [
Link]
An in-depth article,
When disaster strikes, Australia, New Zealand and the US should
partner with, not for, the Pacific, published by ASPI on 8 March 2023 referenced a
dialogue between Australia, the United States and New Zealand as an opportunity to
take stock of how we can partner with the Pacific during HADR events. [
Link]
Division:
International Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000418
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Director Pacific Regional
Samantha Higgins, First Assistant Secretary,
Policy, Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
International Policy
Branch
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 11 May 2023
Date: 11 May 2023
Consultation: NA
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR
Date: NA
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent Band 3/3*):
Date: 11 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy and
Industry Group
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Director Pacific Regional Policy
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Indo-Pacific Enhanced Engagement
Group: Strategy, Policy and Industry
Phone: s47E(d)
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
First, gifting equipment from Australian Defence Force stocks has included a range of
items, some of which cannot be detailed for operational security reasons. Equipment
includes:
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles;
M113 Armoured Vehicles [both personnel and logistic variants];
155mm M777 howitzers and corresponding 155mm artillery ammunition;
Numerous anti-armour weapons and ammunition;
Uncrewed aerial systems and other weapons components;
De-mining equipment (hand held detectors, blast suits, radars and mine rollers);
and
Soldier equipment (body armour, helmets, cold weather clothing, radios,
binoculars, medical kits, combat rations and optical sights).
Second, providing support through Australian defence industry.
Australia has procured $32 million of equipment from Australian defence industry
including numerous uncrewed systems.
Defence has also supported industry to provide equipment to Ukraine directly
through commercial arrangements, for example Electro-Optics Systems.
Third, channelling funds to partners to deliver assistance to Ukraine on our behalf.
We contributed $18 million to the United Kingdom to purchase and deliver
military assistance to Ukraine at the onset of Russia’s invasion.
We contributed $24.2 million to NATO to purchase and deliver to Ukraine fuel,
medical supplies and counter-drone capabilities.
We are also working with France to provide 155mm artillery ammunition.
Fourth, training support.
A rotational force of 70 ADF personnel are training Ukrainian ‘citizen soldiers’
recruits in the UK throughout 2023 as part of a multi-national effort.
Around 600 Ukrainian recruits have graduated from ADF-delivered training so far.
This support has engaged many parts of the Defence enterprise.
For example, delivering items from the other side of the world is necessarily an
immense and long-term logistical effort.
It has included more than 35 flights full of military assistance, including Australian
C-17A and contracted Ukrainian Antonov flights.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
What more will we do to support Ukraine?
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been clear that Australia will
support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
We want to put Ukraine in a position to end the conflict on its own terms.
Our military assistance aims to be meaningful, sustainable and not compromise the
ADF’s preparedness needs in our region.
We are continuing to:
train Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom (committed throughout 2023);
deliver the remaining military equipment to Europe within months; and
work with France to deliver 155mm artillery ammunition.
Future support options will be consistent with our efforts to date.
Namely gifting more ADF equipment, additional Australian defence industry
packages, channelling further funds to partners and exploring training options
beyond 2023.
But we need to carefully balance our aim of supporting Ukraine’s defence with
the ADF’s preparedness needs in our region.
We continue to work with Ukraine and our partners to identify and tailor further
options for Government for consideration over the coming weeks and months.
If pressed: How does Ukraine feel about Australia’s support?
We are working closely with the Ukrainian Embassy and the Ukrainian Ambassador.
Ukraine is thankful for the support Australia has provided to date.
But Ukraine is fighting for its survival, and is of course seeking as much support as
possible from all partners, including Australia.
Defence continues to consider all requests from Ukraine.
This engagement shapes the options that Defence develops for decision by
Government.
If pressed: Is Australia still one of the largest non- North Atlantic Treaty Organization
contributors of military assistance to Ukraine?
Australia’s contribution remains strongly appreciated by Ukraine and our like-minded
partners.
As Deputy Prime Minister has said, we intend to continue to be one of the largest non-
North Atlantic Treaty Organization contributors, and we’re working really closely with
the Ukrainian government about how that contribution can be best provided.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
If pressed: Will Australia join the “tank coalition” and provide tanks?
The Government is currently considering options to provide further military assistance
to Ukraine.
If pressed: Will Australia provide Hawkeis to the Government of Ukraine?
The Hawkei is a developmental vehicle that is only now being introduced into service
across the ADF.
The combination of an unresolved braking issue and a limited supply of parts means
that the gifting of the Hawkei is unsupportable at this point in time.
If pressed: How many Bushmasters has Australia delivered so far?
Due to operational security, Defence will not confirm exact dates as to when the
vehicles will depart or be delivered into Ukraine or the exact numbers delivered so far.
I can advise the majority of vehicles (Bushmasters, M113s) have been delivered.
If pressed: What is the rate of delivery for Bushmasters to Ukraine?
Australia is transporting Bushmasters using both Royal Australian Air Force C-17A
transport aircraft and chartered Antonov aircraft.
In the interest of operational security defence will not discuss the flight schedule.
If pressed: What quantity of ammunition will be delivered to Ukraine and when under the
Australia-France 155mm artillery ammunition proposal?
[Handling note: refer to SB23-000417 – France for more.]
It will be a quantity which makes a meaningful contribution to Ukraine’s defence, and
that can be delivered in a timely manner.
Details on the initiative will not be made public for operational security reasons.
If pressed: What is the legal basis for Australia’s assistance to Ukraine?
Australia is providing assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s illegal
invasion.
The provision of such assistance is permissible under international law.
If pressed: Does the provision of weapons to Ukraine comply with Australia’s international
legal obligations?
All exports of gifted military equipment have been provided in line with Australia’s
export control legislation, which requires consideration of our international obligations.
This includes the Arms Trade Treaty.
Further questions on the Arms Trade Treaty should be directed to the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
If pressed: Are there ADF personnel in Ukraine or the near region?
There are no ADF personnel deployed to Ukraine.
ADF personnel are supporting multilateral efforts to train Ukrainian Armed Forces
personnel in the United Kingdom.
There are ADF personnel working with North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other
allied nations in Europe.
Australia is in close contact with our partners in North Atlantic Treaty Organization and
likeminded nations to ensure the delivery of our military assistance is coordinated with
other major contributors.
If pressed: Have any ADF or ex-ADF personnel joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces?
Details of any Australians travelling to Ukraine for this purpose are dealt with by the
Department of Home Affairs.
If pressed: Are Australian citizens fighting in Ukraine?
The Government is aware of reports that some Australians in Ukraine may be
participating in the conflict.
Defence does not monitor the movement of Australians overseas.
These are matters for the Department of Home Affairs.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade continues to advise Australians not to
travel to Ukraine due to the volatile security situation.
If pressed: Have any Australians in Ukraine been killed or injured?
The Government is aware of a small number of Australian casualties reported in
Ukraine.
We send our deepest condolences to their families.
Owing to privacy obligations, we are unable to provide further details. These are
matters for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
If pressed: Is the West prolonging the conflict by providing Ukraine with military assistance?
The Government rejects the proposition that Australia and like-minded nations’
support to Ukraine is protracting the war.
Russia’s unilateral, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine began the conflict.
The Government is steadfast in its commitment to support Ukraine to defend itself.
Ukraine – like all countries – has the right to make its own strategic choices consistent
with its interests.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Deprivation of that right by the use of military force should have no place in the
modern world.
The Government calls on Russia to immediately withdraw its forces from Ukrainian
territory and to end its illegal, immoral invasion.
Background
Since Russia’s invasion on 24 February 2022, Australia has committed over $500 million
in military assistance to the Government of Ukraine.
Australia’s latest package of military support was announced on 24 February 2023. It
was valued at $33m and included uncrewed aerial systems and weapons components.
In mid-January 2023, 70 ADF personnel joined the United Kingdom-led mission (which
includes other nations such as Canada, New Zealand, and the Netherlands) in the
United Kingdom to deliver training to Ukrainian Armed Forces ‘citizen soldiers’. The first
200 Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel graduated ADF supported training on
24 February 2023. The second rotation of training commenced in early March 2023.
The Prime Minister visited Kyiv on 03 July 2022 and announced a $99.5 million package
of military assistance.
Since President Zelenskyy’s address to the Australian Parliament on 31 March
2022, Defence has agreed to gift 90 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles.
Australia has also provided a total of 28 M113AS4s Armoured Vehicles.
