Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 5:55:12 to 6:38:30
Officials detail notifications regarding a Chinese ICBM test and discuss integrity measures for managing contractors and labor hire within the department.
Topics: National security, Procurement, Integrity
Speakers: Speaker 33, Senator Barbara Pocock, Senator Jessica Collins, Natalie Cohen, Belinda Casson, Adam McCarthy, Carli Shillito, Elizabeth Peak, Hon Penny Wong, Jan Adams, Senator Raff Ciccone, Speaker 34
>> Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to ask some questions about uh the PRC missile test, please. So the the PLA Navy's missile test in
Uh, thank you, Senator Ellie Lawson, Deputy Secretary, Strategic Planning and
secretary Lawson said, there are a number of um notice to airmen and closure areas including temporary exclusion zones um which were issued in uh pre-launch um 5 to 6 July. But those notices from our perspective lacked um some detail. Uh then in terms of the bilateral communication uh that occurred on the 6th of July um both in um Beijing uh through uh military channels uh and also uh in CRA uh to DEFAT officials. >> Sorry, not to be clear. That was the Chinese embassy in CRA. >> On the 6th of July.
the 6th.
>> Two hours. And you said uh it lacked some detail. the pre-launch warning, what what sort of details was it missing or what sort of details did it include? So, I'm not um I'll have to come back to you on the specifics of the formal notification context, but my comment around the lack of details um in relation to the NOTAMS um which is the not notice to airman um uh notices for example referred to hazardous operations or space debris but did not provide specific detail. Um and then um obviously the the um the the nature of the discussions um from our perspective when we were having the exchanges with the uh Chinese officials when they conveyed the information to us was to ask about intent, purpose, um timing and >> Okay. So were you told about the direction in which it would travel, where it was intended to land? Um I'll have to come back to you on the specifics of that discussion because I don't have the specific details of that in relation to the specific elements of that but from our perspective the nature of the notifications we provided were provided with did not provide the sufficient level of detail we would expect including under the H code of conduct to which Australia is a is a party which sets out things around uh the flight path the um the nature of the capability etc. We did not um consider that the requirements under the H code of conduct were met. I'm there have been some public statements in relation to this. we have all we we we we are the ones to indicate when others
have been notified.
>> Okay.
>> But I I I we can look at what's public.
>> so so reportedly not all Pacific nations were pre-notified and there was a statement by the the PIF foreign ministers. Sorry.
>> Did DEFAT uh then once you received the formal notification um you and just just to be clear you you didn't have any uh indication prior to the formal notification that this was going to happen. It was all a surprise for the Australian government.
Uh that's not a matter I can comment on, Senator.
>> Okay. Uh did the did you then did Defat uh notify Pacific Islands just to make sure that they were aware that the missile was coming their way?
Um I would refer you um to uh I I won't go into the specifics of private bilateral conversations we may or may not have had but what I will refer you to is the comments the foreign minister made when she was um in SUA public comments in which she indicated that China had advised the Australian government of its intent to conduct a seabbased missile. Okay. >> So she did make those comments publicly
member of the Pacific family and security is within the Pacific family, I assume that the Australian government then would have notified Pacific Islands, Pacific Island governments that this was about to happen in the region.
>> Senator, I think we've already answered the the question. Well,
>> I was in Sua with the prime minister to sign the Vivali Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance. >> Okay. [snorts] So you can draw the
>> You mentioned before about the H convention. What's DEFAT's legal assessment of whether the test was consistent with China's obligations under international law?
>> So a few things I'd say um in relation to the H code of conduct. The first thing is it isn't a legal instrument. It is a voluntary arrangement which states subscribe to uh if you like. And from our perspective, we see it as a really important transparency and confidence building measure. Um there are 145 subscribed states as I as I mentioned before including of course Australia. China is not a signary to the H code of conduct. Uh we call on all states to sign in and and subscribe to the principles and it provides a range of um non-legally binding processes. The first of that is notification to the other subscribing states. So of course China is not a subscribing state so did not do that. So 145 states who subscribed to that did not um but did not they did
notify you just not within the time frame that is expected. Is that what I understand to be correct?
