National Press Club Address Q&A

SUBJECTS: Making Australian safer: A reshaping of defence strategy in the missile age.

ANDREW TILLETT: Thanks very much, Minister. In your sort of closing there you talked about the time is now to build up stockpiles. But as you’ve acknowledged in your speech, the Kongsberg factory near Newcastle won’t be operational until 2027, the GMLRS factory announced today 2029. Yet strategic planners work around a date of 2027 as when China would be ready to invade Taiwan, that’s sort of the deadline that a lot of people, sort of, are focused on. What do you say to critics and such who’ll say that this build-up is not happening quick enough and won’t be able to make a difference in a potential conflict with China? 

MINISTER CONROY: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I say that we’re both rapidly increasing stocks of weapons and building the industrial capability for the future. I made an announcement last week of a $7 billion acquisition of SM-2 and SM-6 missiles. Earlier, we made significant announcements around other missile stocks. We’ve brought forward the acquisition of – and deployment of the HIMARS launchers, and we’ll be making missiles in this country next year. 

I wish I could have a time machine and go back to 2019 and 2016 and be the minister driving change, but we don’t have that luxury. So what we can do now is drive investment and drive $74 billion – up to $74 billion – into equipping the ADF with long-range strike and the weapons they need. And we’ve taken concerted action to move capabilities forward, whether it’s the general purpose frigates delivered four years earlier than the former government’s plan, infantry fighting vehicles two years earlier, HIMARS earlier, standing up the fires regiment earlier, the landing craft being moved forward eight years. 

We’re moving as quickly as possible. The submarines being delivered up to 10 years earlier. These are all moving at pace while building the long-term industrial capacity because you have to do both, Andrew.

ANDREW TILLETT: But essentially 2027, are we – would we be – if there is a war, are we going to war with what we’ve got now essentially? There’ll be maybe some missiles that come, but not in volume, not at scale. 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, let me give you a couple of examples of where we’ve brought things forward. Under the previous government’s plan, the navy would not have the SM-6 anti-ballistic missile capability to the late 2030 – 2020s. We’ve brought it forward by four years, and we have that capability right now. We’re equipping the Anzac-class frigates and new air warfare destroyers with Naval Strike Missiles right now. 

And there’s a misnomer that manufacturing in this country slows things down. Without going into commercial-in-confidence details, building the factory for Naval Strike Missiles actually gives us faster access to Naval Strike Missiles than if we joined the global production queue for the one other factory in the world in Norway. So this government is moving at speed and putting record resources into defence to do that. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you. We’ll go to our media members today and our first question from the floor from Andrew Greene.

ANDREW GREENE: Minister, Andrew Greene from the ABC. Just last week – I think shortly after you left the United States - The General Dynamic CEO said there that electronic boat production of both Columbia-class and Virginia-class submarines would have to slow to deal with a lag in supply chain that’s behind construction schedules. Were you briefed about that situation? Are you concerned about some of those signs where the US system may be slowing down instead of increasing production of submarines? 

And more broadly, we’ve seen a lot of international commentary recently about one of the main factors of AUKUS being this dispersal of US resources across Australia. Are we seeing a fundamental change in Australia’s strategic posture by basing a lot of American assets here without the public debate that you would expect with that kind of move? 

MINISTER CONROY: Yeah, yeah – thanks for the two questions, Andrew. On the first one, in my recent trip to the United States, a submarine industrial base was obviously a frequent topic of conversation. The US is putting $17 billion into uplifting their submarine industrial base to deal with the supply chain issues, including our contribution of $3 billion, and it is paying off. Progress is being made. For example, I visited an Australian company’s, Austal’s very large shipyard in Alabama, where they’re now building modules for the Virginia-class submarine. That’s an example of the US dispersing and increasing their supply chain. 

It's a fact that 70 per cent of the supplies on the critical path come from a sole source. They recognise that they need to broaden it out, and Australia can play a role. Not just Australian companies in the United States, such as Austal’s shipyard, but when I was there in April, I announced the first contract for an Australian company – Bisalloy Steel – to start producing steel not to go into our submarines but to go into US-made Virginia-class submarines. So that’s an example of the combined industrial base ramping up to speed up delivery of these submarines. 

