Whenever Lamar Jackson misses practice, I know a lot of people's the heads just start going crazy and I can understand why. Because so many people end up wondering like, man, what's going on? What's happening? Is it going down now? And I saw on my Twitter timeline and Twitter is still alive by the way, but I saw all up and down my Twitter timeline so many people thinking like, oh man, did it go down? Did the Ravens and Lamar Jackson agree to a contract extension? Especially when you think about the timing of everything. Because Lamar Jackson, he's been in practice the past two days, he's been just fine. He ain't been on the injury report or anything like that. So with him missing practice, a lot of people thought, oh, he must be up there talking to EDC. And I can understand again, why they would think that. But that was not the case. John Harbaugh said that Lamar Jackson missed practice with a sickness. So Lamar Jackson isn't feeling well. Now, what's interesting about that is this usually happens like once a year for Lamar. Where you get a little under the weather, what not? And he misses a practice and we hear about it. And then a lot of people they end up going crazy. But I feel like we have almost, so we should be sort of accustomed to this. The Lamar sort of the Lamar flu game or the Lamar food poisoning game or whatever it may be, we've seen this for the past couple of years. So it shouldn't be a surprise anything. And I don't think anybody should really overreact to it. Oh man, Lamar Jackson getting sick. I seen people do the whole, oh man, his immune system, this and that and that and blah, blah, blah. It's okay. It's okay. Now, Harbaugh did say, he said that Lamar Jackson will be playing in the game come Sunday against the Panthers. So he said he's still expected to start. So that's a great thing. And I believe I'm like 99% sure that Lamar Jackson in his flu games or whatever the case is, whatever kind of sick he is, I think he's undefeated in those games. I'm pretty sure he is. So hopefully that streak will continue if he plays this Sunday. And hopefully again, he does play this Sunday. Now, one thing that did sort of, it worried me a little bit because we know how Harbaugh is when it comes to talking about injuries. We know sometimes he can be a little not straightforward. And who would expect him to be straightforward when it comes to injuries, especially because he always talks about how he doesn't want to give too much information towards for the other team. Cause he wants them to have to prepare for as many people as possible and as many different possibilities as possible. So they can't just focus on one guy. So okay, I get it. I get the strategy, the mind games and whatnot. But one thing that kind of concerned me when Harbaugh was talking about Lamar Jackson being sick is that he said that he tried to practice, but he just could not make it because he was too sick. And I was like, oh, all right. So it's Friday. And I know the NFL, they got some of the best doctors in the world. And I know they got probably some of the best medicine in the world and all that because they want these players to play. They want these players to be healthy. They want these players to be full go because the NFL is a business. And like we have been reminded so many times, like even with the Buffalo and Detroit game, I mean, excuse me, no, the Buffalo and the Browns game that's going to be being played in Detroit, the show must go on. That's what NFL, the show must go on. It ain't stopping for nobody. And in this case, it ain't stopping for no teams. It's supposed to be the Blizzard and Buffalo. And NFL was like, you think y'all gonna get that game canceled? Nope, not on our watch. Let's get it. And when we saw this before, remember 2020? Ooh, we remember 2020. COVID year and the NFL schedule got moved around, flipped around, remember the Titans and I think it was the Titans in the Bills game. That game ended up, it kept getting pushed back. And obviously the biggest one was probably the Ravens and Steelers game where that game got pushed back and got changed and the schedule got flipped and the schedule got changed again. Then it was gonna play on this day. Then they ended up playing on a Wednesday afternoon. I think it was like at 3 p.m. or was it at 1 p.m. I forgot what time it was at, but they ended up playing on a Wednesday afternoon. So again, the NFL will go on. But with Lamar Jackson, that part when Hardball said that, that concerned me a little bit, it did. I can't lie. Cause I'm thinking like, man, this dude was sick to the point where he couldn't even practice. He was trying to, and for Hardball to put that out there. And maybe this is Hardball just playing the mind game. Maybe it is. And maybe he's playing the mind game with us too. Like, hey, even for Ravens, I ain't giving them no extra information. I ain't giving them no bonus. It could be that, hey, Lamar was that sick where he couldn't even practice or it could be where he was sick and just wasn't feeling well. And maybe Hardball tried to maybe make it bigger than what it is. I don't know. Hopefully that's what it is. Hopefully that's what the case is. Hardball just over-emphasizing the sickness and really just playing extra mind games with the Carolina Panthers. Cause it just, that would concern me a little bit if it was actually true that Lamar, he wanted to practice, he tried to practice, but he couldn't make it cause he was that sick. So we'll see, man. We'll see what goes down and how it goes down this Sunday. And again, Hardball said Lamar's gonna play. So we're gonna look at this game like Lamar's gonna play and won't expect anything else. Cause yeah, we don't even wanna think about anything else. Ravens, again, this is a big game. Like, in my opinion, every game moving forward.  