National Press Club, Q&A

SUBJECTS: 2026 National Defence Strategy and 2026 Integrated Investment Program; Middle East Conflict

TOM CONNELL, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB: Thank you, Minister. I’ll begin with my question before I go to the floor. So we’ve got a new way of measuring Defence spending – percent of GDP by 2023, though. What is that same figure under the old measurement?

RICHARD MARLES, ACTING PRIME MINISTER: We don't have a new way of measuring defence spending. Like the Prime Minister has been really clear that the way in which we go about our defence funding is to assess the capabilities of our defence force against the strategic landscape that we face and then resource the defence force that we need. And we really clearly express the resourcing of that defence force in dollar figures which are there for everyone to see. And so when you look at them, no matter which way you cut it, it is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our nation's history. Now, you know, we don't particularly lean into international comparisons, but when we're engaging in international comparisons we do international comparisons. And so we're using the NATO measure, which is how you compare apples with apples. And what's clear is that when you do that, you know, we're spending more on this day than any other equivalent like‑minded country in the Indo‑Pacific, more than most countries of NATO, more than all the G7 countries in NATO with the exception of the United States. But, you know, we are focusing on what we are doing in terms of increases in Defence expenditure. And since we've come to office it represents $30 billion over the forward estimates, $117 billion over the decade. And to put that in a historical context, in the entirety of the Abbott‑Turnbull‑Morrison government, all that they put was $10 billion over the decade, and indeed most of that was strung out in the later years.

CONNELL: The only way, though, we can compare spending on capability percent of GDP is the previous figure. Do you have one for 2023? I'm not going to provide that anymore.

MARLES: I don't accept that. I mean, you can absolutely compare expenditure on defence budget on budget. The numbers and the figures are all there. And what's clear is that we are spending more. I mean, what you've historically seen in terms of increases in defence spending in Australia's history is that, you know, pre what we've established with national defence strategies, is that when there were intermittent White Papers, there tended to be an injection into the Defence budget as a result. We had one of those during the Abbott‑Turnbull‑Morrison government where $30 billion was injected over a 10‑year period and within two years they took $20 billion of that out. Since we've come to government, budget on budget, we have been increasing defence spending up to the point now where we have $117 billion additional dollars in the budget relative to what we inherited from the Coalition over the next decade.

CONNELL: Andrew Probyn.

JOURNALIST: Minister Marles, you accurately said that the global rules‑based order would not have existed without American leadership. I would put to you that American leadership is being sorely tested at the moment. How much work needs to be done by Australia to rescue the damage done to the public view on the American alliance and consequently AUKUS?

MARLES: Well, as I’ve said in the speech, there is no world in which you create a balance of power within the Indo‑Pacific without a continued American presence. Now, we are deeply engaged with the United States Defence Forces. To give you an example, institutionally now the deputy commanders in the US Army in the Pacific, the US Navy in the Pacific and the US Air Force in the Pacific are all Australians. And that’s been the case for some time. You know, we are throughout Indo‑Pacific Command. And that relationship, which is at the heart of the alliance, is fundamental to Australia’s own national security and national defence. Now, we make that point really clearly, and I do think that Australians understand that and can see the importance in terms of how we defend our own country but also how we build our own capability in maintaining the alliance, and specifically the defence relationship which sits at the heart of it.

JOURNALIST: But do you concede that Donald Trump has damaged American international prestige?

MARLES: Well, I think I'm not going to walk down that path. I think what you do have is a clear articulation of the United States strategic posture in both their National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategies, which were released at the end of last year. And people can make their own assessment of those documents. But from the perspective of Australia, one thing is clear, which is that in both of those documents there is a really clear‑eyed assessment and commitment to the significance of the Indo‑Pacific.

CONNELL: Tom Lowrey from the ABC.

JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks for the address today. You expressed some frustrations in your speech around the commentary on defence spending levels. Can you give us an idea what sort of challenges are you facing around the ERC table in arguing for more defence funding? Is there pushback there?