On your second question, it’s very important to say that the longstanding position of Australian governments is that we don’t have foreign bases in this country. We have rotations of allied forces through, such as the Marine detachment in Darwin and Submarine Rotation Force West in 2027. There’s been no change in our position. Our position is articulated in the National Defence Strategy. At the cornerstone of Australia’s defence is what we do in this country and our alliance with the United States, and nothing has changed there. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you. Just a reminder, please: one question each. Our next question is from Ben Packham. 

BEN PACKHAM: G’day, Minister. Thanks for your speech. On the 155-millimetre shells contract for Thales, NIOA and Rheinmetall already have a forge producing 155-millimetre shells. They’re the European variant, not the US variant. They told the government they could adapt their Queensland forge to produce US 155-millimetre ammunition in 12 to 18 months. Why didn’t the government go with the faster option? Is it because NAIO is a major LNP donor? And have you had a chance to inspect that Queensland facility? 

MINISTER CONROY: Thanks for the model questions there Ben. 

BEN PACKHAM: All related. All related. 

MINISTER CONROY: So on the last claim about who NIOA donate to, I have no idea who they donate to, and I have no idea about their relationship with anyone in the LNP. That’s a question for Peter Dutton to answer rather than me. 

But what I can assure you is that the decision on the artillery ammunition tender was based on 11 criteria, and it was centred on value for money, risk and speed to capability. And as you said in your question, the forging that they do is not for the M795 artillery ammunition. They produce rounds for Germany, which is great. But those rounds aren’t used in Australia on any of our platforms. So whoever won that tender would have been required to invest in new equipment to manufacture those rounds, and the assessment of defence using those 11 criteria was that the Thales offered the best value for money, speed to capability and lowest risk. And that is what drives our decisions in this area. 

Both NIOA and Thales are really important parts of the defence industry in this country. I respect and value the over 400 employees who work at NIOA and I respect and value the over 4,000 workers in Australia that work at Thales doing great work at Thales in Bendigo making Bushmasters to the work at Mulwala and Benalla. So this was a value-for-money, risk and cost decision. And, again, I should emphasise that both tenders were valid, and we’ll go through the negotiations process with Thales and if that doesn’t eventuate, we’ll look at NIOA in that scenario. Both were valid, but Thales offered the best solution. 

BEN PACKHAM: Just did you – just on the invitation that you had to visit that plant, did you ever take them up? 

MINISTER CONROY: I haven’t got up to Maryborough yet, Ben. But the important question is: ministers inspecting facilities is not how we decide tenders. If it is, I and you should be very worried. We have an entire department that makes these decisions in this area headed by the most senior engineer in the entire Department of Defence – the first three-star engineer in the Australian Defence Force. And I respect and value their assessment of this, rather than decisions being made on who is a political mate of someone else. 

BEN PACKHAM: Thank you. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Next question from Anna Henderson.

ANNA HENDERSON: Thank you. Anna Henderson, SBS World News. Minister, have you had the explanation you asked for from China about the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile test in the Pacific in recent times? What was justification they provided, and will the US Interceptors at a price tag of $4.2 billion that you announced last week be able to protect Australia from this threat? 

MINISTER CONROY: Thank you for that question. I won’t go into details of confidential discussions between Australia and other governments; that’s not how – 

ANNA HENDERSON: Have you had the explanation, I guess – 

MINISTER CONROY: That’s not how the Albanese Labor government conducts itself. We expressed significant concern about that ballistic missile test, particularly its entry into the South Pacific given the Treaty of Rarotonga that says that the South Pacific should be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. 

The acquisition, the $7 billion acquisition, of SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, as you said, gives Australia, for the first time, ballistic missile defence in a terminal entry phase. That’s the first time we’ve ever had that. We’ve brought that four years forward so that we have that capability right now, and it’s a very advanced capability. 

I’m not going to get into scenarios about the effectiveness against other platforms. All I can say is the SM-6 missile is the most advanced air defence missile in the world, and we’re only the second country in the world to test fire it. And it’s being deployed in the Hobart-class air warfare destroyers right now. 

ANNA HENDERSON: So just without going into the details, is that a yes or no – did you get the explanation that you sought from China? 

MINISTER CONROY: Those conversations are ongoing. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you. Next question, Ben Westcott. 

