Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 0:02 to 35:04
The committee discusses the deteriorating strategic environment, regional security challenges, and the whole-of-government process regarding the Port of Darwin.
Topics: National security, Infrastructure, International law
Speakers: Hugh Jeffrey, Greg Moriarty AO, Hon Michaelia Cash, Raff Ciccone, Admiral David Johnston AC RAN, Hon Jenny McAllister, Speaker 7, Steven Groves
Good morning everyone. I uh declare open this meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Legislation Committee. I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today and pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging. Uh the Senate has referred to the committee the particulars of the proposed expenditure for the 2025,26 and other related documents for the foreign affairs, defense and trade
portfolios.
The committee may also examine the annual reports of the departments and agencies appearing before it. The committee is due to report to the Senate on the 31st of March this year. The committee has set the 20th of February of this year as the deadline for senators to submit any written questions on notice. The committee has also set the 10th of April of this year as the date for the return of an any answers to questions taken on notice. Under standing order 26, the committee must take all evidence in public session and this includes answers to questions on notice. I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee, they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account or evidence given to a committee and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also contempt to give false or misleading evidence to a committee. The Senate has endorsed the following test relevance of questions at the estimates hearings. Any questions going to the operations or financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking funds in the estimates are relevant questions for the purpose of estimates hearings. I remind officers that the Senate have has resolved that there are no that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise. The Senate has resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked to a superior officer uh or to a minister. This resolution prohibits only questions asking for opinions on matters or policy and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policy policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. I draw attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of the 13th of May 2009 specifying the process uh by which uh the by which a um public interest immunity should be raised and which I will incorporate now into the hand side. Witnesses are specifically reminded that a statement claiming that information or that a document is confidential or consists of advice to government is not a statement that meets the requirements of the 2009 order. Instead, witnesses are required to articulate the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or the document. An officer called uh upon for the first time to answer a question should state their full name and the position for the handside record and witnesses should speak clearly into the microphone. Please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off or turned to silent. I remind senators and witnesses in the hearing room that microphones remain live unless I instruct otherwise. For witnesses participating via video conference, uh please mute mute your microphone as the default and unmute when speaking. I also want to remind senators of their obligations under the behavior code for parliamentarians to treat all witnesses with dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect. I ask members of the media to follow the established media guidelines and the instructions of the committee secretariat. I remind everyone in the gallery they are not permitted to speak or interfere with the proceedings or with any witness at any point during today's hearing. Witnesses and senators who are seeking to table documents during the committee's hearings are requested to provide an electronic copy of those documents so that the secretary can distribute them to the committee. Now today's uh committee proceedings will commence with representatives from the Department of Defense. I would like to now welcome Senator the Honorable Jenny McAllister who is representing the Minister for Defense. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Uh Mr. Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department of Defense. Good morning. And Admiral David Johnston, AC chief of the defense force. Good morning. >> And good morning to all other officers who are here in the room. Now, Minister, did you have an opening
>> No, I don't. Thank you.
>> Secretary, did you have an opening statement? >> Uh, chair, I do. >> Okay. And then, Admiral, I'm assuming you have an opening statement, too. Okay. I'll start with you, Secretary.