>> They did not notify all of the H code of conduct states as far as we're aware. They notified Australia but not um they didn't use the H code of conduct process. So there's actually a process where >> all member states, well not member states, I'm using the wrong term. All subscribing states to the HEG code of conduct um have a process by which they are able to notify everybody else of an intention to undertake um the test. Um and so it sets out a range of um of um requirements if you like um including things such as that that pre-launch notification would include information such as the generic class of the ballistic missile or the space launch vehicle, the planned launch notification window, the launch area, and the planned direction um by which um the uh missile test would take place.
>> Okay. So none of that information was provided to th those the launch window
>> from our perspective those um requirements or those principles or or measures that are outlined were not met.
>> Okay. Just just to the second part of my question it was about whether the test was consistent with China's obligations under international law. I know you mentioned the H code of conduct. Apologies I've called it the H convention before. Um uh but was the test consistent with the broader um obligations under international law?
>> I'll leave that to >> We don't usually get into the specifics of um international law advice um but I'm not sure if my colleagues from the legal team have anything to add beyond
>> Uh thank you Senator uh Adam McCarthy. uh faz legal division. I really don't have a lot to add to m Thank you to Mr. Zudin's answer. The Hague uh code of conduct is of course non-binding. It's not legally binding. Uh there is actually very little in the way of legal framework uh that is in this area and beyond that we would be getting into the territory of the provision of legal advice. So there's not a lot further I can add to that.
>> Okay. And just to be clear, the PRC doesn't recognize a treaty of RA Tonga, does it? Or the South Pacific uh nuclear
Are you aware of that? So, um, Senator, that I I'm I'm looking at you, Riley, because it's a tricky answer, and I'm just wanting to get to the right page because obviously there are states that are party to the South Pacific nuclear weapon um free zone treaty, but there are also a series of protocols to which nuclear weapons states can subscribe. Um, if you give me one moment, I'll find them. There are three. Um, and China um, from my memory is um, a party to those. Those relate in general terms to things around um nuclear weapons states not coercing or threatening signary parties to the treaty with nuclear weapons. Um one relates to those nuclear weapons states who have territories um within the zone. Um and the third one I'm just trying to remember but if you give me a
>> but just more specifically I think the treaty of Raratonga is probably the most
So they are not a party to the they cannot sign on to the treaty of Rarotonga itself but they can subscribe as I understand it and my legal colleagues will tell me if I'm wrong to the protocols which they have.
>> Okay.
>> To those which are relevant to them I should say. Sorry to interrupt you.
>> Okay. So they they have signed they have signed to the protocols or they have the ability to sign.
>> Um Senator uh Mr. Zutin is entirely correct and that accords with my understanding but maybe we can just take that on notice and respond in the course of the session. Oh, Mr. Zudin has
>> I found the page. >> Thank you. >> Um so there are three protocols. Protocol one applies um the prohibitions of the treaty with respect to nuclear weapons states respective territories in the zone um China that is not applicable to. The second protocol um to the treaty of Raaratonga um applies to not use or threaten to use nuclear explosive devices against any party to the treaty or each other's territory within the zone. China has ratified that protocol. And the third protocol um relates not to test nuclear explosive devices within the zone and again China has ratified that protocol.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um just to the point that the the minister raised before about being in Fiji at the time. Um was it DEFAT's assessment that it was coincidence that the test the missile test happened on the same day that uh the minister was there signing ratifying the ocean of peace alliance? I
>> I can't speculate senator on the intention of of China in undertaking
Was there any advice given to the
>> The focus at the time immediately from my recollection was about ensuring the minister was aware that it had occurred. Um explaining um and providing briefing in relation to the hate code of conduct for example the nature of the information that we had received. That was the immediate priority.