MARLES: Well, there's not pushback in the sense that you can look at what we've done. I mean, the ERC table under the Albanese Labor government has delivered the biggest peacetime increase in Defence spending in our nation's history. I mean, the only way of properly assessing that is that the ERC table has completely embraced the significance of Defence. But to be also clear, sitting as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee, every dollar counts in the budget. I mean, we have sought to be a prudent government which understands the value of the public dollar. That's why we've delivered two surpluses when our counterparts didn't do that in the entirety of their nine years in office, despite promising to do it each and every year. Now, you only achieve that by properly scrutinising every dollar that is spent across the budget, and that includes defence, as it should. And so it is right to say that money for defence and money for every portfolio is hard fought and hard won. But when you take a step back and look at the outcome, there can be no other conclusion than that our ERC has utterly embraced the significance of Defence.

CONNELL: When you say utterly embraced, were you hoping for more and this was a compromise?

MARLES: I mean, I suppose there are two ways in which I'd answer that. I'm a Defence Minister with everything that implies. But if I take a step back and look at what, you know, the ERC table has done, and you know, what our Prime Minister has done, and our Treasurer and Finance Minister in respect of defence during the course of our government, I could not be happier. I mean, they have delivered a record spend on defence. It is the biggest peacetime increase in our nation's history.

CONNELL: Tim Lester from the Seven Network.

JOURNALIST: Minister, thank you for your speech today. You noted during it we live in the most complex and threatening strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. You've noted that many times, and I note the Chief of Defence recently noted a substantial shift from our ally, the US, of resources out of the Indo‑Pacific and to the Middle East to accomplish its missions there. And many defence experts talk about the extent to which our ally has expended its missile stockpiles in the last few weeks. How much more complex and threatening are our circumstances today than they were two months ago before the Iran war?

MARLES: Well, thanks for the question, Tim. And it's obviously – I mean, it's a really good question. I don't think anyone could honestly answer that question other than saying it is more complex. I mean, the whole of Australia, but the whole of the world, is watching what's unfolding in the Middle East, and it greatly complicates the global strategic landscape. But the world feels less safe and we understand that. Having said that, we do very much support the strategic objective of denying Iran a deployable nuclear weapon. And were it ever to achieve that capability, the world would very much be less safe. So, to the extent that this conflict has made progress in denying Iran's ability to do that, you know, that is important. But, you know, we very much continue to focus on the importance of the Indo‑Pacific to Australia's strategic landscape. And as I said at the start, it really is, you know, the central thesis of the Defence Strategic Review back in 2023, that we needed to move from, if you like, a kind of all‑rounder defence force that could do lots of tasks in lots of places to a much more focused defence force that was focused on the challenges that we face in the Indo‑Pacific. And we are very much living that. But, you know, what this conflict bears out, but Ukraine does as well, is that we live in a really interconnected world, and one can't intelligently focus on the Indo‑Pacific and all the challenges there without understanding how we mesh into the rest of the world and how conflicts elsewhere can impact us. And I think the really, to me, significant point that is put in stark relief is the significance to us of our sea lines of communication. Now, I've spoken about this a lot. That is our vulnerability. You know, we are an island trading nation which derives an increasing part of our national prosperity from trade. And the physical connection of that, our sea lines of communication, and the disruption of those represent how Australia can be impacted. That's where our national security lies. And we are watching an event in the Middle East, the Strait of Hormuz, which is very central to a critical sea line of communication for Australia in terms of liquid fuel having the potential for significant impact here. And that is very much putting in stark relief what I think was the central thesis of the Defence Strategic Review and, as a result, the kind of defence force that we're seeking to build.

CONNELL: Michael Read from the AFR.

JOURNALIST: Minister, you've spoken a lot today about what capabilities the government plans on investing in. Can you shed any light on what projects you plan on cutting or scaling back as part of this strategy?