BEN WESTCOTT: Hi, Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you so much for your speech today, Minister. Just going to your responsibilities as Minister for the Pacific, about a month before you came to power there was obviously the announcement that the Solomon Islands had signed a security agreement with China. That set of a range of diplomatic action by the US and Australia over the past two years under your administration and the Biden administration. Now, we’re about a week out from the US election. We’re six months out from the Australian election probably. Do you believe that the work that you’ve done, the work that this government has done and the Biden administration has done has been sufficiently bedded down in the Pacific and in the governments of both countries to continue under a potential Trump or Harris administration or under potentially a change of government here? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, I’m always hesitant to talk about domestic politics in another country. I’ve got enough challenges talking about it in Australia. But I will say this, that the US investment in the Pacific, the increased US interest in the Pacific, began under President Trump and, in fact, one of the events I had in Washington last week was a cross-partisan roundtable with US think tanks about their engagement in the Pacific. They have strong interests in the Pacific and I’m confident they will continue under multiple administrations. 

Whether our huge improvement in relationship with the Pacific continues if there’s a change of government, that’s a question for the Opposition. I think it’s challenging. We’ve repaired relationships in the Pacific through using every tool of statecraft. We are the security partner of choice for every South Pacific nation, and that’s a privilege that we take seriously. But you’ve got to reflect on what the opposition offers. They’ve got an Opposition leader in Peter Dutton who makes jokes about rising sea levels. You’ve got a shadow minister for the Pacific in Michael McCormack who says that Pacific Islanders should be grateful for picking our fruit. You look at their actions this year where they voted against our Pacific Engagement Visa in the parliament, which is a critical part of building our people-to-people links in the region through building the diaspora in the Pacific into Australia. 

So just as I think – and excuse me for being political, but I am a politician – but just as I think that the opposition is weak on national defence because they want to cut $50 billion from the national defence budget, they’re weak on national security because they would take our relationships in the Pacific backwards by their actions on climate change, their ridiculous and risky nuclear policy, by their refusal to engage on things like the Pacific Engagement Visa. 

And this is a real question mark for the Australian people. At the last election the Pacific policy was actually a topic of conversation – first time ever in this country that occurred. And that occurred because of the Solomon Islands security pact that was allowed to happen under the last Coalition government. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Next question from David Crowe. 

DAVID CROWE: Thanks Andrew. Thanks, Minister, for your speech. David Crowe from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of Melbourne. I’m chief political correspondent, and so I welcome you being political in your last answer because I’m going to be political in my question. One of the big issues this week is Anthony Albanese and Qantas and the questions over his disclosures about flight upgrades. So there is a proposal or a suggestion from the opposition that this is so bad it should go to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. What’s your response to that suggestion – that it should grow to an independent inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Commission? 

MINISTER CONROY: Thanks for the question, David. And I will simply restate that all declarations by the Prime Minister have been made in accordance with the rules. And that’s incredibly important. And that stands in stark contrast to people like Bridget McKenzie, who misled the Australian public about whether she received free upgrades from Qantas. 

Look, this broader debate I find interesting for a couple of reasons. First off, these are claims made by a former Liberal staffer who, as recently as three months ago, was the headline act at federal Liberal fundraiser. Now, I know journalists will say, “Well, that’s on page 1 of the book.” Well, the book isn’t what people are reading – they’re reading people’s newspapers and seeing television. And until we reminded people of that, very little of the reporting acknowledged that the person in question was a Liberal Party identity. I think that’s a really important point to make. 

The second point I’d make in this area is judge us by our actions. We’re the government when, in 2011, Qantas stood down its workers that called them out and opposed them for when they grounded their fleet. We’re – we in opposition attacked Qantas for, again, standing down their workers during Covid. And right now, we’re implementing the Same Job, Same Pay legislation that will deliver $30,000 pay rises to Qantas labour-hire workers who are being discriminated against right now. Who has been on the side of Qantas on all of those battles? Peter Dutton and Bridget McKenzie. They’ve taken all those upgrades and they’ve been on the side of Qantas every single step of the journey. And I think real questions have to be asked about that as well as what Peter Dutton promised in return for those free private flights from Gina Rinehart. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you. Luckily, we won’t get into the Central Coast property market given that we’re both coasties. Next question from Kym Bergman. 