>> Okay. Uh, did you engage with the um with China's embassy in Fiji while you were there after the the launch after the test
>> in in Sua?
>> In Sua. Yep.
>> I might leave that to my colleague from the Office of the Pacific. I was um not in Sua at the time.
>> Okay. I might just ask you, Minister, while you're there in Sua, did you uh engage with the Chinese embassy there
deal with I don't deal with >> that would not be the level at which I would make representations.
>> Okay. Did you um make any representations to the Chinese embassy here in in CRA?
>> Senator, the the minister would not make representations to the embassy. That would be my job and that of my colleague here. And yes, we made representations to the
>> You did? Okay. And uh what was the nature of the representation?
>> perhaps to shortcut this. >> Yeah. >> The representation the level I made was to foreign minister Wangi in Manila.
>> Okay. Would you be able to share what
what I say privately I say publicly which is we um emphasize the importance of transparency and reassurance of intent and we regard the missile test as destabilizing and we note the the expressions of concern the strong expressions of concern from many Pacific leaders.
>> Okay. And what was the foreign
>> I'm not sure. I'll see what information I can get you. I don't I uh doubt that I would go into every detail of what he says. What I what I do say uh is I'm clear with the Australian people about the representations we make on a matters that really are I think appropriate that it's it's public and in Australia because they articulate our national interest.
>> Okay. And am I correct in thinking that you raised this in person with the foreign minister?
>> I just said that.
>> I'm sorry. I mustn't have heard you. I
thought you said that you public
statement or private statement.
>> No, my Okay. I I met with you were asking about representations. Um Miss Lawson explained the her levels of representation and what where other representations were made. Uh I what I'm indicating to you is that I raised our concerns directly and personally with the foreign minister uh Wangi uh in Manila on 21st of July.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Has the prime minister raised the test with the Premier League Chang or President Xi?
>> There'll be a matter for PMNC.
Uh, has the PRC complained to Australia about the Australia Fiji treaty?
>> It it doesn't really usually work like that. Uh, they may have made some public statements. I'm not really sure, but uh we wouldn't uh have any other countries complaining to us about our our treaty decisions as
such. Okay. So, uh nothing in the through the high commission over in Fiji
>> Well, it's it it's it's hard to imagine how that would come about. Senator, I'm
not aware of any specific representation, but certainly I can say that we've had many conversations with the Chinese government about our position on the Pacific and asserting our interests and our advocacy um for the Pacific and for Pacific Island countries and generally that is the way that the conversations go.
>> Okay. Uh has DFAT raised a test in any multilateral forums such as the NPT review conference process, the conference on disarmament or the UN
first committee? Our focus has been I I'll know if officials can add to this but I can say to you at ministerial level the focus was to to work with the PIFF and it there was >> [snorts] >> uh a discussion including in the PIF foreign ministers and also in the leaders meeting that
>> that's right if I if I may add um to the foreign minister's comments um as she said uh the PIF uh leaders um meeting communicate and the foreign ministers communicate both reference to the test. I'm happy to quote it to you if if that would be helpful. Um in which uh in the leaders meeting communicate it says leaders in recalling the blue Pacific Ocean of peace declaration registered concern on the recent intercontinental ballistic missile ICPM test which overflew a number of members without adequate notice. Leaders called on all states undertaking ICBM testing to ensure transparency and reassurance, including through the provision of advanced notification of at least 24 hours in accordance with international practice. Leaders emphasized the importance of all states conducting ICPM tests to do so consistently with the blue Pacific Ocean of Peace Declaration, the Treaty of Rarotonga and in respect of the sovereignty of forum members. Um I should make the point um for completeness that the Republic of Nairo disassociated itself with that paragraph. Um the other point to your question Senator at the top yes we did make comments about this in multilateral fora as well. Um we joined a joint statement um in the conference on disarmament in relation to the notification of ballistic missile launchers. Australia along with 39 other countries joined this statement which was US-led. Um and in um Interelia um that statement um called on all countries to commit to participate in arrangements for providing advanced notification to affected states uh and also indicated um concern um with um the uh the recent missile testing activity in the Pacific which did not follow standard practices and that the conducting of such tests without sufficient advanced notice. um is dangerous and disrupts the peace and security of relevant nations in proximity to this tests, increases the risk of miscalculation, undermines global security and stability, and is incompatible with the responsibilities that come with possessing long-range missile capabilities. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Um you you mentioned that NARU descended from the final communicate. Um does does DEFAT assess that there was lobbying to um you know from the PRC to influence that? I understand that the prime minister had said that the forum was drafting a very strong joint statement. In the end, China wasn't included in that. So what's Steve Fat's assessment as to why it ended up that
>> I don't think that we can speculate, Senator, on on that type of thing.