MARLES: So, there is, I can, is the answer to that question. There is inevitably a process as we update the IIP every two years of reprioritisation, and we've done that here as well. So, the first point I want to make is that in terms of the capabilities that I've spoken about, the new capabilities that we're investing in, such as, you know, the autonomous systems, which is really compared to two years ago I think, in a material sense, where the world looks very different than it did two years ago. And so, hence, we're leaning into that in terms of increased investment. That money is principally coming through an increase in defence expenditure, $14 billion over the forward estimates. But we are reprioritising about $5 billion in the IIP over the forward estimates to create more space for the investments that we are seeking to do. Now, to put that in context, that's about 4 per cent of the IIP. So, the IIP over the forward estimates is around $117 billion. And again, to kind of put that change in a bit more context, two years ago, when we announced NDS 24, we reprioritised around $23 billion over the forward estimates. So, it was really two years ago, the moment where we changed direction in terms of the defence force that we were seeking to build. I think when you look at what we're doing today, we are really very much still on that same path. But there is, you know, some change that has occurred, some reprioritisation, much less than what occurred two years ago. But that makes sense in the context of, if you look at autonomous systems looming much larger today than they did two years ago.

JOURNALIST: And which programs is those $5 billion?

MARLES: I'm not going to go into those now. There's a whole lot of issues in respect of, to be frank, both national security, but also commercial‑in‑confidence. We're obviously speaking with all the companies who are involved in all of those. Again, the point I think I'm trying to make here is it's a comparatively small amount, about 4 per cent of the IIP. So, largely, that money is achieved through rescoping of projects, reprofiling of them, and that's how we've sought to go about it.

CONNELL: How much of the new spending is so‑called off the books?

MARLES: Well, I don’t particularly like the way in which you’ve characterised that.

CONNELL: Rephrase it if you’d like?

MARLES: Well, in terms of alternative financing, and I note there's some commentary about this in the media today, what we are doing is about $5 billion over the forward estimates of alternative financing, about $15 billion over the decade. So, a couple of points to make about that. Firstly, far and away, the majority of the increases in defence spending that we've announced today come directly from the budget. So, this is a minority. But to then put that in an overall context, I mean, the IIP over the decade is about $425 billion, of which $15 billion we're talking about now as being alternative financing. As I said earlier, the IIP over the course of the forward estimates is about $117 billion, of which we're talking about $5 billion. So that gives you a sense of where this sits. But the Defence Strategic Review talks a lot about the opportunity of both government equity and accessing private capital as a means by which we can have capability quicker, where we can have capability, in some respects, in some instances, better managed. And this ends up being a win for Defence and a win for those private investors. This is not a new idea. Joint Operations Command, which is out of Bungendore, was built on the back of private financing. It was done under the Howard government, and it's been a real success. We got that capability much earlier. It's functioned really well. It's been delivered really competently by the private investors. They are making a return from it. ANI has government equity in it, and it owns the Osborne naval shipyard. And it's been around for a long time. This is not a new idea, but the Defence Strategic Review said that in this moment this is a lever that we should pull, and we are doing that, and we are doing that unashamedly.

CONNELL: Matthew Knott from the SMH and The Age.

JOURNALIST: Hello, Mr Marles. Senior figures from the Trump administration, including your counterpart, Pete Hegseth, very publicly called for Australia to reach 3 per cent or even 3.5 per cent of GDP Defence spending. Did you provide your counterparts assurances that Australia would get to that level? And would you be recalculating the way we spend money on Defence and spending this much if it weren't for pressure from the Trump administration?

MARLES: Well, again, we're not recalculating anything. If you look at how we are accounting for defence spending in the budget, it is as has always been.

JOURNALIST: With the NATO calculation.

MARLES: Well, you know, we're engaging in international comparisons based on engaging in international comparisons. You know, what we're seeking to do is compare apples with apples. That's how you compare, and so that simply makes sense. In answer to the first part of the question, Matthew, the Prime Minister has been really clear about this. We have assessed our strategic landscape. We did that in the Defence Strategic Review, and we are now doing that every two years. And that's part of what we're releasing today. We are then determining what kind of a defence force we need to meet that moment, and we are resourcing it. That's how we go about this. And that is the only commitment I have made to any of my international counterparts, is about that process and how we will do that faithfully. But pointing out that what that has yielded to date, under our government, is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending that our nation has seen, and dramatically more spending on defence than what we saw under the Coalition government of the previous nine years.