>> Uh, thank you, chair. Uh, senators, I'll provide a short update on defense development since we appeared before you some two months ago. Since we last met, defense has delivered the final tranch of M1 A1 Abraham's tanks to Ukraine, and the government announced a further $95 million of military support, including a $50 million contribution to the prioritized Ukraine requirements list. This brings Australia's total military support to Ukraine to more than $1.5 billion. In December last year, the deputy prime minister and foreign minister committed to deepening bilateral cooperation with the United States during the 40th Australia US ministerial consultations in Washington DC. In Washington, the deputy prime minister also met with the US Secretary of War and UK Secretary of State for Defense for an Augustus Defense Ministers meeting where they discussed ways to further strengthen Orcus and reiterated their shared commitment to the long-term success of the partnership. The deputy prime minister also traveled to Japan where he met with his counterpart and announced the new framework for strategic defense cooperation which will ensure greater defense alignment between Australia and Japan. And closer to home, the deputy prime minister participated in the first ever Australia [laughter] Indonesia Papu Guina defense ministers meeting, an important forum that will boost our regional security cooperation with two key Indo-Pacific partners. In our immediate region, we have seen a greater People's Liberation Army Navy PL presence than in recent years. We expect this to continue. We have consistently raised the importance of China providing greater strategic transparency and reassurance about its activities in our region. These developments emphasize again the need to safeguard Australia's security and national interests by strengthening our own sovereign capability. To achieve this, the government has announced reforms to strengthen and streamline future acquisition and sustainment activities through the creation of the defense delivery agency. Since the announcement, the whole of government defense reform task force has been engaging with staff, industry, international partners, and union representatives as it prepares a detailed implementation plan for government consideration. Last week, the government announced its response to the independent defense estate audit. The audit provides a comprehensive evidence-based assessment that demonstrates that the scale of renewal required to ensure the defense estate can meet our operational and capability requirements now and into the future. Importantly, the audit presents an opportunity to rebalance the estate and prioritize resources in supporting efforts in the north. Devestment of sites identified in the audit will occur in a manner that is sensitive to our people and their families and to the organizations and community who support us. Implementing this program of consolidation and devestment of defense properties will ensure that our people and critical capabilities are where they need to be to defend Australia and our national interests. We have also seen significant progress on boosting ADF capability here at home. Since the last hearing, defense with Loheed Martin Australia has begun producing guided multiple launch rocket system missiles at the new facility at Port Wakefield in South Australia. This is the first and only facility of its kind to produce these missiles outside Loheed Martin's US facility. Late last year saw the MQ28A Ghostbat successfully engage an aerial target with a live weapon. A further investment of $1.4 billion has been announced to bring Ghostbat into service. Looking forward, the 2026 iteration of the National Defense Strategy and Defense Integrated Investment Program is well underway. These strategies will build on the 2024 National Defense Strategy, taking a structured approach to considering the risk in our strategic environment and the capabilities required to respond to them. I thank the committee for your time and with your indulgence, chair, pass to the CDF.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Admiral. >> Chair and senators, good morning. Admiral David Johnson, the chief of the defense force. that the ADF has hit the ground running this year, staying operationally active and ready in our region and at home. Throughout the end of year period, approximately 450 people were assigned to operations at home and abroad. I thank them for their service. We have started the year with Army deploying personnel to the joint Australian training team Philippines, reinforcing our defense ties with one of our close regional partners. Two Navy ANZAC class frigots, the Dwumba and the Waramonga have departed Australia on deployments across Asia. Additionally, two P8 Poseidon aircraft are currently conducting operations based in the Philippines, including joint support for HMAS Tomba. Towa and Waramonga will maintain Australia's maritime presence in our region. This is a clear signal of our commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific where sovereignty is respected. This matters greatly in a region where great power competition is evident and increasing. While it remained more than 200 nautical miles from Australian territory, the deployment of a People's Liberation Army Navy amphibious task group in the Southwest Pacific at the end of last year was a notable example of China's growing willingness to project its military power in the Pacific and closer to our shores. As the secretary pointed out, we expect deployments like this will continue. I want to reassure you, we are alert to this reality. Along with our allies and partners, the ADF continues to monitor military activity in our region. We are ready to respond when required. Here at home, we have responded to requests from the National Emergency Management Agency to help states and territories during disasters and emergencies. Our people have supported both the Victorian Emergency Services and the South Australian Emergency Services to respond to the recent bushfires, providing access to our bases and facilities, as well as provisions to keep first responders on their feet. We also supported the New South Wales Police Force after the tragic Bondai Beach terrorist attack with counter uncrrewed aerial systems equipment and training and specialist planning support. The ADF continues to support the Australian community when needed. Looking ahead, this year brings with it a calendar of largecale exercises where we will put our alliances and partnerships into action. Both Navy and Air Force will host their flagship international exercises. Exercise Kacadoo in March for Navy and exercise Pitch Black in July for Air Force. Following the success of our largest ever Talisman Saber, we expect Kacadoo and Pitch Black will draw a significant turnout of countries, their people and capabilities. We will once again participate in exercise Rim of the Pacific, the world's largest international maritime exercise hosted by the United States. Exercise Keris Wumra, our largest bilateral exercise with Indonesia and exercise Yamasakura with both the United States and Japan. As the secretary said, all of this will take place in the same year we developed the second national defense strategy and the next integrated investment program. When our first NDS was released, it set a challenge for the next two years, enhance our integrated and focused force. We have responded to that challenge and al along the way reflected and learned from conflicts, changes, and developments both regionally and globally. Thank you chair.