Other Australian military assistance to Ukraine to date includes M777 Howitzers, anti-
armour weapons, ammunition, unmanned aerial systems, body armour, first aid kits
and clothing.
Death of former ADF members in Ukraine
Two former ADF members killed in Ukraine in November and December 2022 were not
rendering any service in the ADF at the time of their death. The Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade has the lead for any media engagement and is providing support to
the individual’s family.
To date, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is aware of a small number of
Australians who have died in Ukraine and is providing consular assistance to the
families.
Partners’ provision of tanks to Ukraine
As of 31 March 2023, several of Australia’s partners (including Germany, the United
States, Poland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Finland, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands
and Denmark) have committed to delivering tanks to Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Minister for Defence has requested Australia consider sending tanks. This is
currently under consideration by Defence.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Requests for Hawkei vehicles
In September 2022, Ukraine begin petitioning for Hawkeis Light Mobility Vehicles after
Ukraine Ambassador to Australia visited Thales’ factory in Geelong.
In April 2023, the Ukraine Ministry of Defence released a social media video promoting
and requesting Hawkeis.
Australia-France joint proposal for support to Ukraine
On 30 January 2023 in Paris, the Deputy Prime Minister and his French counterpart,
Minister Sebastien Lecornu, announced an Australia-France joint initiative to deliver
155mm ammunition to Ukraine. The details are being negotiated but will be based on
an equal cost sharing arrangement. France will deliver 155mm ammunition from its
stock to Ukraine to meet its urgent needs with Australia providing explosive material
for France to replenish its stockpiles.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
Senate: 29 March 2023
PQ23-000012, Bushmasters to Ukraine, Senator David Van (Liberal, Victoria) asked
about military assistance to Ukraine, pressing on delivery timelines.
Senate: 7 March 2023
QON 1479, War in Ukraine, Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network, Tasmania)
asked about military assistance to Ukraine, including on Australia’s consideration on
Ukrainian requests to provide tanks.
Supplementary Estimates: 15 February 2023
QoN 62, Australian assistance to Ukraine, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham (Liberal,
South Australia) asked about Australian assistance to Ukraine, tracking announcements
against delivery. He provided identical questions to the Departments of Prime Minister
and Cabinet and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
QoN 96, Autonomous systems, Senator David Van (Liberal, Victoria) asked a range of
questions on autonomous systems, including whether we are supplying them to
Ukraine.
Budget Estimates: 9 November 2022
QoN 49, Ukraine, Senator David Van (Liberal, Victoria) asked about Australia’s support
to Ukraine.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 02 February 2023, Deputy Prime Minister released a
joint media statement with
Foreign Minister Wong after visiting the ADF’s training of Ukrainian recruits under
Operation KUDU.
On 30 January 2023, Deputy Prime Minister and French Minister of Defence released a
joint statement expressing their shared commitment to Ukraine and announced intent
to provide support to Ukraine through joint supply of 155mm artillery ammunition.
On 06 December 2022, the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister released a
statement with United States Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense at AUSMIN
2023 committing to continued support for Ukraine and the “need for the world to
stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes”.
On 30 November 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister published an
article in The
Interpreter reflecting on his attendance at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus. He noted that during the ADMM-Plus, “Global issues
echoed throughout the conference centre” and that “many ministers made clear
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an affront to the rules and norms that are so
important”.
On 27 October 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister advised of the
Government’s decision
to provide Ukraine with an additional 30 Bushmasters and send a contingent of 70 ADF
to the UK’s Operation INTERFLEX.
On 25 September 2022, Kieran Gilbert interviewed the Deputy Prime Minister on Sky
News’ Sunday agenda.
The interview covered the delivery speed of Australia’s
Bushmasters to Ukraine, Ukraine’s request for an additional 30 vehicles and long term
support.
On 18 September 2022, David Speers interviewed the Deputy Prime Minister on ABC’s
Insiders program.
The interview covered the Ukrainian Government’s request for an
additional 30 Bushmasters and 30 Hawkeis. Discussions also included long term
support where the Minister reiterated Australia wanted to empower Ukraine to resolve
the conflict on its own terms.
On 01 July 2022, the Prime Minister and French President Macron released
a joint
statement, “We condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and underline our
solidarity with the government and people of Ukraine. We agree to continue to stand
together to defend the rules based order and the integrity of international law, which
are fundamental to our shared security and prosperity, both in Europe and the Indo-
Pacific’.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 16 May 2023, ABC News published an article titled,
Ukraine enlists Eurovision stars
to lobby Australia for Hawkei fighting vehicles. The online article features a social media
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
video message from Ukraine’s Eurovision stars Tvorchi renewing calls for Australian-
made Hawkei vehicles.
On 4 May 2023, The Australian Financial Review published an article titled,
Australia,
US joint aid for Ukraine on the cards. Journalist Andrew Tillett reports on a joint
package of support with the US to be announced during President Biden’s May visit to
Australia. Article reports fresh assistance may include M1 Abrams tanks or F-18 Hornet
fight jets.
On 30 April 2023, ABC
Insiders host David Speers questioned the Deputy Prime Minister
regarding Australia providing further military assistance to Ukraine. DPM said that
Australia would continue to provide support, “we intend to continue to be [one of the
largest non-NATO contributors], and we’re working really closely with the Ukrainian
government about how that contribution can be best provided.”
On 17 April 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Defence blames braking
fault in Hawkei armoured vehicles for reluctance to supply Ukraine. Journalist Ben
Packham noted that a braking fault affecting the Hawkei vehicles was behind
Australia’s reluctance to send Hawkeis to Ukraine. He also noted that Ukraine is
dismissive of these faults and volunteers to be a testing ground. The article noted
Australia had fallen down the ranks of donors to Ukraine after being the largest non-
NATO supporter of Kyiv’s war effort.
On 29 March 2023, The Australian published an article titled,
Ukraine calls for more
Australian armour. Journalist Ben Packham reported on the Australian visit of Ukrainian
strategic communications advisor Dr Yuriy Sak. Dr Sak echoed his government’s calls for
Australia to provide tanks to Ukraine.
On 24 February 2023, SBS News published an article titled,
A year on, Ukraine's man in
Canberra tells Australia: 'Ukrainians are fighting for you.', Journalist Finn McHugh
reported on calls by Ukraine’s Ambassador to Australia for a ‘sustainable and systemic
approach’ on support.
On 23 February 2023 ABC News published an article titled,
Australia pledges drone
system for Ukraine, announces additional sanctions on those complicit in Russia's
invasion. Journalist Matthew Doran reported, Australia’s latest package of military
support consists of uncrewed aerial systems and brings Australia’s total military
support to over $500m.
On 13 February 2023, the Interpreter (Lowy) published an article titled,
Ukraine needs
tanks – Australia should send some. Dave Sharma argued Australia should join other
partners in supplying tanks to Ukraine as the war in Ukraine enters a critical phase.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
9 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Division:
International Policy Division
PDR No:
SB23-000419
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Assistant Director Europe
Samantha Higgins, Acting First Assistant
Section, International Policy Division
Secretary International Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 23 May 2023
Date: 24 May 2023
Consultation: Military Strategic
Date: 23 May 2023
Commitments
Mob: s47E(d)
Ph: s22
Commander Donald Dezentje, Director
General Military Strategic Commitments
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 24 May 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy, and
Industry Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Senate Question -
29 March 2023)
Ukraine
Senator David Van
Question
1. Have all of the 90 Bushmasters promised by Australia to Ukraine on 8 April and 27 October
2022, been delivered?
2. What promised Australian military assistance for Ukraine remains outstanding?
Answer
1. To maintain operational security for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Defence will not confirm
the exact dates the Bushmasters will depart or be delivered, nor the exact number of those
currently operating in Ukraine. The schedule of delivery remains on track.
2. Defence continues to deliver on Australia’s military assistance commitments to Ukraine,
including finalising the delivery of uncrewed aerial systems, Bushmasters and elements of the
latest Australian defence industry package. The ADF will continue to train Ukrainian recruits
in the United Kingdom throughout 2023 and Defence is progressing the joint proposal with
France to supply Ukraine with 155mm artillery ammunition.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
10 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Senate Question
Ukraine
Senator Jacquie Lambie
Written Question
1. Regarding the war in Ukraine, has the Department received any requests from Ukraine for
military aid beyond what is currently being provided (e.g., more than the announced
uncrewed aerial systems, training, artillery shells, and bushmasters)?