>> Okay. So I wouldn't ask you for speculation. I just ask you for your assessment. You would make assessment on the evidence that you have at hand. Um what's your assessment as to why China was not in the mentioned in the final
>> Elizabeth P, head of the Office of the Pacific. Uh Senator, the the language in the in the communicate I think is clear. There wasn't multiple recent ballistic uh missile tests that were occurring in the had occurred in the Pacific. So I I don't think anyone is left in any doubt by that language about which uh test we
Naru did descent from the final communicate. Why was that?
>> Senator that would be a question for
Is there any information that DEFAT has been presented with uh that the PRC pressured, threatened or often inducements to anyone in the leadup to
>> I don't think we would be presented with information of that nature.
has anybody in defat or any any of our personnel out posted out there uh seen
Senator, that would be a a question to put to the countries themselves. What we can do is speak on behalf of Australia and how we operate in the Pacific Island Forum and and the decisions that we make and and for our own part uh uh we were
>> Okay. Has any foreign member told Australia that it's faced economic, diplomatic, or other coercion from PRC over its position on the test?
>> Not that I'm aware, Senator.
How does DEFAT respond to the argument made by Kurbus President that singling out China is unfair when United States tests So, >> Senator, you know what? I I'll just, you know, I'm going to withdraw I'm going to withdraw the question. I'm just going to move on. My apologies. I'm just going to >> What is DFAT's assessment of the likelihood of further PRC missile tests
>> Well, Senator, we don't comment on hypotheticals.
>> It's really hard to
>> It's hard to assess that speculate.
>> Okay. So you you've had no communications from the PRC then that they will be conducting further tests.
>> Well, that's a different matter, but but the answer to that is no. Not to my knowledge.
>> Not to your knowledge. No. Okay, good. >> All right. Any you can ask
>> Barbara PCO's waiting patiently >> and I'll come back to other senators. Senator PCO. >> Thank you, chair. Um, my questions go to >> Thanks for being here again. Um, in response to my I've got a number of lines of questions in this area. In response to my questioning at estimates on the 4th of June this year uh competitive advantages as a result instead of relying on information sharing through briefings in a two-step tender process that cannot reliably design. Why can't firms simply be banned from doing both design and
>> Uh thank you. Thank you Senator Natalie Cohen, acting deputy secretary development multilateral and Europe group. Um thank you for the question and for your interest in this issue. And um I recall in the hearing back in June, we did indicate that there was some um an additional procurement mechanism coming online that would provide us with some more options in the future for managing and and reducing this potential um conflict of interest or or advantage. And uh we are um very close to being in a position where we could um actually uh exclude contractors who have undertaken a design from subsequent procurements. Um I'll ask Michelito to to speak to to how that's rolling out. But um in effect we are establishing a new mechanism through which we can procure design support and um it will not only strengthen the robustness of that procurement but it also reduces the opportunity for unfair advantage and it will increase diversity in our market. But I'll ask Michelito just to give you an update on where it where it is at. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you Senator Carly Chilto first assistant secretary development programming division. Um, as Miss Cohen has mentioned, we are very close to finalizing what we're describing as the dev plus panel. >> Um, and that's a panel that will provide streamlined access to a more diverse pool of providers in core development functions, namely uh, design, monitoring, evaluation, and learning, due diligence, and accreditation, safeguards, property advice, and procurement evaluation. The panel has been operating since the 26th of August and we've onboarded 57 providers. Uh it is still a live procurement process. So we can't give you final numbers but we expect to have it fully operational by the end of this year. We also expect that to provide a good mix of small to medium and large providers um and providers who've worked for us before but a number of providers who haven't worked with the department before. Uh what that will do as Miss Cohen has indicated is provide a a a capability that we can access that will enable us to separate design and implementation procurements. We're hoping to introduce that reform uh sometime in the 2027 calendar year.