>> Thanks a lot Admiral. Okay and uh should ask both yourself admiral and secretary happy to the table that so we can circulate copy to the committee. Excellent. All right Senator Cash I'll come to you.
>> Uh thank you very much chair and uh thank you secretary and admiral for your opening statements. Uh in the first instance since we last gathered uh has the strategic environment deteriorated?
Uh senator I think it look the government's view is that it continues to be very complicated. Um I think Mr. Miles has said that he believes that since the last strategic uh assessments were were made you know since the 2024 judgments our strategic environment has continued to deteriorate.
>> Can I get you to expand on that in terms of continued to deteriorate? What have
>> Senator Hufrey, Deputy Secretary, Strategy, Policy, and Industry. Um, so I think the change between 24 and 27 and 26 is that um we've entered into a period in which uh uh the international system is likely going to be defined more by the exercise of power than by norms and rules. We think that the international rules-based system, the norms and rules that have underpinned that system remain central to our interests and the task before us is to um preserve and renovate that system, not dismember it. Uh it's why we've been so concerned for example by the erosion around the prohibition on uh territorial conquest. This is the foundation stone of the rulesbased order if you like. It's the core to the UN charter and uh uh if we see uh a world emerge in which um uh uh state territorial integrity and state sovereignty um are subject to um uh uh major powers seeking to change borders through force. This creates this is why we talk about an environment where there's where where that's deteriorating. Um and I think we've seen that some of those trends have intensified and broadened in uh 2026. Now it's not just uh the fact that the uh norms and rules have um uh become more challenging. We've also seen um um the growing use of um uh trade tools um the decline in uh global integration in relation to trade. That's a that's a contributor to the fact that we think the strategic environment is becoming more contested. And of course we are also seeing the emergence of new technology which is um developing at a pace that that that's that's outpacing the ability of states and the international community to regulate them. And so I [clears throat] think that's also a growing concern for us when we think about the strategic environment
>> just on the development of the new technology. Can you just briefly take us through where that has now got to? Well, it's
it's, you know, uh I sometimes say to my staff, working on defense strategy these days is like pretending you're an Aztec scribe um uh writing um uh you know a prediction of the future with Cortez just 3 days off the coast. We don't actually know I think the extent to which uh artificial intelligence and related technologies will transform the strategic environment. there's a lot said by these technologies, a lot said by their creators who want to create um market value for their companies. Um so but I think at a minimum uh our view is that uh artificial intelligence and other forms of disruptive technology do have the potential to transform Australia's strategic environment in particular to transform how militaries use these technologies. Uh and part of the problem of the international system uh characterized more by strategic competition um than by a sense of common norms and rules is that AI and other disruptive technologies are likely to be a tool of that competition rather than to be a source of international commitment to regulate them and control them. Uh and so that's the risk um for the defense department that imposes a dual obligation. We need to ensure that we're working with our international partners to manage the risk of these technologies. But we also need to um but but we can't only afford to just focus on the risk side. We also need to think about how do we ensure that we um adopt these new technologies to ensure that we have defenses against their use against us. So uh that's going to be an important part of how we think about technologies in the future. Th
>> Thank you, Mr. Jeffrey. Um, can I get you to provide a detailed assessment of defense's monitoring of the Chinese fleet in the Philippine Sea? Um, in terms of what were its movements over the summer and uh what you believe the intent of those movements were.
Uh, Senator, you um just geographically you're talking about um the West Philippine Sea, which is the Philippine designation of um sometimes also called parts of the South China Sea. Is that where you're referring to? >> So, look, more broadly in the South China Sea, we continue to see an expanded footprint of um Chinese military and um uh uh related security activity. It's not just the Chinese PLA, of Navy. Of course, it's the uh Chinese Coast Guard and the Chinese Maritime Militia. Um you also see um uh uh frequent use of Chinese fishing fleets uh as a way to um uh assert um Chinese claims to the territory in the South China Sea. uh we've seen this um expansion of Chinese military and related activity really since the period of around um uh 2012 2013 um that that has coincided with as you know um China's claim uh to the the seas and territories within um the South China Sea sometimes referred to as the Nash line. uh as you know the Australian government doesn't take a position on these claims. There are competing complaint claims in the South China Sea. Our position is rather that these disputed claims need to be resolved peacefully free of coercion and consistent with international law. Uh we continue to support robustly uh um Azan leadership on the resolution of these disputes through a code of conduct negotiation with the with the with the Chinese government. That discussion is ongoing. know the deputy prime minister has supported um um those discussions in the context of his participation a in the Azan defense minister's meeting in the last few years but I think safe to say we remain concerned about um uh the unresolved nature of these disputes the fact that there are range of countries that continue to u face a a strong degree of uh coercion in relation to their claims >> and again the importance of focusing on how these claims be resolved peacefully consistent with international.