2. Has the Commonwealth agreed to all requests for support from Ukraine?
3. Has the Department received any requests to provide tanks to the Ukrainian war effort?
4. Is the Department considering providing M1A1 Abrams tanks to the Ukrainian war effort?
5. Is the Department considering fast tracking the current procurement of M1A2 Abram
tanks, and then gifting some of Australia’s soon to be replaced fleet of M1A1 Abram tanks to
the Ukrainian war effort.
Answer
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. No.
Senate Estimates Question
Ukraine
Senator Simon Birmingham
Written Question
1. Please provide a table of all Australian assistance to Ukraine, and surrounding countries,
since the Russian invasion in February 2022. Please include:
a. Date announced
b. Dollar value
c. Detail of assistance
d. Whether the assistance has been delivered in full or in part or remains committed but un-
delivered or otherwise.
2. Please provide the same breakdown requested in Q1 across all portfolios which have
provided support.
Answer
1. To date, Australia has committed to providing more than $510 million in military assistance
to Ukraine.
Australia’s military support packages to Ukraine, including dates of announcement and dollar
value, are publicly detailed on the Ministerial Media Release page of Defence’s website.
For operational security reasons Defence will not comment on the delivery status of specific
capabilities to Ukraine. The schedule of delivery remains on track.
2. Defence is not in a position to comment on support provided by other portfolios.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
11 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
Supplementary Estimates Question
Ukraine
Senator David Van
Written Question
1. Are Autonomous systems a sovereign priority for Defence?
2. Are Australian defence industry companies currently supplying drones to Ukraine.
3. Are any of these drones we are sending to Ukraine in service with the ADF
4. Have Defence’s awarded autonomous systems contracts to Australian companies in the
Last 2 years? If so which ones?
5. Has Defence’s awarded autonomous systems contracts to foreign companies in the Last 2
years? If so which ones?
6. How many Australian made drones are in service with foreign nations defence forces
Answer
1. Remotely operated systems, a subset of autonomous systems, are operated by Defence.
The development and military application of autonomous systems are being considered
among other priorities.
2. Defence is aware that some Australian companies have supplied drones to Ukraine.
Defence does not track the commercial export of Australian manufactured drones.
3. No, none of the un-crewed air systems Defence is sending to Ukraine are in service with
the ADF.
4. Defence does not track contracts relating to ‘autonomous systems’ specifically.
5. See answer to question 4 above.
6. See answer to question 2 above.
Budget Estimates 9 November 2022
Ukraine
Senator David Van
Written Question
1. Has the Department of Defence made any requests to the Government, the Minister for
Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to reopen the embassy in Kyiv? If so,
can the Department provide me with the details of these requests?
2. Has the Department of Defence made any requests to the Government, the Minister for
Defence or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to send Defence attaches or Defence
personnel into Ukraine? If so, can the Department provide me with these requests?
3. How many Bushmasters have been delivered, and are in combat or theatre, since the
Prime Minister visited Ukraine on the 4th of July?
4. There have been reports that Ukraine has requested the assistance of the United States to
deliver Australian Bushmasters as the delivery time has been slow, is the Department aware
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
12 of
13
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000419
Last updated: 24 May 2023
Ukraine
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 37
of this request? - Has the Department of Defence attempted to speed up the delivery of the
vehicles in light of this request? If not why not?
5. Does the Department have a delivery timeline of the Bushmasters? If so, can the
Department provide me with the timeline?
6. When does the Department expect all the Bushmasters to be delivered?
Answer
1. No.
2. No.
3. Due to operational security, Defence will not confirm the exact number of vehicles
delivered since 4 July 2022, nor can we confirm whether they are in combat or theatre.
4. Defence cannot comment on discussions between Ukraine and the United States. Defence
is transporting military assistance to Europe utilising its strategic airlift fleet (C-17
Globemaster) and contracted Antonov AN-124 commercial aircraft.
5. Defence maintains a regular schedule of delivery to fulfil its commitments. Due to
operational security, Defence will not confirm the exact dates vehicles will be delivered into
Ukraine.
6. See answer to question 5.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: Assistant Director Europe Section
Position: Deputy Secretary
Branch: Global Partners
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
13 of
13
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
What is the status of force posture cooperation with the United States?
Australia and the United states have agreed to enhance force posture cooperation
across land, maritime and logistics, including by:
continuing the United States rotational presence in Australia, in air (United States
Bomber Task Force rotations), maritime (Submarine Rotational Force-West
nuclear-powered submarine rotations as early as 2027) and land capabilities;
identifying priority locations in Australia to support enhanced United States force
posture, with associated infrastructure;
prepositioning stores, munitions and fuel in support of United States capabilities
in Australia, and demonstrating logistics interoperability through joint exercises;
co-developing agile logistics at nominated airfields to support more sustained,
responsive and resilient rotations of United States aircraft; and
strengthening United States land presence by expanding locations for United
States Army and Marine Corps rotations to enable exercises and activities, and
further opportunities for regional engagement.
What munitions will the United States pre-position and when as part of force posture
cooperation?
As per the 2014 Force Posture Agreement, Australia and the United States will mutually
determine the type of material to be prepositioned.
The Government remains committed to its international treaty obligations, including
the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which prohibits stationing of any nuclear
explosive device in Australia.
Are Force Posture Initiatives in Australia a response to China?
Australia-United States force posture cooperation is not focused on any one country, it
is focused on maintaining an open, inclusive and resilient region.
What are the economic benefits of Force Posture Initiatives to Australia?
To date there have been eight infrastructure projects awarded for delivery with an
approximate value of $2.09 billion (around USD $1.39 billion).
Australian businesses and joint ventures have won four of five United States-funded
contracts awarded to date, to the value of AUD $294.7 million (around USD $198.4
million).
How are Australia and the United States increasing defence cooperation in the Pacific?
Australia welcomes the United States renewed focus on our part of the world.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
Our burgeoning partnership with the United States Coast Guard in the Pacific,
announced at Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations 2022, is especially
promising.
From 2023, the United States Coast Guard will offer training to Pacific Island
Countries that participate in Australia’s Pacific Maritime Security Program,
expanding the benefit derived from the Australian-gifted Guardian-class Patrol
Boat fleet.
We welcome the United States intent to make additional assets available to
Pacific Island Countries for maritime surveillance tasking – reinforcing sovereign
capacity to protect their vast maritime domains.
Australia and the United States will also combine resources to accelerate efforts
to dispose of explosive remnants of war in the Pacific.
How are Australia and the United States removing barriers to deeper collaboration?
The complex and challenging security landscape demands we more effectively combine
our strengths and pool resources across sovereign boundaries – this is an Alliance
priority.
We must integrate our technology and industrial bases in ways that make a difference;
optimising procurement, investment, information and data sharing systems to ensure
we are collaborating as effectively as possible.
At Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations 2022, Australia and the United
States committed to strengthen efforts to better streamline and facilitate technology
transfer and information sharing, including under the Australia- United States Defense
Trade Cooperation Treaty.
With the growth of United States assets and personnel in Australia, how has the Government
retained space to make sovereign decisions in the national interest?
Our Alliance strengthens, rather than diminishes, Australia’s sovereignty affording us
access to capability, technology and intelligence we could not acquire on our own.
The 2014 Force Posture Agreement stipulates that all access to, and use of, facilities
and areas by United States forces in Australia will be:
on a rotational basis;
mutually determined; and
at the invitation of Australia with full respect for our sovereignty.
The Government always makes sovereign decisions in our national interest.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
The longstanding policy of full knowledge and concurrence effectively protects
Australia’s right to know, understand, and agree to foreign government military and
intelligence activities conducted in, from, or through Australia and our assets.
What did Australia achieve at Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations 2022?
Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations 2022 made clear the strong alignment
between Australia and the United States.
At its heart was a consensus that we must operationalise our Alliance to support a
stable Indo-Pacific region and contribute to credible collective deterrence.
This culminated in agreement to enhance force posture cooperation, break down
barriers to collaboration and expand collaboration with our valued partners – notably
Japan and Pacific Island countries.
Are there plans for United States bases in Australia?
Consistent with longstanding bipartisan policy, Australia does not host foreign bases.
Australia’s cooperation with the United States through joint and collaborative facilities
is one of our most longstanding security arrangements.
Would Australia join the United States in a conflict over Taiwan?
It would be irresponsible to speculate on this hypothetical scenario.
It is up to all parties to invest in a stable, peaceful and prosperous region.
Australia remains committed to supporting stability across the Taiwan Strait.
If pressed: Would Australia join the United States in a conflict over Taiwan?