CONNELL: Ben Packham from The Australian.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister. One of the capabilities to sort of be pushed back down the timeline a couple of years ago was missile defence. There's more money in this plan for that. When do you estimate that Australia's military bases, Stirling, Darwin, etc, will be protected from ballistic missile attack? And do you think, or in hindsight, was it a mistake to put off that investment given what we now see with missile stocks and the difficulty that we will have in getting up the queue?

MARLES: Well, thank you for that question again. It's a good question. I mean, obviously all of these things ultimately end up being a balance. I'm completely comfortable with the decisions that we've taken, but that includes the decision we're taking now to lean into this and to increase our investments in integrated air and missile defence. In terms of the question of war stocks, which is a really important part of this, that's at the heart of why we are moving down the path with much greater speed of establishing the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise – in other words, making missiles here in Australia – and that has now begun. Like, when we came to government that was on the never‑never. We are manufacturing missiles in Australia on this day. I wouldn't go down the path of giving specific timelines in relation to specific bases, but this is a capability, given what we are seeing around the world – and bear in mind we have our own circumstances, we're in a geographically different position to the UAE, for example – but it is an important capability that we need to be investing in, and we are.

CONNELL: Kirsty Needham from AFP.

JOURNALIST: Minister, you mentioned sovereign hypersonic strike capability. Is this being developed with the United States? Would it be manufactured in Australia? And what's the timeline on that? And at the other end of the scale, you also mentioned the need for smaller mass‑produced drones, which we're seeing being used to high effect in the Middle East. How quickly can Australia incorporate those into its defence force? Would it be the next 12 months?

MARLES: So, to do this, the second question first, I mean, it's integrated into our defence force right now. I mean, we have drone capability across the spectrum, from the very small to the very large. And it is about, and you need that – I mean, you need the mass that comes from having smaller, cheaper drones. And I think, given Australia's specific circumstances, given our geographic isolation, we do need to have drone capabilities, autonomous system capabilities, at the larger, higher end. And I think there's no coincidence as a result that you are seeing us being the leading nation, really, when it comes to developing those sorts of systems in the form of Ghost Bat and Ghost Shark, both of which are large autonomous systems, in terms of collaborative combat aircraft and undersea. But, you know, we are scaling up, we want to have more in the Defence Force, but we are building all of those into the Defence Force as we speak. We are working with the United States in relation to hypersonic capabilities. Again, I'm not going to give timelines in relation to that other than say that, you know, what we have seen is really significant capability achievements over the last couple of years in respect of this, and getting to that endpoint as quickly as possible is a major priority, hence our investment in this IIP.

CONNELL: You spoke in your speech about the asymmetrical nature of what's happening. There's a lot more being spent on the large autonomous vehicles than the smaller ones in terms of actual dollars.

MARLES: Yes.

CONNELL: Is that something that might change? Is that something that's sort of fairly, you know, it's moving pretty quickly that you might go, actually the smaller ones are more effective for you, maybe we change tack?

MARLES: Again, good question. I suppose the honest answer to that question is yes, in the sense that what we’re doing now, which is to have a two‑year drumbeat with the NDS and the IIP, is to give us the agility to make those calls if that's required. So, on this day, I am really comfortable with what we have, what's in the IIP and what we're obviously planning to spend. But it itself represents a change, right? I mean, we are increasing our expenditure on those capabilities. And you're absolutely right, this is the area of fastest evolution of warfare, really. And I'm not about to predict what it looks like two years from now. So what I think matters is that we are looking at this two years from now, and it's a really important part of what came out of the Defence Strategic Review. The system that we used to have was ad hoc Defence White Papers, which didn't happen on any regular basis – might be, you know, half a decade apart – and that's just too long in the context of the fast‑changing world in which we live. So, short answer, I guess, is we'll continue to reassess it, and if it does require change in the future, obviously we'll make the change.

CONNELL: Kym Bergmann from Asia Pacific Defence Reporter.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. An AUKUS funding question. So far, Australia has transferred, I think about $3 billion to the US industrial base – a little hard to figure out the exact number. For the benefit of Australians, could you give a couple of practical examples of what the US is doing with Australia's money?