>> Just moving on then um but but but similar um ground. What are the risks to the threat environment currently of the CCP's assertive live fire exercises and the blockade simulations of Taiwan?
Well, I think uh we have judged uh that the because of these tactics that you refer to and because of um uh the increasing presence of military assets in the South China Sea, um uh uh military uh militaries from a range of countries are coming into increasingly frequent proximity. This is one of the world's busiest international shipping routes. >> Y >> and it is also a um territory that's crucial to the national security of the climate states in the region, the in maritime Southeast Asia and of course to China. So our view has been and our concern has been that this combination of factors creates an environment that is uh um where the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation is elevated. And that's why we think it's very important that there be a robust process to resolve these disputes uh consistent with international law. You know um there are a range it's not like this is a mystery. There are a range of uh examples in the region in Southeast Asia and indeed um in Australia's engagement with the region for example with Tim Mostee where we have resolved disputes over boundaries and territories consistent with international law using those international mechanisms to resolve them peacefully and to the satisfaction of both parties. There's ample precedent for this to occur and I think it's the long time government um uh position that um that the claimants to the South China Sea engage in these in these dispute
closer to home then um but in that same context um in previous estimates we have spoken about grayzone conflict and the changing nature of strategic competition. Um, is the threatening of tariffs in retaliation for returning the port of Darwin to Australian hands an example of what is meant when experts say that strategic competition increasingly uh is using a whole of state craft lens.
I think the definition, Senator, um is that is that grayzone um tactics are are an attempt to pursue strategic goals um sometimes coercively below the threshold of conflict. uh uh we see um that the use of gray zone tactics has become uh more common in the international environment and it's become more common both by state actors and non-state actors. uh it's aided by the proliferation of technology and interconnected um uh information systems and um this is related as well to what we see as a more contested and more conditional trade space where states um resort to economic tools as a form of coercion. We um this is not limited to one country. Uh um as you know uh Australia has placed great store in the idea of um of global economic integration and interdependence, the theory of comparative advantage, being able to focus on what you're good at, being able to import what you're not. Um and that it'll be outsource what you're what you're not. And this uh I think has been part of what we would describe as an incredibly um hospitable strategic environment for Australia's development over the last 30 40 years. However, that unfeted process of globalization I think is becoming much more um the challenge the consensus around it has largely uh has largely broken down and the the use of states to resort to trade tools like tariffs is becoming a more of a feature of our environment. And [clears throat]
just on that, minister, and the use of obviously um the threatening of tariffs or retaliation for returning the port of Darwin to Australian hands um or or as was stated, the use of trade tools. Um is that the conduct of a friend or a
>> um Senator, let's just start off the day on a positive note. All right. Thank you, Minister. you have a call.
>> Uh thanks very much chair and thank you Senator Cash. The approach that we are taking to the bilateral relationship with China uh seeks to establish a very calm and steady approach to that relationship uh and dialogue for us is part of that. We consider that that is central to having a stable and a constructive relationship with China. Um we are clear too that there are um we must approach this in a way that is consistent with our national interests. Um we have been clear for example that China is embarking on the largest conventional military buildup uh since the second world war and as the secretary Mr. Jeffrey CDF have already spoken about that is occurring without the transparency and reassurance that we would hope for. Um, and as Mr. Jeffrey has indicated to you just now, that increases the risk of miscalculation or unintentional escalation. And those are things that are concerns and that we continue to work with with counterparts.
>> Um, Secretary or Mr. Jeffrey, uh, what is the status as at today of the repurchase of the port of Darwin? And in answering that, can you just take us through what defense's role is in that?
>> You, Senator, um, will defer that question to the relevant department. This is [clears throat] um defense is contributing and supporting um where required in relation to to that work but we're not leading that work.