Because the Titans, they just won against the Packers last night. They took care of business. So they sitting there, they sitting at seven and three, I believe, well, they six, no, they seven and three, I believe, but they, so they hold down their spot in the AFC and they get a nice little long break now. The Bills, again, they play the Browns in a couple of days. So they doing it, the Chiefs, they play the Chargers this Sunday night. So I know we're hoping that the Chargers pull it out so they could knock the Chiefs down a little bit, but we'll see. So Ravens, they gotta keep up. They gotta keep up with everybody else. And they gotta really just, cause what they need to do, they gotta win, obviously. But you need other teams to lose as well in order to really continue to climb those spots in the AFC. Cause the race is tight. Then you got the Dolphins too. You still got the Dolphins as well. So yeah, it's a super tight race, man. It's a super tight race. So we'll see how this thing shakes up, but it's gonna be fun, man. It's gonna be really fun to see how everything goes. Ravens, of course, like we went over before, their schedule is definitely a favorable schedule for sure. They have a lot of teams on there that just, they haven't been that good. They haven't been that successful. They haven't been able to close. So it's up to Ravens to take advantage now. They do play the Steelers twice. They play the Browns again. They play the Bengals again. So I just, again, I hope that they go undefeated for the rest of the year. And obviously I would hope they go undefeated all the way to the Super Bowl. I just don't see it though. I don't see it. I see them in my opinion, maybe dropping like two more games. And that wouldn't be a bad record. It would be what, 12 and five? Cause they six and three right now. Yeah, that would be 12 and five. I think they could do that. Again, I want them to do even better. I would love for them to just sweep the AFC North. Cause they already beat the Browns, already beat the Bengals.  So I would love if they pulled out the broom and then they got the team keeping cleaning on the AFC. Now that'd be great, but I mean, it's NFL, man. So things happen. Stuff gets a little crazy, as we know. And the unexpected happens. So we'll see how it goes, man. But anyway, team keeping clean. I really appreciate y'all. I thank you all. Shout out to y'all for rocking with the shorts. Those have been fun to do. So yeah, man, I just appreciate all the support, man. I really do. So hope y'all day is going great. Hope everything is going really, really, really good for y'all. Y'all keep your heads up, man. I love y'all. And like Lamar Jackson was today when it came to practicing, we out.


So, good morning everyone. My name's Helen Sullivan. I'm the Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific and it's my very great pleasure to welcome you here to the Australian National University this morning. Let me begin by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australian on whose traditional lands we meet, the lands of the none of all unbounded people. I pay my respect to that held as past and present and also extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders here with us today. I'd also like to welcome the senior members of the diplomatic community, private sector and the public service who are with us today. Thank you so much for coming here this morning on the occasion of this important report on defence industry policy. The report makes significant recommendations and insights on the topic of national importance and it shows how the challenges it identifies require a truly national response. The report is the result of a joint project between the Australian Industry Group and the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre in the Carl Vell School of Asia Pacific Affairs here at the ANU. The Strategic and Defence Studies Centre has long played an integral role in shaping Australian strategic and defence policy. It is Australia's oldest and largest body of scholars dedicated to the analysis of the use of armed force in its political. And I'm delighted to welcome three of the 40 authors of this report here this morning. Professor Steppen Frawling from the City and Defence Studies Centre, Kate Lewis and Geoff Wilson from AIG. This joint project between AIG and the ANU is a good example of the depth of scholarship and partnerships that we in the college at the ANU want to bring to bear on the major public policy questions facing Australia. And I'd really encourage you all here this morning, whether you're from the ANU, from industry, from the government, to use the opportunity to catch up with each other. I know that there are lots of old friends here to identify common interests with people and to develop and deepen the important networks and collaborations that are going to be required to support the implementation of some of the recommendations in this report. I'd now like to invite Dennis Willock, CEO of the Australian Industry Group to launch the report and outline its recommendations. And it's... Thank you, Ellen. And good morning to you all. I'd like to join with Helen and you for that acknowledgement country on behalf of us. Good morning, everyone. It's a great pleasure to be here on behalf of the Australian Industry Group to launch what we believe is a truly important, a vital report looking at the future of Australia's defence industry. I want to firstly thank the ANU for their collaboration and work with us and the preparation of this report. Your truly was a terrific collaboration between the teams led by Kate and Geoff and Stefan. So thank you very much and thank you very much for having us here today. It's with great pleasure that we today are here to officially launch the report, Defence Industry in National Defence, Rethinking the Future of Australia's Defence Industry Policy. As I said, I'm delighted to be here along with the co-authors and colleagues from the ANU, including, of course, Professor Ryan Schmidt. This is Ryan's last week of, I think, official work. And before he tries to have a week off after Christmas while still holding down his day job for the final week. Brian, thank you so much for your contribution to Australia learning while you have been Vice-Chancellor of ANU, something that we know that will continue in the years ahead in your new role also with this August institution. And thank you for making Australia your home. I heard clear idea of the Minister for Home Affairs describe you as the favourite immigrant the other day. That might be a title of your next book. I want to thank all of those involved in