>> Okay, I'll come back to Dev Plus um later. Um I want to go to the question of the cooling off and the revolving door issue. Uh DEFAT's answer on notice to my question estimates on the 4th of June regarding cooling off and revolving door issues in the sector. Uh that was quan number 203 stated and I quote the 26 DEFAT officials have resigned from their APS jobs and returned to the department as a contractor through a labor hire company since the 1st of July 2023. One of the two conflicts of interest were identified as relating to private interests. What was the conflict in this case and how was it mitigated?
>> Good. Senator Belinda Ken, first assistant secretary people division. I don't have the detail of that particular matter with us today, but I'm very happy to take that on notice.
>> Thank you. Why should so many relatively senior DEFAT staff leave the APS in this manner and be retained for their expertise uh through private companies?
Uh Senator, what I would say on that is um the use of contractors will depend on needing particular expertise perhaps for a short period of time. Uh and so we you know when people leave the public service, there are still times when it's appropriate to have to draw on some of that expertise. Um we're obviously very focused on making sure that our capability in-house is very strong. So I think obviously our our trend is is downwards on that. Um we um obviously do quite a bit of work um with uh our policy settings just to make sure uh that people are taking proper account of of the issues that you should think about when you're making a decision about a contractor engagement. uh and uh certainly um most of the contracting um settings and the sort of the contracting situations in the department uh tend to go to where there's a need for a a short-term very sort of specialist set of expertise rather than sort of a pattern of needing to do this on a
>> I'd like to know how and in what functions these 26 former APS officials are deployed within the public sector across CRA and posts. If on notice you could help me with that. I would
appreciate that. >> Thanks.
>> It does I'm I'm very conscious this government has made commitments to reduce its dependence on contractors, consultants and labor hire but it's not having success. We are at a 20 billion level of expenditure external to the public sector which is back at the last year of the Morrison government. So I'm curious about what this kind of exit and then reemployment as a consultant. What does it point to a structural problem in DEFAT's ability to retain expertise and specializations within the APS ranks? I mean what are your your thoughts about
>> Yeah, thanks Senator. Um we've obviously been doing a lot of work under the strategic commissioning framework on uh looking at the use of contractors in the department. Um we've reduced since 2022 the number of contractors from uh 1375 so that's an October 2022 number uh to 788 in September 2026. That's a reduction of about 43%. Um the uh when when people in the department are making decisions to engage contractors, we are tracking now the the rationale uh so that we can understand whether it is uh straying into what we might consider core work for the department and for the APS or whether it is something that is genuinely difficult to get into the public service that we might need for a short period of time. um you know uh Minister Gallagher Herd mentioned in the in the finance hearing yesterday or APC hearing one of those I'm sorry for not remembering which one um that uh for one of the examples for DEFAD of course is um infrastructure financing um projects in the Pacific so they're short-term very specialist they're not core capability for the department >> um so most of the time it's it's a it's a a very strong indication it's a difficulty recruiting that particular skill set for the in the AP PS or it's a short-term demand for resourcing. They're sort of the two key reasons. So happy to take uh on notice some of the particulars but certainly um you know in the DEFAT context um some of the scenarios where we're using contractors um is in some of our demand driven parts of the business. [snorts] So we know for example that we've got a potential peak coming for passport uh uh processing and requests. So we we scale that up but we don't need to keep that all the time. So we scale down. So um and then just generally it's very specialized cyber and ICT skill sets uh and some very particular sort of security uh projects as well. So very short-term very specific uh niche parts of parts of the department's work not
>> has that you were you mentioned that number from 1375 in October 2022 to 788 y September this year. Has that been offset by an increase in permanent employment? How's the how's that been uh managed? The work is presumably still
>> Indeed, Senator. Um there obviously has been a corresponding increase of ASL to the department through um several budget processes. Obviously, um the detail of that is is clear in the PBS and and elsewhere. Um we have obviously been doing in some places where it's relevant and appropriate to do so contract to conversion. Okay. >> So, so where it's core work that is um uh that needs to be that capability needs to be in the department uh then we are using some of that ASL obviously for contract conversions. >> Uh but there has been obviously a corresponding increase of the department's ASL.