>> So contributing
>> the department of infrastructure
>> and supporting um when you so does defense then given it is the port of Darwin given its strategic location given the announcement by the government um for strategic regions uh that it is committed to the repurchase of the port of Darwin. So defense's role is contributing and supporting. Do you as the department of defense then understand what the current status is of the repurchase?
>> Uh Senator I am um participating in um internal discussions um departmental consultations um with colleagues um and so yes I'm I'm up to speed with where the uh where the
work is at. So are you able to tell us what is the current status of the purchase because that is something that we have now been pursuing um at a number of estimates in particular given uh the commitment by the government uh to facilitate the repurchase. So are you able to tell us I mean you've said it's within your knowledge what is the current status
>> senator I would again I wouldn't go into that I that this is work that we're doing to provide advice to the government on how we execute uh on the prime minister's direction. Uh but I wouldn't it would be premature to uh go into the details of that work. C
>> could I ask then is defense involved in any national security assessments to support the sale? Not going to what the national security assessments may or may not be, but is that one of defense's
>> Senator, again, I don't think I'm going to go into the detail of you what we're providing and how we're providing it, but we are working closely with the team
that's leading this work. Um what advice has then been given to the service chiefs in relation to the repurchase?
>> Uh Senator, I have advised uh my colleagues in defense about the status of the the work happening at the uh um at the inter at the intergovernment
level. >> At the intergovernment level and when you said you have advised your colleagues, who are those colleagues? uh
my um my uh three star military colleagues and my my ban three colleagues in the department and of course the secretary in the CDF.
>> Yep. Okay. Um has the defense minister sought briefings on the matter?
>> I'm sorry, Senator.
>> Has the defense minister sought briefings on this matter? The repurchase of the the port of Darwin?
>> Uh we have discussed the the item with um our portfolio ministers.
>> Uh with portfolio ministers. >> That's correct, Senator. Okay. Can I ask um have the service chiefs provided themselves any briefings to the minister or ministers?
>> The service chiefs I'm not aware. Senator
>> Um sorry, Senator.
>> No, no, that's fine. Secretary,
>> I think that um advice would would um on on this matter would you know this the service chiefs may have particular um you know um bits of information that would feed in but the the advice to the whole of government process would be provided collated and provided through Mr. Jeffrey's uh team um you know to the to the whole of government group that's
working on this. Just on that secretary, the whole of government process um my initial questions were what is the status? Um unable to provide that to this committee because the status is undertaken by infrastructure and defense provides the contributing um and supporting [cough] role in terms of that whole of government process in terms of the repurchase. Can you just take us through what that is?
It's a normal IDC.
>> You're talking about the the government process about how we work for
>> you refer to a whole of government process. You're part of that because you are as you say contributing and supporting um you're contributing and supporting the minister are you contributing and supporting the department of infrastructure? Who else is part of this whole of government
role? Uh well again I think those questions are best directed to the department of infrastructure but um it is an inter interdep departmental committee.
>> It's an inter right
>> and uh as common as um uh pretty common um uh a feature of of federal government uh that's led by the department of infrastructure. They will invite rel um stakeholder agencies those agencies that will be important to contributing to advice to government to ensure that the prime minister and the government broadly is getting holistic
>> Uh when was defense first invited to participate into the interdep departmental committee.
>> I'll take that on notice senator. Um
yeah.
>> Okay. um prime minister and cabinet. We also put questions to them in relation to uh the repurchase of the port and uh of Darwin. Um we asked them whether or not there there was an election commitment tracker. I've been in government do know what an election commitment tracker looks like. Um and they were unable to tell us whether or not uh there was even tracking of this. Is defense itself aware of whether or not the commitment to implement this is actually being
>> I'm I'm I'm not aware. Um I'm not aware,
>> Okay. One more question. Um I look I
will come back to this because I do have um another series of questions just in relation Mr. Jeffrey 2, has the defense minister or ministers within the portfolio uh sought briefings on this matter? Um can I get you potentially to take on notice um when the briefings were provided and in what manner? >> Yeah, take it on notice. >> Thank you very much and thank you chair. I will return to this line of question.
>> Yeah, that's right. We'll come back. Thank you very much. Um I'll go to Senator Go and then Senator Schub. Senator Go, you have the call. Thank