the development of this report, including the AI group and the ANU teams who, by the phone, provided their expertise, their skill, their knowledge to inform the report. I'd like to especially take this opportunity to recognise the work of AI groups head of Defence and National Security Kate Lewis and Jeff Wilson, who is AI groups head of Research and Economics, as well as the other members of the AI group team who contributed to this important work. This report is important because Australia now stands at a critical strategic junction. We are navigating the complexities of the Australian defence landscape through a major conflict, the challenge of shifting and volatile geopolitics around us, and the urgent task of equipping and sustaining our Australian defence force to fight and to win. If and when we engage in conflict and we all hope that we don't, we want and need our war fighters to win. That is the bottom line. The Indo-Pacific presents us with strategic, significant strategic challenges and a real risk of a major conflict. The evolving defence environment, as highlighted in a range of recent defence policy statements, underscores the urgency for strategic re-evaluation. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review declared that our current defence structure is not fit for purpose, signaling a return to fundamentals and a first principles approach. Not fit for purpose is a sobering conclusion. We can think of it in no other way. According to the review, the end of a prolonged warning time for a major attack now necessitates an urgent call to action, including higher levels of military preparedness and accelerated industry capability development. We no longer have, if we ever did have, the luxury of time to prepare our defence. Time is not on our side and time is not our friend. We think this is recognised. The AUKUS Trilateral Security Partnership hit another major milestone last week when legislation to enable the AUKUS agreement past the US cost of representatives. This is a major achievement. It has not been easy to get this done, and we need to recognise this effort and thank those who negotiated our way through the complexities of the House. The legislation enables the sale of a minimum of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, ease export controls and allows Australian defence contractors to undergo training in the United States, all of which are very welcome, as well as very necessary. The AUKUS partnership further propels us into a new hero, demanding a substantial boost in capability, infrastructure, workforce and industrial capacity to support nuclear power submarines. AUKUS pillar two technologies require rapid adaption, innovation and acquisition at an unprecedented pace. In times of potential conflict, a robust industrial sector becomes increasingly critical, ensuring the swift mobilisation of resources and the smooth operation and support of defence capabilities. In this context, the launch today of this report comes at a very important time, both for defence and for the Australian defence industry. The Australia government has adopted the concept of national defence as a new approach to Australia's defence planning and strategy. As the report notes, while many reforms will be required to implement this concept, building and maintaining Australia's defence industry capability is one of the most important. The Defence Strategic Review, the DSR, calls for building enhanced sovereign defence industrial capacity in key areas, but it is largely silent on what kind of defence industry this requires or how these requirements can be met. The report we are launching today focuses on these key questions. Industry must be a fundamental element of national defence, deeply embedded in that concept and underpinning defence planning and strategy. We have no option and we have no alternative. To inform the role of industry as a fundamental part of national defence, the report draws on observations from five peer countries, Canada, France, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The case studies identify how other Guffings think about the role of industry in defence and how industry capabilities are built to meet government requirements. Kate will shortly provide us with the detail of the report's findings and recommendations, but I just wanted to highlight some of the key aspects from the report, particularly from my perspective as the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group. A key recommendation of the report is that the Australian defence industry should be considered a capability in its own right and an important underpinning of national defence. Rather than being seen simply as a resource that can be captured separately in a stand-alone policy, industry should be considered a capability that supports the force in being, but whose strategic value also lies in the ability to expand and rapidly scale to meet operational needs in times of conflict. Secondly, defence industry should be embedded within and managed as part of Australia's broader national industry structure and policy. Since 2022, a suite of new industry policies has been announced by the Commonwealth Government, including the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which currently and pleasingly identifies defence as one of its priorities. However, a defence industry should not be considered as just another sector to be targeted by industry policy. Previous major conflicts have shown that integration with broader civilian industry is required if production at scale is to be achieved. The key words here are at scale, we need to be able to ramp up and down very quickly. In times of conflict or looming or potential conflict, that is what we want and need. Scale, I'll repeat it again, scale is essential if we are going to be able to quickly develop the capability we need to meet the challenges we face. Embedding defence industry in this way to the broader civilian industry capability of Australia is crucial. This is even more crucial as we move further into the age of digitalisation, where speed and the ability to manage complexity are paramount. Just think of big data analytics, cloud computing, advanced robotics and of course