KYM BERGMAN: Thank you Minister, and back to defence. I’m glad you mentioned Ukraine in your talk because the army is in the process of retiring 22 Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters, which I believe are to be in good condition. Ukraine has requested those. So while you work through that process, will you keep those helicopters current, or will you treat them the same way that you treated the Taipan fleet? 

MINISTER CONROY: Thanks for the question. We’re developing the disposal strategy for the Tiger attack helicopters right now. And, of course, on Ukraine, we’re in regular discussions with them about their needs and how we can support them. 

It was a huge privilege two weeks ago to represent Australia at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting where I announced that we would be gifting our Abrams tank fleet to Ukraine – a $250 million commitment that lifts our military support to $1.3 billion as part of a total $1.5 billion of support. We’re proud and privileged to be the largest non-NATO contributor of military support to Ukraine, and we’ll continue to talk to them about their needs. But we’re working through the disposal strategy right now. 

KYM BERGMAN: Thank you. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Next question is from Rob Scott. 

ROB SCOTT: Thanks, Minister. Rob Scott from Seven News. You’ve said today in your speech that one of the main reasons we need to build up our missile stocks, make them more lethal, have greater strike capability is due to the great power struggle going on in our region between the United States and China. But how much do you think Xi Jinping is actually watching what we’re doing here? Do you think he cares? Do you think it will factor into any of his considerations when he’s potentially planning an invasion of Taiwan? 

MINISTER CONROY: Thanks for that question. And I’d invite you to ask someone else that question – Xi Jinping in particular. 

ROB SCOTT: I’d love to try. 

MINISTER CONROY: All I can talk about is what I’m doing and what the government is doing. And the government’s highest responsibility is to keep Australians safe, and that’s what we’re doing through announcements like today. The way of deterring conflict, the way of promoting peace is by strong deterrence and making it very clear to potential adversaries that the cost of aggression outweighs any particular benefits. And that’s why investing in long-range strike is critical with the added byproduct of thousands of high-skilled Australian jobs being created at the same time. 

So I’m – you’d have to ask other people whether that is factoring into people’s considerations. But what I can say to you is that we are providing record investments in the Australian Defence Force at speed to give us the best ADF to help defend the nation. 

ROB SCOTT: Thank you. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Xi Jinping, if you’re watching, please come and join us any time. Dominic Giannini is our next questioner. 

DOMINIC GIANNINI: Minister, thank you. One for your Pacific hat: I’m just wondering on reports that Australia is seeking a quid pro quo with Papua New Guinea when it comes to China’s security arrangements, are you able to confirm that? And if you can’t, does that risk us becoming what we criticise in China being in the Pacific – namely, that an actor signing a non-transparent agreement for a cash – for conditional cash, rather? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, a couple of things. One, we’re still negotiating the finer details of support for a National Rugby League team from Papua New Guinea. But I can say to you with joy that nothing will bring the two peoples closer together than a National Rugby League team from Port Moresby playing in Australia. It is critical to bringing the countries together. It’s not just about people-to-people links; it’s an economic development strategy, and it’s also one that is also a vehicle for gender equality. Sport is a great part of that, and we’ve got a broader sports diplomacy agenda of supporting the Pacific, bringing peoples together. 

In terms of what is and isn’t in that agreement, I’m not going to talk about that now because we haven’t finalised the agreement. I could refer you to statements in the media by Prime Minister Marape that go to this, but what I’ll say to you is that part of any agreement is strategic trust. Prime Minister Marape, Foreign Minister Tkatchenko have repeatedly said, including in Australia, that Australia is their partner of choice, their security partner of choice. And that’s an honour and privilege we are honoured to have and we’ll hopefully continue to be their security partner of choice. And that’s part of multiple endeavours to bring our countries closer together. 

DOMINIC GIANNINI: Sorry, to clarify: will that agreement be released in full? 

MINISTER CONROY: Again, when we announce – if we announce an agreement – because we’re still negotiating it – we will be very transparent about what is and isn’t in the agreement. But, again, strategic trust is a critical part of any work in the region, and we’re really proud to have repaired our relationships with the Pacific. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Jason Koutsoukis.

JASON KOUTSOUKIS: Minister, thanks for your speech. US Congressman Michael McCall told my colleague Ben Packham earlier this year that Australia is now the central base of operations for the US military to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Do you agree with that assessment? And would the US be allowed to operate through Australia in the event of a conflict with China? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, on the second question, I don’t engage in hypotheticals. Anyone in my position should not be engaging in hypotheticals. 