The Australia, New Zealand and United States Treaty obliges Australia and the United
States to consult each other where either party believes its territorial integrity, political
independence or security is threatened.
What does it mean to make climate change a pillar of the Alliance?
Climate change is a national security issue that demands urgent action.
There is significant scope for Australia and the United States to collaborate on climate
resilience, trial new technologies and test alternative energy sources.
Supporting Information
For recent Ministerial Comments, Freedom of Information requests, and Media Reporting
relating to AUKUS Pillar I please refer to SB23-000390.
For recent Ministerial Comments, Freedom of Information requests, and Media Reporting
relating to AUKUS Pillar II please refer to SB23-000408.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
For recent Ministerial Comments, Freedom of Information requests, and Media Reporting
relating to Climate Change Policy please refer to SB23-000414.
Questions on Notice
Supplementary Estimates: 15 February 2023
QoN 31, B-21 Bombers, Senator David Shoebridge (Greens, New South Wales) asked
about the resolution that was added to the US National Defense Authorization Act for
2023.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
On 14 March 2023, an individual sought access to the arrangement between Australia
and the United States regarding ‘Agreed Facilities and Areas’, entered into under the
Force Posture Agreement.
The relevant Memorandum of Understanding was not
released, as Defence determined the record exempt under Section 33(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act. The decision is due to the applicant 23 April 2023.
On 03 March 2023, an individual sought access to documents concerning the
2023 February Supplementary Budget Estimates, including Estimates briefing packs. A
decision is due back to the applicant 14 April 2023. Defence did not identify any
sensitives within the briefs.
Other areas have sensitives and therefore the decision is
not expected to be a full release. The request has not been finalised.
On 06 February 2023, an individual sought access to documents concerning the
Deputy Prime Minister’s bilateral meeting with United States Secretary of Defense
Austin on 3 February 2023.
Defence partially released some documents and refused
access to others in accordance with Section 33(a) of the Freedom of Information Act as
they would or could cause damage to the international relations of the
Commonwealth. The decision was signed 30 March 2023, and was released on 5 April
2023.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 09 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister made a
statement to Parliament
titled Securing Australia’s Sovereignty.
On 07 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister undertook a
press interview in
Washington DC, discussing the Australia-United States Alliance and AUKUS.
On 06 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and their United
States counterparts conducted a post- Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations
joint press conference.
On 05 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister undertook a bilateral meeting with
United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, with
opening remarks released.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
On 03 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister issued a joint
media release in advance of their travel to the United States and Japan.
On 12 July 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister delivered a
speech on the Australia-United
States Alliance at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 24 April 2023, the ABC reported the Defence Strategic Review states Australia is
building its own long-range strike force - in part to
give Australia the power to project
into its seas by itself, rather than relying on allies such as the United States.
On 26 April 2023, the Australian newspaper reported the Defence Strategic Review
notes
the United States is no longer the unipolar leader of the Indo-Pacific.
On 12 December 2022, The Mercury reported on
China’s reaction to Australia-United
States Ministerial Consultations announcements, including that the Alliance was
‘stirring up division and confrontation’.
On 08 December 2022, The Australian reported that the
United States would not allow
Australia to have a ‘capability gap’ ahead of it acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
On 07 December 2022, the ABC reported on
Australia-United States Ministerial
Consultations discussions, highlighting increasing force posture cooperation and
deepening military cooperation with Japan as key outcomes.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
Division:
Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
PDR No:
SB23-000420
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
s47E(d)
, Acting Director United
Sam Higgins, Acting First Assistant Secretary,
States Alliance Policy, Americas, United
International Policy Division
Kingdom and East Asia, International Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Division
Date: 27 April 2023
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 26 April 2023
Consultation: s47E(d)
,
Director,
Date: 03 April 2023
International Engagement, International
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Policy and Agreements Division. Nuclear
Powered Submarine Task Force
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: Amy Hawkins,
Date: 01 May 2023
FAS Policy and Engagement
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 27 April 2023
Teresa Blair, Acting Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy, and Industry Group
Questions on notice referred to within the brief:
Estimates Question (15 February 2023)
Defence Policy on disqualify arms corporation
Senator David Shoebridge
Question
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Yannopoulos, do you know if there is a policy inside Defence that
would disqualify an arms supplier if they had been found to have been engaged in proven
corruption of government officials? Is there a policy to that effect?
Mr Yannopoulos: I'm not aware, but I'll take it on notice and confirm it.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: In that regard in particular, Thales was of course involved in the
Hawkei procurement scandal. It was demonstrated to have used its access to high-ranking
government officials when seeking to influence the awarding of contracts. Has Defence
reviewed that in relation to that corporation?
Mr Yannopoulos: I'm not aware. I'll take that one on notice.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
8
Supplementary Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000420
Last updated: 27 April 2023
United States
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 38
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Is Defence aware of the current outstanding criminal hearing in South
Africa against that same corporation on charges of corruption and fraud? Is Defence tracking
that?
Answer
Defence was not consulted
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: s47E(d)
Name: Teresa Blair
Position: Acting Director United States Alliance Policy
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Branch: America, UK and East Asia
Group: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara;
Arabana;
Gawler Ranges;
Kokatha; and
Maralinga Tjarutja.
Other users
The Woomera Prohibited Area contains economic deposits of minerals, including
copper, gold, iron, uranium and silver. The four mines in the Woomera Prohibited Area,
managed by the South Australia Government, are:
Prominent Hill (Active: OZ Minerals);
Cairn Hill (Active: Cu-River Mining Australia);
Peculiar Knob (Active: Southern Iron); and
Challenger (Care and maintenance: Challenger 2).
AUKUS Nuclear Waste
Recent media coverage has called out Woomera as a potential site for waste generated
by the nuclear-powered submarines.
As a responsible nuclear steward, Australia will manage all radioactive waste from its
nuclear-powered submarines domestically, including:
Low-level, operational waste generated by day-to-day submarine operations and
sustainment, and spent fuel and intermediate-level waste that will be produced
once Australia’s submarines reach end-of-life.
While no decision has been made on the location for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel,
the Government is committed to this waste being stored and disposed on Defence
land.
Over 2023, Defence, in consultation with relevant agencies including the Australian
Radioactive Waste Agency, will conduct a review of the current or future Defence
estate to identify locations suitable for the storage and disposal of intermediate and
high-level radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel.
The outcomes of the review will inform a more detailed process which will include
consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including communities and
Indigenous groups.
Foreign investment in the Woomera Prohibited Area
Five companies with foreign ownership currently have permission to access the
Woomera Prohibited Area:
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
Cu-River Mining Australia Pty Ltd - resource production (mining) permit
(Chinese – 100%);
Maosen Australia Pty Ltd - resource exploration permit (Chinese – 100%);
BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd - resource exploration permit
(United Kingdom – 22 per cent; United States of America – 22 per cent);
South Australian Coal Pty Ltd – resource exploration permit (United Kingdom –
37 per cent); and
Rio Tinto Exploration Pty Limited – resource exploration permit (United Kingdom
– 33 per cent; United States of America – 24 per cent).
Defence legislation regulates all other user access to the Woomera Prohibited Area,
with permits assessed and decided on a case-by-case basis.
The Woomera Prohibited Area is ‘national security land’ under the
Foreign Acquisitions
and Takeovers Act 1975, and any foreign investment in mining, exploration and
pastoral operations will be reviewed under the Act.
Foreign investors must also notify the Foreign Investment Review Board of proposed
investment in the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Cu-River Mining Australia
Cu-River Mining Australia holds a resource production permit for the Cairn Hill mine in
the Woomera Prohibited Area. It was issued in 2015 and expires in August 2024.
The company also holds three exploration tenements licensed by the South
Australia Government, however it does not hold a Defence permit to access or
undertake activities in those tenements in the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Cu-River Mining is wholly owned and managed by a Chinese citizen.
A new $100 million port at Port Augusta will support export operations at the Cairn Hill mine
and Peak Iron’s Peculiar Knob mine (also in the Woomera Prohibited Area).
Dealings between Cu-River and Defence are subject to privacy and commercial
considerations. It is not appropriate to discuss the details or outcomes of applications.
Removal of missile debris at Lake Hart West
Kokatha Traditional owners discovered missile debris in early 2021 at Lake Hart (within
the Woomera Prohibited Area). They reported damage to Defence, including risk of
serious injury or death, damage to culturally significant sites, and prevention of safe
access to the area.