>> Thank you for that. >> Thanks. Um that same question on notice uh number 203 stated that quote the department has supported four officers who separated since 1st July 2023 who intended to undertake employment with a managing contractor within the exclusion period. That's the end of the quote and that quote each was assessed and all were approved by the relevant delegate as appropriate in the circumstances. Can you confirm that in each of these cases, the APS employees did not take up a private position to advise in relation to a contract or a grant agreement to which DEFAT is or is proposed to be a party for a period of 9 months post separation.
>> Yeah, thanks Senator. I don't have the detail of those particular exemptions um and sort of processes here with me, but very happy to take that on notice.
>> So, thank you. And as you do that, I'd be interested in how the assessment was made by the relevant DEFAT delegate that each of these four cases were appropriate uh in the circumstances. >> I'm going to carry on until I get pulled up. Um I want to go to forprofit advisers based in >> inside DEFAT posts. I understand that several for-profit men going to advisers based inside defat posts who are forprofit. I understand >> Yeah, sorry. I understand that several for-profit managing contractors have employed staff that act as quote embedded advisers at different DEFAT posts advising across design, implementation, and evaluation functions for a range of programs. OC connect recruitment material indicates that privately contracted consultants are being embedded long-term at post to provide technical advice. Can you confirm where and how these models are being used across the Australian International Development Program and what safeguards have been put in place?
>> Thank you. Thank you, Senator. It's um it is a model that that is used. I can't tell you exact numbers or where it is now, but I can say that um we are aware um that we need to have a robust system in place um to manage that in terms of um right from the outset of employment and that includes that the individuals sign um conflict of interest declarations and deeds of confidentiality and they do receive regular briefings and reminders about that. And we also um have information particular clauses and requirements that are inserted into the contracts. They might be managed in different ways depending depending on the circumstances. Um usually those personnel are bringing in unique and specialist expertise um that we're looking for in the development program and that address technical or resource gaps um and allow us to really deliver on on the government's development priorities including um in times of surge support in particular. Um I do acknowledge this this can raise challenges around um perceived and real conflicts of interest and so we continue to look at um ensuring that we have the most robust system in place to manage that and and to mitigate those risks and that includes some of the things that we talked about um a few minutes ago in terms of uh separation between different companies that are involved in the implementation versus the evaluation of a program for example. And do you think
this is a good way to manage uh conflicts of interest and a good model to to be managing work around
>> the model of using contractors embedded in this way is working well for us in terms of being able to deliver on what is a very complex um development program and enabling us to access the expertise that we [clears throat] need. It I I wouldn't say it's a model used um widely or broadly. it's used in very specific circumstances that I as I said and it's it's often related to very specific subsectors or or technical expertise that we need. So in those cases it does allow us to get access to those expertise have that incorporated into the broader work that we're doing in um delivery of a program and thus improve the effectiveness of that delivery
>> and are these mostly working for us owned managing contractors uh and are these embedded firms in any way procluded from future contracting that they may be influencing due to their role at the posts?