On the first part of your question, again, I’ll repeat that we do not have foreign bases in this country. And that is the policy of this government. Look, we’ve been very clear that intensifying geostrategic competition is the dominant theme of our era, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. We are incredibly privileged to have our alliance with the United States and be partners, just as we are with our partnership with like-minded countries such as Japan and the Republic of Korea. And we’re working very closely for a free and open Indo-Pacific where international rules are obeyed, where every country has the right to co-exist peacefully, where, importantly, sovereignty is respected. But I’m just not going to get into questions about hypotheticals. 

ANDREW TILLETT: You say you don’t want to do hypotheticals there but, I mean, the reality is we’ve made the choice. You know, we’re going to have US nuclear-powered submarines operating out of Perth. We’ve got the Marines in Darwin. We have what they do at Pine Gap, which we’re not allowed to be told what they do at Pine Gap. We’ve made the choice. We can’t – if there is a conflict between the US and China, Australia is not going to be sitting it out, are we? 

MINISTER CONROY: Again, I refer you to my previous answer, Andrew, and just say again, in all these things the sovereignty of Australia is paramount. And I refer you to a ministerial statement Deputy Prime Minister Marles made in parliament early last year which really gives an outline of our sovereignty. The National Defence Strategy goes into it as well. We are sovereign – we are a sovereign nation and the elected government of the day will make decisions about what we engage in, no one else. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Next question, Melissa Coade. 

MELISSA COADE: Thank you, Minister, for your speech. Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. Many national security experts would be familiar with the term VUCA – volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – many things which sort of illuminate the urgency and need to invest in the capability that you announced today. But those thing also apply equally to humanitarian capability. And, of course, the humanitarian policy was launched earlier this month. They are two sides of the same coin, but they’re not always equal when it comes to money and investment. As someone with a portfolio that captures both of those conversations, when you go to bed at night and ask yourself how do we be a good society, where have you landed on that equation? And also the Australian Council for International Development just last week made the point that the $7 billion announcement for Australia’s long-range defence missile capability was, like, the whole year’s worth of aid funding for Australia. So can you just share with us where you’ve sort of fallen philosophically after holding these important things in your portfolio?

MINISTER CONROY: Yeah, thanks for the question, and the answer is you have to do both. You have to invest in a strong defence force to deter potential aggression and you have to invest in a strong development policy and use all tools of statecraft to promote a safe and secure region. And that’s why, in my conclusion, I talked about the single united aim of defence policy and foreign policy, which is to prevent conflict and increase security and stability. 

I’m proud to be the first International Development and Pacific Minister and a full member of the National Security Committee of cabinet. I was there from day one in that role. That gives – that elevates that portfolio in consideration. I’m also the first Pacific Minister to be a full member of the Cabinet. This is about this government’s dual investments in foreign policy and defence policy. We’ve made the single largest increase in foreign aid in over a decade. We are repairing the damage done under the last government to our overseas development assistance budget. And we are the largest development partner, for example, in the Pacific. 

So we need to do both – invest in strong defence capabilities and strong development outcomes – and we’re doing it. And that’s why I love my job, because we need to do both at the same time, and that’s what I’m committed to doing. 

MELISSA COADE: Would Labor be open to considering the calls to make defence – sorry, aid funding 1 per cent of the federal budget part of an election commitment? 

MINISTER CONROY: Again, a second question, Andrew. Your iron rule is weakening here. 

ANDREW TILLETT: You answer very quickly. 

MINISTER CONROY: What I can say is you’ll see your foreign aid election policy when we release it. I’m not going to release it in the middle of a speech on missiles at the National Press Club, as much as I love both portfolios. 

MELISSA COADE: Thank you. 

ANDREW TILLETT: A bit of tension there I think. Next question, Joseph Olbrycht‑Palmer.