Defence made all practicable efforts to recover the debris in a reasonable timeframe.
Defence engaged closely with Traditional Owners, with a number of searches
conducted.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
Defence advised, based on specialist advice, that the missile debris was inert. The
missile debris was removed by Defence in January 2022, with no additional disruption
of the site.
Complaint to the Australian National Contact Point
The Kokatha Traditional Owners, Messers Andrew and Robert Starkey, lodged a
complaint with the Australian National Contact Point against the weapon manufacturer
Saab, following discovery of the missile debris in early 2021.
It alleges Saab has failed to observe the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
It would be inappropriate for Defence to comment on a matter subject to an
independent complaints process.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency has requested Defence’s permission to land
another sample capsule in the Woomera Prohibited Area in 2029 as part of its
Martian Moons eXploration mission.
Defence and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency previously worked together to
facilitate the successful landing and retrieval of the Hayabusa asteroid samples in the
Woomera Prohibited Area in 2010 and 2020.
Japan is a valued strategic partner and Defence sees the Martian Moons eXploration
collaboration as an opportunity to strengthen our bilateral relationship and scientific
collaboration.
The Minister for Industry and Science is responsible for space returns and has received
the Deputy Prime Minister’s in-principle support to progress negotiations with
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency to consider this request.
In Perth on 22 October 2022, the Prime Minister and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida
confirmed in-principle support for Australia to host the landing and retrieval of Japan’s
Martian Moons eXploration capsule in 2029.
Background
The Woomera Prohibited Area is governed by two legislative regimes that provide
access to other users:
The Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 under the
Defence Act 1903 establishes
a permit scheme for non-Defence access to the Woomera Prohibited Area.
The Defence Force Regulations 1952 Part VII provides preserved rights of access
to non-Defence users that held an interest in the Woomera Prohibited Area prior
to 2014. These include Aboriginal groups, pastoralists, railway authorities and two
existing mining operations.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
Non-Defence users require permits or permission from Defence to access the
Woomera Prohibited Area, except for areas covered by standing access arrangements
for the Woomera Village, main roads and railway.
Defence and the South Australia Government have a memorandum of understanding
that sets out coexistence management and consultative arrangements.
In March 2019, the former Government agreed to the recommendations from the 2018
Review of Coexistence (the Review) in the Woomera Prohibited Area.
The Review sought to ensure that coexistence in the Woomera Prohibited Area
continues and the policy and governance framework remains contemporary and
fit for purpose.
Defence is well advanced in implementing the Review recommendations with the
Department of Industry, Science and Resources, the South Australian Government and
Defence SA.
The Woomera Prohibited Area Advisory Board, independently chaired by the
Hon Amanda Vanstone AO, also has oversight of review implementation and the
coexistence framework.
The Woomera Prohibited Area is mainly South Australia Crown and Aboriginal freehold
land, subject to resource exploration and mining tenements, pastoral leases, opal
fields, conservation areas and four native title determinations. Only a small part of the
Woomera Prohibited Area is Commonwealth land.
The 2020 Force Structure Plan commits $600-$900 million in additional Defence Estate
investment over the next 10 years to advance the ‘Woomera Redevelopment and
Refresh’ program and upgrade the Woomera Range Complex.
On 09 March 2023, the Assistant Minister for Defence, announced the Government’s
commitment to reforming Defence legislation. The proposed Reforms will seek to
ensure Defence is able to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing strategic
environment. Wider public consultation on the Defence Act is underway. Targeted
consultation is occurring, with stakeholders that have interest in the Woomera
Prohibited Area, to examine whether complementary reforms should be pursued.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In June 2022, an individual sought access under Freedom of Information to Woomera
Prohibited Area Board papers.
Documents released on 15 September 2022.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
In January 2022, an individual sought access under Freedom of Information to
documentation concerning correspondence between Defence and Saab on the
discovery of a missile.
Documents release on 25 March 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 09 March 2023, the Assistant Minister for Defence, announced the Australian
Government’s commitment to reforming Defence legislation.
On 22 October 2022 the Australian and Japanese Prime Ministers issued a joint
statement and media release during the latter’s visit to Australia which reaffirmed the
Special Strategic Partnership between Australia and Japan. In the joint statement, the
two nations confirmed in-principle support for Australia to host the Japanese MMX
mission in 2029.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 23 March 2023, the Australian Financial Review published an article titled
AUKUS
nuclear waste dump should be at Woomera. Journalists Philip Coorey and Andrew
Tillett cite former Howard government minister Nick Minchin advising Deputy Prime
Minister to identify the Woomera as the site for nuclear waste dump required under
the AUKUS pact.
On 19 March 2023, the Guardian published an article titled
Spectre of Maralinga hangs
over Aukus nuclear waste for Indigenous communities. Journalists Sarah Collard and
Donna Lu highlight the Maralinga Tjarutja and Kokatha opposition to the potential
storage of nuclear waste on their traditional lands.
In November 2022 a number of media organisations reported on Oz Mineral’s Board
endorsement of BHP’s $9.6 billion acquisition offer.
On 11 June 2022, SBS online published an in-depth article titled
The Australian farmers
tending to sheep and dodging rockets. Journalist Peta Doherty wrote about living in the
Woomera Prohibited Area, the discovery of a 1950s rocket and wanting “solutions” to
disruptions caused by testing.
In February and April 2022 a number of media outlets reported on the discovery of a
missile at a Kokatha Aboriginal heritage site, the resulting complaint by individuals
against Saab and the length of the time it took to remove the missile.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000421
Last updated: 12 April 2023
Woomera Prohibited Area
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 39
Division:
Strategic Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000421
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Kate Leane, Acting Assistant Secretary
Amanda Toms, Acting First Assistant
Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch Secretary Strategic Policy
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 3 April 2023
Date: 4 April 2023
Consultation: Air Force Headquarters, Air
Date: 31 March 2023
Capability Enablers, Directorate Security
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
s47E(d)
, Acting Director
General Air Capability Enablers
Consultation: Defence Legal
Date: 4 April 2023
Anna Rudziejewski, Defence General Council Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Consultation: Nuclear Powered Submarine
Date: 04 April 2023
Task Force
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Sophia Blix, Assistant Secretary Non-
Proliferation
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR:
Date: 04 April 2022
Finance – Specialist Groups, SP&I, Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Defence Finance.
Emma McCarthy, Assistant Secretary Finance
Specialist Groups
Cleared by Deputy Secretary (or equivalent
Date: 11 April 2023
Band 3/3*):
Stephen Moore, Acting Deputy Secretary
Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Kate Leane
Name: Stephen Moore
Position: A/Assistant Secretary Strategic Engagement and Corporate Branch
Position: Acting Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategic, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
allowing the Government to undertake inspections to monitor compliance with
conditions.
Port of Darwin
The Prime Minister has stated the Government will review the circumstances of the
Port of Darwin lease.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is leading this review. Defence is
supporting the review, as required.
Further questions relating to the review of the Port of Darwin lease can be referred to
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
If pressed: Did the Commonwealth Government approve the 2015 lease of the Port of Darwin?
The decision to lease the Port of Darwin was made by the Northern Territory
Government.
Under the foreign investment arrangements in place at the time, the then Government
was not required to approve the Northern Territory Government’s 2015 lease of the
commercial Port of Darwin to Landbridge.
In 2016, the
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 was amended to enable the
Government to review foreign investment proposals relating to state and territory
government asset sales. Since then, additional measures have been implemented to
strengthen the foreign investment framework. These measures do not apply
retrospectively.
Further questions on foreign investment can be referred to Treasury.
If pressed: How does Defence use the Port of Darwin?
Defence uses the commercial facilities in the Port of Darwin periodically, generally for
logistics support, resupply and crew respite.
The Commonwealth-owned HMAS Coonawarra provides the ADF’s main port facilities
in Darwin.
Defence interests in the Port of Darwin are covered by a robust governance regime,
including a legally-binding Deed of Licence and other legislative, contractual and
security measures.
The Deed of Licence is with the Northern Territory Government. There are a range of
options available to the Northern Territory Government to enforce Landbridge’s
obligations under legislation and the lease.
Defence has a general power to access the Port facilities under the
Defence Act 1903.
The
Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 also provides protections for the
Government’s interests in the Port of Darwin and other ports around Australia.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
2 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
If pressed: Are there security implications for future operational demands with the United
States?
The Joint Statement on Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations in 2022 noted
the Alliance and partnership have never been stronger.