MARLES: For sure. I mean, what America is doing is both increasing its rate of production in terms of the building of new submarines, both at Huntington Ingalls and Electric Boat. And when you actually look at that – and again, there's a whole lot of commentary around the rate of American production – but they are on schedule to increase their production rates of their own Virginia‑class submarines to create the space for the transfer of the Virginias to Australia in the early 2030s. And what we are spending on their industrial base is really important in terms of enabling that uplift, but also in respect of sustainment. And so, you know, our money is helping the maintenance of Virginia‑class submarines. Our people are as well now. So, I'm going to get this number wrong, but it's, I think, in the order of about 150 people that we've got in Pearl Harbor who are working on getting US Navy Virginia‑class submarines out to sea. Again, the money you're referring to is being spent in respect of that, and ultimately it is about new submarines, but it's actually about more submarine days, or more submarine days at sea. And so sustainment is just as critical a component to that. And all of this is what creates the space for the transfer of the Virginias in the early 2030s, and we're really confident about that.

CONNELL: Reuben Spargo from Sky News.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. I want to pick up on a specific part of a previous question. The US is moving a significant portion of its military presence from our region to the Gulf. Does this raise concerns that Australia could be more exposed?

MARLES: I mean, when you assess strategic circumstances, you're assessing them over a long period of time. And, you know, we are however many days or weeks into this particular conflict. If you're going to assess American presence in the Indo‑Pacific, it can really only fairly be done in terms of answering the sort of question that you've asked over a longer time frame. But I think the important point is we work really closely with Indo‑Pacific Command about how we operate our own capabilities, particularly Navy – not just Navy though, all the services – to make sure that we are providing the proper protection for our nation in the Indo‑Pacific. And when you take a step back and look at a longer‑term sense of what America's commitment to our region is, you have that in both the NSS and the NDS, which America released at the end of last year, which puts a real focus on the Indo‑Pacific, one that we very much welcome.

CONNELL: Katina Curtis from The West Australian.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Defence Minister, for your speech today. I note that there's a section in the NDS on national civil preparedness, which I don't believe was laid out quite so clearly two years ago, and we haven't seen what the DSR had to say about mobilisation. Are you too scared of really scaring people about, if you level with them, what conflicts and the risk that Australia is facing might mean? When would we see some kind of campaign, like we're having around fuel resilience at the moment, to say, you know, Perth or Sydney CBD might be military targets and here's what those state governments or US citizens should be doing to get ready for that?

MARLES: Well, firstly, we’re levelling with the Australian people. Let me be really clear about that. And it matters that there is a clear expression from government about the circumstances that our nation faces and how we’re seeking to meet them. And that’s what you’ve got in what we’re laying out today and what we laid out two years ago in the Defence Strategic Review. In fact, what you’re getting from this government is a greater exposition about the circumstances that Australia faces and how we meet them than we’ve had in a very long time. So we are very much levelling with the Australian people. But it is about trying to – I mean, literally – level with the Australian people about what it is that we do face. Now, there is an important path to walk in terms of civil preparedness. But, you know, I actually think when you go out – at least when I go out and speak to ordinary voters, certainly in my electorate – people have, I think, a reasonable sense of what’s going on in the world today. I’m not standing here saying that some big conflict is inevitable. I don’t think that’s the case at all. We are in a much more contested environment, and one we need to be ready for. And we’re trying to calibrate the Defence Force that we build, and where government needs to be, in terms of meeting that moment. And I think we are doing that. And that is reflected in a levelling with the Australian people on the terms in which we have.

CONNELL: Tom McIlroy from The Guardian.

JOURNALIST: Thanks for taking our questions, Minister. The current $368 billion budget for AUKUS dates back to shortly after the government was elected a few years ago. What’s the current cost estimate?