I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, Senator, whether which firms which firms they are. Um, but we we still have uh the same approach applies in terms of um conflict of interest, property and separation. Michelita might want to add to that.
>> Yeah, I I think in addition to that, Senator, where we identify that there is an unmititigatable conflict of interest, we would put in place physical measures. So either ex restricting access to to systems and information that particular that those particular contractors have and sometimes even physical separation from the team with which they are advising. So we're very conscious of the perceived conflict of interest that that creates um and and seek to manage that in all instances including through things um like non-disclosure agreements and things like such as that confidentiality agreements.
>> Thank you. When when did you last have a blow up around a conflict of interest to you know h one of the measures of a system working well is there's policing and uh bad behavior is ratted out and dealt with. When did you last have to do that and how did it hap you know fill us in on the rigor of what you're doing? I
can give you a a recent example from the past two weeks, Senator, but I' I've not been in this job for too long, so I I I can go back and and look at that uh in more detail, but uh we had uh we uh often seek sorted advice is often sought from us, my apologies. Uh on how to manage conflicts of interest related to procurement processes. Um my division is responsible for overseeing the property of the broader development program. Um there was one instance where a a an embedded contractor was asked to do some >> No no problem.
just trying to resolve >> order and quantum.
>> Sorry. >> Excuse me.
>> Not not at all, Senator. Not a problem. uh an embedded officer from a a managing contractor was asked to undertake some design work. Uh we advised against that and said that is an unmititigatable conflict of interest and that they would need to seek a procurement from the market for that.
I asked questions in December last year about the market concentration in the managing contractor ecosystem. um was a Quan 304. Uh DEFAT's answer on notice mentioned that ODA procurements are open and not restricted to organizations and companies in Australia in line with the OECD principle of untied aid. Is that sufficient justification for DEFA allowing market concentration in the hands of a few large firms many of which are headquartered in the US?
that's I I recall that discussion and and the question on notice. I think um what we've discussed before in in these sessions as well is that um we acknowledge that there are in some cases concentration um in the in the market in terms of delivery of the development program. Uh we have been conscious of that for several years now and we have worked to try to um address that issue. That has included things uh like doing a lot of proactive um outreach to potential bidders and firms of all sizes to make sure that we have as level a playing field as possible. Um it includes things like the two-step tender process that you mentioned before and and briefing um throughout the tender processes uh in and and a range of other um of other mechanisms. Um, we have seen an large increase in the number of different companies bidding for our work since USAD closed >> and then again when the UK um development program also reduced its funding. So uh we have in some cases a doubling or a tripling of the number of responses to tenders. Now I think it will take a little bit of time for the data to show the concentration being affected by that by that spreading out of the number of different bidders and tenders but um we are watching that closely and and monitoring it. Yeah.
>> And isn't it also the case that there have been mergers and increasing concentration occurring at the same time? Is that a concern also when you've got people who are missing out on business over there coming over here, but there is a concentration that's increasing, is there not?
>> Um, the mergers were quite frequent um probably four to five years ago. They've been less in the in the recent years, but did you
>> I can take that on notice, Senator, if if that's possible. That >> detail. >> I I would just add in relation to um Ms. Cohen's comments that um we have been very proactively reaching out to potential new entrance to the market. My team's done more than 30 engagements with new entrance to the market over the past 2 years and that includes providing information of course but very practical support on how to bid for DEFAT work. So things like how do you price a DEFAT project, how do you write a DEFAT bid? Um, we're really conscious that we're keen to increase the competitiveness of those new entrance to diversify the
>> Thank you. Um, I want to go to um,
>> go to another block. >> Go to another set.
>> I can go. I can give someone else a
shot. >> Okay. Um, so I'm just going to just let the Australian Center for International A Research know that we are going to release them. Um, I'm now going to hand over to Senator Sharma and then Senator Collins. So, Senator Sharma, thank you.