The Joint Statement announced the next steps for Enhanced Force Posture
Cooperation in Australia across land, air, maritime and logistics domains.
The United States continues to invest in infrastructure to support United States force
posture cooperation in Australia.
Background
As at 31 March 2023, Defence has assessed 284 Foreign Investment Review Board
applications in the 2022-23 financial year to date.
Defence assessed 404 Foreign Investment Review Board applications in the 2021-22
financial year.
Treasury’s Quarterly Report on Foreign Investment 01 October – 31 December 2022
states 1,563 commercial applications were approved by the Treasurer in 2021-22.
This represents a value of $330.5 billion compared to $227.2 billion in 2020-21.
The
Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 does not apply to
arrangements with corporations operating on a commercial basis, such as Landbridge.
Timeline of Significant Events – Port of Darwin
Date
Action
20 October 2021
The first Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill
was passed in the House of Representatives.
13 October 2021
Defence completed its review on the Port of Darwin.
06 August 2021
Government’s response to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade
and Investment Growth’s report considering the applicability of the
Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 to
the Port of Darwin lease was tabled.
02 May 2021
The then Minister for Defence confirmed the “National Security
Committee of Cabinet had tasked his department to come back with
some advice” on the Port of Darwin.
17 March 2021
The Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
tabled its report considering the applicability of the
Foreign
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
3 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 to the
Port of Darwin lease.
03 December 2020
The
Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020
passes both Houses of Parliament.
11 July 2018
Commencement of
Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018.
31 March 2016
Changes to the foreign investment framework to consider sale of
state and territory government assets.
13 October 2015
Landbridge Group formally wins bid for the lease of the
Port of Darwin.
13 May 2015
Commonwealth Deed of Licence agreed with the Northern Territory
Government.
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
In October 2022, a media organisation sought access under Freedom of Information to
documentation relating to the Defence review of the Port of Darwin.
On 19 November
2022, the media organisation was informed that no documents were found to be in
scope of the request.
In May 2022, a media organisation sought access under Freedom of Information to
documentation relating to the Defence review of the Port of Darwin.
Documents were
released on 19 August 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 21 February 2023, the Assistant Minister for Defence conducted a
door-stop
interview in Darwin, and stated the review of the Port of Darwin lease was ongoing.
On 23 August 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared on several breakfast news
shows and stated the Government will review the Port of Darwin lease.
On 22 August 2022, during a
press conference the Prime Minister stated, ‘I have said
that we will be reviewing the Darwin Port lease. I have asked for advice and when we
receive it we will make it public.’
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
4 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
On 22 July 2022, the Treasurer, together with Ministers Collins, Jones and Leigh issued
a
joint media release announcing an increase to foreign investment applications fees
and penalties from 29 July 2022.
On 08 June 2022, the Prime Minister, during a
press conference with the Chief Minister
of the Northern Territory, stated there will be a review into the circumstances of the
Port of Darwin lease.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 21 February 2023, ABC News published an article,
Federal government blocks
access to Darwin Port advice given to Prime Minister’s office, citing national security
risks. Journalist Jano Gibson reported on the outcomes of a Freedom of Information
request on the Port of Darwin review.
On 06 December 2022, The Australian Financial Review published an article,
Critical
minerals sector takes aim at FIRB. Journalist Brad Thompson wrote major investors
believe the Foreign Investment Review Board is inconsistent on China with excessive
checks and balances for national security concerns.
On 07 September 2022, News.com.au published a short report,
Timor-Leste’s $100bn
demand to Australia and the world on climate. Journalist Courtney Gould described
statements from Timor-Leste President that Australia should not criticise other
countries on Chinese investment given Landbridge’s lease of the Port of Darwin.
On 29 August 2022, ABC News published a brief article,
Chinese-owned company
Landbridge rejects ‘myths and mistruths’ about Darwin Port Lease. Journalist Jano
Gibson wrote that Port of Darwin leaseholder Landbridge believes it has been subject
to unwarranted concerns and ‘mistruths’.
On 22 August 2022, The Canberra Times published an article,
PM pledges to reveal
Darwin port review. Journalist Dominic Giannini reported on the Prime Minister’s
statement that the Government will review the Darwin port ownership.
On 22 August 2022, ABC News published an exclusive report,
National security review
of Darwin Port to remain secret, but Defence releases ‘talking points’. Journalist Jano
Gibson described the outcomes of a Freedom of Information request regarding
Defence’s Port of Darwin review.
On 28 June 2022, The Canberra Times published an article,
Labor government still has
some big challenges with China. Journalist Yun Jiang wrote that serious challenges in
the bilateral relationship with China will test the Government in the months ahead.
On 22 June 2022, ABC News published an article
, Chinese investors fast abandoning
Australia but still hold vast amounts of infrastructure, land and water. Journalist Samuel
Yang wrote Chinese investors are fast abandoning Australia as the bilateral relationship
dampens trade, with a report showing Chinese investment in Australia nosedived by
almost 70 per cent last year to the lowest level since 2007.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
5 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
Division:
Strategic Policy
PDR No:
SB23-000422
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Catherine Bell, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Amanda Toms, Acting First Assistant
National Security and Resilience Branch
Secretary, Strategic Policy Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 03 April 2023
Date: 12 April 2023
Consultation: Department of the Treasury
Date: 31 March 2023
Name: s47F
, Acting Assistant
Ph: s47F
Secretary Frameworks Branch
Consultation: Department of the Prime
Date: 31 March 2023
Minister and Cabinet
Mob: s47F
Ph: s47F
s47F
, Director Critical
Infrastructure and Countering Foreign
Interference
Consultation: Parliamentary and
Date: 31 March 2023
Governance Branch, Nuclear Powered
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Submarine Taskforce
Matt Mckeon, Assistant Secretary
Consultation: AUKUS Initiatives, Strategic
Date: 03 April 2023
Policy Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Colin McKenna, Assistant Secretary
Consultation: Americas, UK and East Asia,
Date: 31 March 2023
International Policy Division
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Robert McGregor, Assistant Secretary
Consultation: Navy Infrastructure, Navy
Date: 03 April 2023
Commodore Nathan Robb, Director General Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Navy Logistics
Consultation: Strategic Logistics, Joint
Date: 03 April 2023
Capabilities Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Air Commodore Veronica Tyler, Deputy
Commander Joint Logistics
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
6 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000422
Last updated: 11 April 2023
Port of Darwin Review and Foreign Investment
FOI 789/22/23
Key witness: Hugh Jeffrey
Document 40
Consultation: Estate Planning Branch,
Date: 30 March 2023
Security and Estate Group
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Pat Sowry, Assistant Secretary
Cleared by CFO / DPG / DSR: N/A
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 11 April 2023
Hugh Jeffrey, Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy, and
Industry
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Catherine Bel
Name: Hugh Jeffrey
Position: A/Assistant Secretary National Security and Resilience
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Strategic Policy
Group/Service: Strategy, Policy, and Industry
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Phone: s47E(d) | s22
Page
7 of
7
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
Talking Points
Supply Chain Security Audit
Defence supply chains are broad, diverse and complex. The identification or
designation of manufacturers or technologies of concern engages a range of
Commonwealth Policy equities across the Attorney-Generals’ Department, Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, Department of Finance and the National
Intelligence Community.
The Attorney-General’s Department has recently established an inter-departmental
Technical Advisory Forum under the Government Security Committee, to develop
whole-of-Government guidance on technologies of concerns. Defence is a member of
this forum and will work with the Attorney-General’s Department and other agencies
on development of advice.
Defence has commenced engagement and planning for the conduct of this audit
recognising the extensive, diverse and complex supply chains that support Defence
capability.
The audit will include benchmarking Australian policy against approaches of Five-Eyes
partners.
CCTV Audit
On 09 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister directed Defence to undertake an
assessment and remove CCTV devices of concern. Defence conducted a physical audit
of the Defence Estate to identify and register all CCTV devices. This audit was
completed on 04 April 2023.
The audit found an additional 435 devices in 59 CCTV systems that were not recorded
in the Garrison Estate Management System database. Devices by brand and type are:
Devices identified in the physical audit
Brand
Cameras Other devices
Total
Dahua
167
25
257
HIKVISION
162
16
178
Honeywell (rebranded Dahua devices)
65
-
65
Total
394
41
435
Following Security Risk Assessments, 157 devices were removed, and a further 48
devices decommissioned pending removal (specialist equipment to work at heights is
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
required). 230 devices remained in use in order to manage safety and physical security
risks.