MARLES: Look, I mean, you’ll see in the IIP there is an increase in the spend for the submarine program over the course of the next decade. But I think the way to answer that question is – because when you have very large numbers aggregated over very long periods of time, and we made this point at the time – those numbers have a significant variation in them. When we announced the optimal pathway to Australia acquiring a nuclear‑powered capability, we said that the way to think about the funding of this is that it would be about 1.5 per cent of GDP during the life of the program going forward. Now, that’s really the way to consider the long‑term nature of what this represents, against a defence spend today of about 2.8 per cent of GDP, which gives you a sense. Now, what we are spending is very much within that envelope, and it hasn’t changed. So, as we look forward, we still think 1.5 per cent of GDP is the right assessment of what it will cost to deliver this program to the country. What you see in the IIP is an increase, and that reflects what will happen over the next 10 years in respect of building our submarines. Because we’re getting closer to that, or we will very much be in that over the 10‑year timeframe that the IIP contemplates, it's starting to encompass the construction, the full construction, of the Osborne Naval Shipyard, work at Henderson, what we’re doing in terms of the building of the submarine itself – all of that. So that’s why you see that number grow. But it’s very much within the planned 1.5 per cent of GDP that we always imagined for this program.

JOURNALIST: I’ll look at the IIP, but what’s the dollar figure in there?

MARLES: Well, I mean, the 1.5 per cent of GDP is the best way to answer that question. And we made that clear at the time. You can aggregate dollar numbers over long periods of time; they start to be less meaningful than what I’ve just described. One‑and‑a‑half per cent of GDP gives you a sense of where this ranks and the kind of expenditure that we are imagining over the journey. And we are still confident that it is sitting within that envelope.

CONNELL: Matthew Franklin from Capital Brief.

JOURNALIST: Hi, Minister. I’m Matthew Franklin from Capital Brief. I want to follow up a bit on Andrew Probyn’s question. At Capital Brief we did a poll just this week. We talked through DemosAU. They spoke to 1,400 people. Forty‑seven per cent of people said that they believe the United States is not a reliable military ally, and 59 per cent said that Australia should not be closely supporting Donald Trump. Given Donald Trump’s bellicose behaviour and his unpredictability, don’t average Australians have a right to be worried, and do you think that the United States is a reliable ally?

MARLES: Well, in answer to the last part, I do. I very much see the United States as a reliable ally. And I come back to the way I answered this earlier. We have a really deep relationship between our two defence forces which has been in place for a very long period of time. And you speak to any of the senior folk who are in uniform here about the significance of having institutionally the level of seniority that we now do within the Indo‑Pacific Command of the United States Armed Forces, and how important that is for the nation, for Australia’s own defence. And it is reliable. Like, Admiral Paparo – Sam Paparo – the Commander of INDOPACOM, has been a huge supporter of the relationship between Australia and the United States. We work intimately with him about how we operate and the force posture that we have. And it is utterly essential to our nation’s defences. Now, I really appreciate the question, as I did the question from Andrew, because I think it is important to be able to say that. Obviously people are watching what’s happening in the world. But underlying all of it, the alliance is a deep, organic, integrated relationship. I’m describing the Defence part of it. You know, Jan Adams is here – she’d describe the Foreign Affairs part of it. But it is very rich in terms of the levels of connection that exist, and it is profoundly important for our national security.

CONNELL: Naveen Razik from SBS.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister, for the speech. You and other members of the government have repeatedly said there’s not been a request for assistance from the US that hasn’t been unanswered, but Donald Trump keeps saying otherwise. Can you elaborate as to why that might be?

MARLES: Look, all I can say is that there was a request from the United States to assist in the defence of the nations of the Gulf. And right now we have an E‑7 Wedgetail operating above the skies of the Gulf states, providing for the defence, specifically, of the UAE. And it was in response to a specific request from the UAE, but it is actually providing exactly that support. In terms of whatever might unfold in relation to the Strait of Hormuz, we are engaged in planning conversations with all our partners and allies, including the United States, but also including the UK and France, around what might ensue when circumstances allow. That last phrase is really important. It is impossible to assess what that will be at a point where we don’t yet know what those circumstances are. So it’s not surprising to me that we wouldn’t have a specific request in respect of the Strait of Hormuz from anyone, because the planning that’s going into that is not able to be at a level of development such that you would have those specifics. What we have made clear is that the Strait of Hormuz is fundamentally important to Australia’s national interest. We want to see it open. And we will play a constructive role and contribute in any way we can to whatever effort may be put in place in the future in relation to that. But we need to have those discussions happen. I’m not about to speculate on what those capabilities might be. We will constructively contribute. We are involved in conversations now. But given the uncertainty that exists in respect of the Strait of Hormuz, it would be impossible for anyone to make specific requests.