JOSEPH OLBRYCHT-PALMER: Hi, Minister. Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer here from Newswire. Thank you for your address. The United States is fitting out their Pacific fleet – or part of their Pacific fleet with Patriot Interceptors, basically out of fear of Chinese hypersonic missiles. So, looking forward a decade, how will this plan that you’ve – you’re talking about today set us up to deal with that kind of threat in 10 years from now? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, thanks for the question and in my speech, I talked about you need to be equally focused on not just long-range strike but missile defence. And that’s why as part of our up to $74 billion of investment in this area, we’ve allocated 14 to $18 billion for missile defence. And you start with the brains of that system, which is the Joint Air Battle Management System that’s being established right now, headquartered at RAAF Base Williamtown. And then you layer on top of it the defensive effectors for that. It could be NASAMs, which obviously is being deployed right now. It could be our excellent Joint Strike Fighters and Super Hornets. A critical part of it was the announcement I made last week of the acquisition of the SM-2 and SM-6 missiles. 

As I said, we accelerated the acquisition of the SM-6 missiles by four years so that we have that capability in our Hobart-class air warfare destroyers right now. And we’ll continue to evaluate the investment priorities for missile defence through the National Defence Strategy and updates to the integrated investment program. But investing up to $18 billion is a huge investment by this government, and bringing forward capabilities like the SM-6 is all about keeping Australians safe, which is our highest priority.

JOSEPH OLBRYCHT-PALMER: Thank you. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Next question from Nick Stuart. 

NICK STUART: Thanks very much. You’ve got a plan to buy missiles first of all. You’ve got a plan to manufacture missiles after that. When you look at R&D for missiles, though, there’s a couple of pages and a very nice diagram in your program. Are you going to, before the next election, put out a clear plan outlining how you are going to develop actual R&D – research and development – here in Australia so that we can have our own Indigenous missiles rather than simply ones that are manufacturing Lockheed Martin or other big – Kongsberg, other big multinationals? 

MINISTER CONROY: Yeah, thanks for that question, Nicholas. And the answer is the plan is already out there – it’s called the Defence Industry Development Strategy. And a key part of the Defence Industry Development Strategy is a three-and-a-half billion dollar investment in what’s called the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator, the single biggest increase – sorry, single biggest investment in defence innovation in a long, long time. That is about bringing capability forward. It’s about speed to capability. And it will look at things like missile development, but we’re already doing lots of work in that area. 

I announced a $60 million investment in missile R&D with the Defence Science and Technology Group when I announced the rocket motor manufacturing announcement last month. We’ve already got strong programs of record around hypersonics right now. So we are putting lots of money into that area. We’ll continue to do that. 

Our strategy around manufacturing in this country unambiguously is about a practical way of building up our industrial capability while doing that research and development, so whether it’s manufacturing an Indigenous hypersonics missile or being part of the Precision Strike Missile consortium, that we go on to building more advanced missiles later on. 

NICK STUART: Will we see Australian missiles, or will we be working with foreign multinationals? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, again, these are Australian missiles. Australian workers are working on them right now. The 4,000 workers at Thales that are working in places like Bendigo and Benalla and Mulwala are doing things for Australia. The BAE workers in Adelaide are building the parts for the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile and the Joint Strike Missile are part of an Australian missile industry. 

I really want people to focus on this important part. It’s where the industrial activity occurs. It’s where we have access to the IP. It’s where we’re investing in the capability that is the critical driver. I am less focused on what is the brand name of the missile; it’s about having the capability in this country and the workers and the skilled industry to be able to do that, and that’s why today’s announcement is so significant. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Just finally, you mentioned Thales in that last answer there. That company obviously has a bit of a concern, a corruption cloud at the moment that’s before the NACC. Are you confident in Thales and the integrity of that company? 

MINISTER CONROY: Well, let’s be very frank about this thing that’s flying around – there’s an allegation of an incident that occurred in 2017 – 2017 – seven years ago under the last government. Defence has thoroughly investigated it, and I’m advised that there’s been no evidence to substantiate the allegation. 

It’s important to note that there is one allegation unsubstantiated. Does that mean that we don’t want Bushmasters built in Bendigo to support the Australian Defence Force? Does that mean that we don’t want rifles manufactured in Lithgow, a small arms factory, to equip the Australian Defence Force? 

This is a really important point floating around that all allegations like that should be investigated. Evidence should be examined. No evidence has been found, and Thales, like all the Australian defence industry, is an essential part of defending the nation. 

ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you. Or, as they say in French, merci. Thank you very much for your speech today. And please accept our gift of membership to renew your time with the club. I know it was about 12 months ago since you last spoke here. So please, everyone, join me in thanking Defence Minister Pat Conroy.