On 03 May 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister directed Defence to remove the remaining
230 devices immediately. A replacement program is underway. As at 17 May 2023, 180
devices remain in use. All will be removed by 30 June 2023 as supplies are available.
None of the identified devices were connected to Defence networks.
On 22 September 2021, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, within Australian Signals
Directorate, provided Government advice on HIKVISION devices. This advice is provided
on their website at: Critical vulnerability in certain HIKVISION products, IP cameras |
Cyber.gov.au. No Government advice has been provided on Dahua products.
Why isn’t it a requirement for Defence to register all CCTV devices on its estate?
Defence requires all CCTV components to be registered on its Garrison Estate
Management System. The recent audit has highlighted some inaccurate and
incomplete data. There are a number of reasons for this:
A number of sites have been added to the Defence Estate since the review was
undertaken;
Installation of CCTV devices has occurred outside Estate management processes.
Some premises were not included in data holdings, e.g. leased buildings, housing,
commercial premises on bases ie. banks, cafes, and childcare centres.
Defence has reviewed its processes to ensure all future CCTV devices will be updated
into GEMS.
DJI Drones
The ADF uses a variety of commercial off-the-shelf drone products, including some
manufactured by DJI, as training tools for piloting Multi-Rotor Uncrewed Aerial
Systems, and the collection of public affairs imagery.
The ADF has operated several hundred DJI Phantom Multi-Rotor Uncrewed Aerial
Systems to expose soldiers, sailors, aviators and public servants to Uncrewed Aerial
Systems basic operations and increase their Uncrewed Aerial Systems understanding.
These systems improve Uncrewed Aerial Systems situational awareness and knowledge
of:
basic drone flight;
payload considerations; and
Defence and civil UAS regulations.
On 09 August 2017, Defence suspended use of DJI products until a formal assessment
into the cyber risk presented by these systems could be conducted. This suspension
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
was lifted after additional protocols and safeguards were enacted, including not
connecting the products to the internet and restricting use.
Defence has now ceased operation of all DJI Drones per the Secretary and CDF
direction of 05 May 2023.
If pressed: Are DJI drones built to withstand the rigours of the military use?
DJI drones are built for the consumer electronics market. They do not meet reliability
and durability standards required for military use.
If pressed: Is the ADF aware the United States Department of Defense has banned the use of
DJI products?
Defence understands DJI products are included in the United States Department of
Commerce ‘entity list’, which identifies entities that may pose a national security threat
to the United States.
Defence is aware of the United States Department of Defense policy to not use DJI
products due to potential security risks.
Background
The Attorney-General’s Department has established an inter-departmental Technical
Advisory Forum, under the Government Security Committee, to develop whole-of-
government guidance on technologies of concerns. Defence is a member of this forum.
Supply Chain Security Audit
On 14 April 2023 Defence was tasked by the Deputy Prime Minister to undertake an
audit to identify devices or products that might be linked to any manufacturers of
concern.
Defence is currently developing advice on the issues and a Terms of Reference that will
considers the policy and how it operates, including in relationship security approaches of
Five-Eyes partners; risk mitigation; procurement policy, costs and timeframes.
CCTV
Defence commenced the removal of HIKVISION security cameras in 2018.
On 26 November 2022, Defence analysed its Garrison Estate Management System data
to identify any devices remaining from HIKVISION and Dahua. The 41 devices from
these two manufacturers were identified and removed.
The physical audit identified 2,883 devices not registered in GEMS, and there are a
number of reasons for this:
Historically, Groups and Services managed facilities in isolation;
A number of sites have been added to the Defence Estate since the review was
undertaken; and
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
Installation of CCTV devices has occurred outside Estate management processes.
The audit produced a complete digital record of CCTV devices.
A Security Risk Assessment was conducted on device of concern to determine if they
could be removed immediately, or if the CCTV system was required to remain in place
for physical security or safety reasons until replaced. This audit was supported by
Security Division and Chief Information Officer Group.
Defence is issuing an instruction for the replacement CCTV procurements and
requirement to update the Garrison Estate Management System as a mandatory
process. A subsequent security related instruction will be released pending whole-of-
government direction on technologies of security concern.
The cost to date to complete the audit and to decommission and or remove 205
devices has been approximately $0.432 million.
A procurement activity is currently underway to replace the remaining devices.
Expected cost is approximately $0.92 million.
Supporting Information
Senate: 29 November 2022
In
QoN Q1089, Hikvision and/or Dahua manufactured devices, Senator James Paterson
(Liberal, Victoria) asked to be provided with the number of HIKVISION and Dahua
devices in use by Defence.
Senate: 27 February 2023
In
QoN Q1466, Hikvision and Dahua Devices, Senator James Paterson (Liberal, Victoria)
asked to be provided with the number of HIKVISION and Dahua devices in use by
Defence. Not yet tabled.
Senate: 30 March 2023
In
QoN 1743, Technology manufactured or sold by DJI, Senator James Paterson
(Liberal, Victoria) asked whether or not the Department uses any technology
manufactured or sold by DJI. Not yet tabled.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
None.
Recent Ministerial Comments
No recent comments.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
Relevant Media Reporting
Supply chain audit media
On 17 April 2023, The Australian published an article,
Call for audit as Chinese drones
join ADF war. Journalist Ellen Whinnett wrote that revelations that the ADF was using
Chinese made DJI Drones, which had been blacklisted by the US citing concerns about
links to the People’s Liberation Army.
CCTV media
On 15 February 2023, The Canberra Times published an in-depth article,
Chinese 'spy
cams' operating across 17 Defence sites. Journalist Sarah Basford Canales wrote that
‘Chinese-linked’ surveillance cameras remained in operation across Defence sites as
recently as December 2022.
On 2 December 2022, the Daily Telegraphy published an article titled
You’re on China
camera. Journalist James Morrow writes about the use of Chinese made cameras
across Departments in Canberra.
On 26 November 2022, ABC News published an article titled
US banning approval of
new technology from China's Huawei and ZTE for 'national security'. The article covers
the United States Government ban on a number of Chinese made technologies.
On 25 November 2022, ABC News reported on the
UK restricting installation of
Chinese-linked surveillance cameras in government buildings over security fears. The
article covers the United Kingdom’s Government cease on installing a number of
Chinese made technologies.
DJI Drones Media
On 18 April 2023, Inside Imaging published an article titled
DJI's role in Australian
Defence under scrutiny. The article reported on the history of DJI done use in the ADF.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
Division:
Defence Security Division
PDR No:
SB23-000423
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Simon Buckley, Assistant Secretary, Security
Peter West, First Assistant Secretary,
Policy and Services.
Defence Security
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 25 May 2023
Date: 25 May 2023
Consultation:
Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, Chief of Army;
Jason Armstrong, Assistant Secretary, East West Zone, Security and Estate Group;
Marie Jackson, Assistant Secretary, North Central Zone, Security and Estate Group;
Mardi Jarvis Assistant Secretary, South East Zone, Security and Estate Group;
Sue Goodear, Assistant Secretary Program Management and Governance;
s47E(d)
, Director, Relocations and Housing (including Defence Housing Australia);
Jonathon Dean, Chief Information Security Officer, Chief Information Officer Group;
Renee Butler, Assistant Secretary Security, Threat and Assurance, Security and Estate
Group;
s47E(d)
, Director Security Assurance, Defence Security Division, Security and Estate
Group;
Christie Boyd, Assistant Secretary Enterprise Technology Operations (ASETO), Chief
Information Officer Group;
Ventia, JLL and BGIS.
All Base Managers, Senior ADF Officers, (SADFOs) and Head of Resident Units.
Consultation occurred throughout the Audit from February to April 2023, unless otherwise
noted.
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 25 May 2023
Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary Security and Estate
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
7 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000423
Last updated: 25 May 2023
Foreign Manufactured Devices
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Peter West
Document 41
Senate
Hikvision and Dahua Devices
Senator James Paterson
Question
1. Does your department, or any agency within your portfolio currently have any installed
devices at departmental or agency facilities provided or manufactured by Hikvision or Dahua,
including but not limited to security cameras, intercom systems, or access control systems.
2. If Hikvision or Dahua devices are in use, how many units and at how many sites.
Answer
1. Yes.
2. The Department of Defence is aware of one system at one site. This system is in the
process of being removed.
The Department of Defence is undertaking a comprehensive physical assessment of all
Defence sites by 30 April 2023. Any further devices identified will be removed as a priority.