CONNELL: It was meant to be the last, but Ally Campbell is ready and waiting.

JOURNALIST: Thank you very much for your time, Minister. My question is about the Defence Delivery Agency. There are some concerns that rolling the three existing groups into one will transfer the sort of culture and mindset around procurement that has led to these really significant issues. What are your expectations for the new agency, and are you open to further reforms if those expectations aren’t met?

MARLES: Well, the fundamental point here is we need to see value for money for the Defence dollar. It’s not just about how much money is in the budget; it’s about the capability that we ultimately have for the Australian Defence Force. And, indeed, one of the criticisms that I made as the shadow Minister for Defence, and make now of the former Coalition government, is that it often was about just what number you put in the budget, and everything else was forgotten, as though you could go on the battlefield and throw a copy of the budget at your adversary and somehow you’d win the war. That’s not how it works. You need capability. And so it’s not just the amount; it’s the quality of the spend. And that’s why the Defence Delivery Agency is really important. You used the word “culture”. I think that’s a really important word. We do want to see a cultural change here. We want to see much greater cost assurance, and that forms part of the reform that we’re putting in place. But we’re also trying to build a cohort of capability amongst those working in this area, particularly around the delivery of large projects. That’s really at the heart of the reform that we are pursuing. And I couldn’t be happier with the way Defence has embraced this, with the way we are progressing down the path of establishing the Defence Delivery Agency, first as a group this year, but from 1 July next year. And I do feel, given the buy‑in that we’ve got from Defence, that we will achieve that cultural reform, and we will have a much better bang for buck for the Defence dollar.

CONNELL: There’s a campaign to get Katherine Bennell‑Pegg on a mission with the European Space Agency. You know, all the money you’re talking about today, it’s only $100 million – so down the back of a couch, basically. What does the government think of this proposal, this push?

MARLES: Well, firstly, the way in which you’ve characterised that always worries finance ministers and Treasury officials – that there is somehow something down the back of any couch. There isn’t. Can I just say that for the record?

CONNELL: I’m not on the ERC. I’m not worried about that.

MARLES: Katherine Bennell‑Pegg is an incredible Australian, and she is a fantastic choice as Australian of the Year. And as a self‑confessed space nerd, I couldn’t be more excited about her being the Australian of the Year and what the future might hold for her. Obviously, all of those questions will be dealt with by other ministers. You’re asking me something outside of my lane, so I’m not going to—

CONNELL: Acting PM, you can just sign it off.

MARLES: Yeah, look, that’s true. And I often make that point to Anthony while he’s away, you know. But look, we’ll work through all of those questions, but I had a similar conversation here when I held different portfolios. I have long said I think our country needs to change its cultural relationship to science. We need to celebrate science and scientific achievement in a much bigger way. And I think that’s something I experienced growing up. I was born in 1967. I don’t remember the moon landings, but I very much grew up in the shadow of Apollo. The first opportunity I had not to pursue science would have been in 1982, and that actually was the high point in terms of when Australian students decided to pursue science. Since then, the number of kids pursuing science has been on a decline. I think growing up in the shadow of Apollo is not a coincidence – it’s my generation who most wanted to be involved in science. What I know, from the point of view of the future of our nation, is that one of the real micro‑economic reforms we need to pursue is making our economy more complex. And we won’t do that without infusing it with science and technology. That requires a much greater emphasis on science and a change in our cultural relationship to science. Which is why I am so excited that Katherine has been made the Australian of the Year this year. Her holding that position is really an opportunity to celebrate big science and to get our kids excited, so that we do start walking down a very different path when it comes to infusing science and technology within our nation and our economy.

CONNELL: We thank you for your time today. You get this guest speaker’s membership, which means you can head upstairs and take some more questions from journalists. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank the Acting Prime Minister, Richard Marles.

ENDS