Senate
Hikvision and Dahua Devices
Senator James Paterson
Question
Noting that the Government has confirmed its intention to remove all Hikvision and Dahua
devices from all departmental or agency sites:
a. have all affected departments and agencies within your portfolio commenced removing or
replacing the devices;
b. if yes, when did this activity commence;
c. if no, when will it commence; and
d. when is it expected to be completed.
Answer
Not yet tabled.
Senate
Hikvision and Dahua Devices
Senator James Paterson
Question
Does your department, or any agency within your portfolio use any technology manufactured
or sold by DJI, including but not limited to drones, gimbals, cameras or accessories.
If DJI technology is in use, which technology is used, which department or agency uses them,
and how many units do they use.
Answer
Not yet tabled.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Simon Buckley
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Assistant Secretary Security Policy and Services
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Defence Security
Group: Security & Estate
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
8 of
8
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000424
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Dan Fankhauser
Document 42
Talking Points
Defence Climate Responses
As one of the largest land holders in the Commonwealth, Defence includes climate risk,
mitigation and disaster resilience into our planning and management of the estate.
Defence has been working to understand and mitigate climate effects for many years.
We recognise the importance of environmental stewardship and the role it plays in
enabling the Defence capability.
Defence has driven its environmental management and climate response through the
Defence Environmental Strategy 2016-2036 and the implementation of an
environmental management system.
The Defence Climate and Disaster Resilience Policy was released in April 2021, which
strengthened climate risk mitigation, adaptation and resilience measures, to deliver the
enhanced support to civil authorities as outlined in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update.
The Defence Future Energy Strategy was approved in December 2022. This will provide
the technology pathway for alternative low and zero emission fuel types for military
platforms.
A detailed implementation plan for the energy transition is under development. This is
due for completion in late 2024.
The One Defence Net Zero Roadmap will outline the organisational change and
emissions reduction pathway to drive Defence to a Net Zero future. This is due for
completion in mid-2023.
Defence has a funded program for renewable energy generation and storage across the
Defence estate.
There is currently in excess of 4.8 megawatts of renewable energy installed and
operational on the Defence estate.
Over 60 megawatts of renewable energy and 25 megawatt hours of battery energy
storage is in development and delivery on the Defence estate.
While 64.8 megawatts represents about 5 percent of the total Defence consumption, it
is designed to provide energy security and resilience to those bases which are off-grid
or on the end of a weak grid.
The Defence Renewable Energy and Energy Security Program is currently investigating
the introduction of further renewable energy and associated technologies. This will be
achieved through:
diversifying energy supply and increasing energy independence by installing
renewable energy systems;
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Lyn Harvey
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
2 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000424
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Dan Fankhauser
Document 42
incorporating battery energy storage systems to increase energy resilience and
improve power quality;
piloting microgrid projects at key sites to explore the potential for renewable
energy to complement existing base electrical networks. This will increase the
autonomous operation of a site and reduce reliance on diesel fuel; and
investigating and managing risks associated with the introduction of new
technology and electrical systems, such as cyber security and electromagnetic
interference.
Defence requires all new and refurbished facilities to meet industry best practice
through compliance with the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations Policy 2006,
Defence’s Smart Infrastructure Handbook, and Building Energy Performance Manual
for energy and water efficiency.
Climate impacts to the Defence estate
Defence undertook climate risk studies on a number of bases in 2013 and training areas
in 2018 to better understand climate risk impacts to the estate.
These studies provided insights into plausible climate impacts on the built environment
and surrounding critical infrastructure such as:
increased coastal inundation and riverine flooding that will cause instability to the
electricity grid and cut road access for increased periods of time; and
increased continuous extreme heat days which will require alternative design of
airfields and training exercises to ensure safety.
Based on the modelling, recommendations for adaptation options were included in the
studies to support planners. These included:
sea walls to protect from erosion;
minor building design such as electrical wiring and power to be placed a metre
above the ground floor to minimise damage costs following flooding and improve
ergonomics for building occupants; and
in some cases alternative site selection within the base to minimise any potential
damage.
If pressed: Are the climate risk studies still current?
The 2013 studies were informed by the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Report and the 2018 studies were informed by the Fifth Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Report.
The findings from both reports remain current in light of the Sixth Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Report.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Lyn Harvey
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
3 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000424
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Dan Fankhauser
Document 42
Defence is partnering with the US Department of Defense to develop an Australian
instance of the US Defense Climate Assessment Tool.
This will enable climate impact modelling to be updated regularly to monitor any
changes to planning assumptions. This is scheduled for completion in Quarter 2 of
2023.
Background
To meet the target of 43% reduction against 2005 baseline by 2030, Defence emissions
will need to reduce by an additional 21 percent and be less than 832,000 tonnes in
2030.
Defence measures its greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Energy
Efficiency in Government Operations methodology.
Defence Climate Response
Planned initiatives to meet the 43 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are
detailed in Attachment A.
The Defence Renewable Energy and Energy Security Program schedule 2018-2028 is
detailed at Attachment B.
Defence Estate Climate Studies
The Defence estate study assessed 39 Defence bases in 2013. The study used
projections based on the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
and applied the highest emissions pathway option (A1FI).
The Major Training Area study focused on 10 major Defence training area sites in 2018.
The study used projections based on the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Report and applied the highest emissions pathway option (RCP8.5).
In both studies, Defence applied the most granular and accurate national data available
at that time to produce its projections. In both studies, the plausible upper range of sea
level rise was applied through to the year 2100.
In 2019-21 a small number of site-specific studies were delivered as an extension of the
program of work.
These studies considered additional climate risks (such as extreme temperatures, high
winds and rainfall, and riverine flooding), as well as local government adaptation
planning.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Lyn Harvey
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
4 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000424
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Dan Fankhauser
Document 42
Supporting Information
Questions on Notice
No QoNs asked.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests
On 8 November 2022, an individual sought access under Freedom of Information to
documentation relating to the impacts of climate change on RAAF Base Tindal.
Documents were released on 22 December 2022.
On 25 October 2022, an individual sought access under Freedom of Information to
documentation relating to all documents related to a range of investments to drive a
43 percent reduction in ADF Greenhouse Gas Emissions, all documents that describe
the methodology to measure ADF emissions and documents related to ADF climate
action and/or mitigation plans.
A notice of practical refusal under section 24AA was
provided to the applicant on 31 October 2022.
Recent Ministerial Comments
On 3 February 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister released the
Joint Statement on
Australia-U.K. Ministerial Consultations (AUKMIN) 2023, committing to reducing and
mitigating the climate impacts of our respective defence activities.
On 7 December 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister released the
Joint Statement on
Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) 2022, committing to pursuing urgent
action on climate change as a new pillar of the U.S.-Australia Alliance.
On 14 July 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence acknowledged
the critical importance of addressing the threat of climate change during a
meeting
with the US Secretary of Defense.
On 16 June 2022, the
Prime Minister formalised a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve Net Zero by 2050.
Relevant Media Reporting
On 1 March 2023, The Conversation published an article on
Political instability and
damage to infrastructure: how climate change could undermine Australia’s national
security, stating climate change is impacting critical infrastructure, straining Defence
capacity and possibly of increasing political instability in the region.
On 8 December 2022, The Guardian published
Australia needs ‘wartime mobilisation’
response to climate crisis, security leaders say. The publication covered statements
from the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group made to a Defence policy review.
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Lyn Harvey
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
5 of
6
Budget Estimates: May 2023
PDR No: SB23-000424
Last updated: 1 May 2023
Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation
FOI 789/22/23
Key witnesses: Celia Perkins; Dan Fankhauser
Document 42
Division:
Infrastructure
PDR No:
SB23-000424
Prepared by:
Cleared by Division Head:
Lyn Harvey, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Dan Fankhauser, First Assistant Secretary,
Environment and Engineering
Infrastructure
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Mob: s22
Ph: s47E(d)
Date: 2 April 2023
Date: 3 April 2023
Consultation: Nil.
Cleared by DSR:
Date: 01 May 2023
Alison West, Acting First Assistant Secretary
Implementation
Cleared by Deputy Secretary:
Date: 06 April 2023
Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary, Security and Estate
Prepared By:
Cleared By:
Name: Lyn Harvey
Name: Celia Perkins
Position: Acting Assistant Secretary Environment & Engineering
Position: Deputy Secretary
Division: Infrastructure
Group/Service: Security and Estate Group
Phone: s22
Phone: s47E(d) / s22
Page
6 of
6