artificial intelligence. If we are to compete and win, we must develop, train and empower industry and its workforce in the skills of the now and of the future. In the world we live in, we again have no alternative. We believe this report is a crucial point in the decision making process on how we defend and protect ourselves. Report contains important recommendations in relation to strategic prioritisation of critical defence industries with the ability to scale these areas through coordination of programs, the development of export markets and building international partnership. There are also recommendations around the government's use of the full range of policy levers to shape defence outcomes and strategic partnering arrangements and also recommendations around the appointment of a defence industry capability manager. A defence industry is our, if you will, to define the capability and capacity of the industry the government needs to develop. This role must be held by a person who knows industry and who also knows defence and who recognises the need for speed to get the two to work together now into the future, now and into the future as our strategic environment invariably evolves. Sorry the report we are launching today seeks to initiate a national conversation on reshaping Australia's defence industry policy in this time of strategic uncertainty. It could be no matter of greater importance than equipping the men and women of the ADF with the best capabilities and we need a powerful Australian defence industrial base to support providing that. This is a really important piece of work. We hope it informs debate, we hope it informs discussion and we hope the police and decisions that do prioritise pulling defence industry capability into Australia's broader industrial base. Something we need to do if we are to seriously recognise the strategic challenges we face. Thank you very much and thank you to the ANU. Thank you. Yes, thank you so much for those remarks. I'd now like to hand over to Professor Brian Schmidt, Vice-Chancellor and President of the ANU to also say a few words, Brian. Thank you Helen and thank you for your acknowledgement to the country. I too would like to acknowledge the first Australia's on who's traditional as we meet today and their elders past and present. So I do thank everyone for joining us. To Mark Alonso, what I think is a really important part of report on defence industry policy. I do, it's nice to see you. Kate and Jeffrey, back from 25 years ago on PhD, you got lost a little bit because the campus has changed a bit recently. It's good to have it back there. Back here and really appreciate the Australian industry group who's been able to collaborate with the ANU on this project. This is exactly the way we like to work and it's great to have partners as you have been on the side of our good partners. As the National University, we really do see it as our responsibility to use our research to address the hard question that Australia faces. That is when we work in partnership with groups like the AIG, we can go through and have the ambition and indeed the capacity to hopefully influence the direction of our nation for the better. ANU was established after World War II and it was established for very specific reasons to put education and research at the service of national prosperity and for peaceful global development. In 1949, Prime Minister Ned Chifley spoke about ANU and said that scientific research is a necessity for the maintenance of our standard of living and even for our survival. So my guess is that Chifley would have understood the ardent recommendations of this report. Our university's motto is first to know the nature of things, not to be first but to actually understand what you're doing first before acting. And this report demonstrates how important this is by asking seemingly simple questions that are fundamental to our nation's future progress. What is the purpose of defensive history policy? How can it work? What has to be in place for this to happen? What is the defensive industry in the first place? Because these things have changed of course over the last 80 years since World War II. Now by examining how other countries answer these questions, this report has been able to suggest a new direction for Australia. This kind of scholarship, which can advance the national agenda and help shape better policy, is exactly what we like to be able to do for Australia and what we think Australia needs. Because for the first time in 80 years, our nation must think about what we could do to manage and avoid the prospect of major conflict in our region. And certainly making sure that you're not an easy target is probably the best way to avoid conflict. This year's strategic defense strategic review called for a strategy of national defense that entails a whole-of-nation effort to develop strategic resilience and a new approach to managing risk. Universities can and should be part of this. I think people started thinking about World War II from the recent Oppenheimer movie, which highlighted the important role that universities and their researchers played in supporting the war for the United States. Yet A&U was one of the founding professors. Mark Oliphant had a seminal role as an Australian in World War II. He developed radar. His group developed radar. His group realized that a fission bomb was possible and launched the manned apple project. And Australia did the two most important technological advances in World War II. The other one, penicillin, fluorine, later became the chancellor of A&U. So the government understood that technology is vital to security. During that World War II, Australia University established drug production support of the New Guinea campaign conducted research in radio technology, which now underpins our outstanding radio astronomy program here in Australia. For governments, universities are a source of experts in fields, including everything from economics, languages, anthropology, and sciences we try to navigate conflict. But what you might now realize is that government priorities also informed university research. In 1957, when Sputnik was launched, it prompted the United States to completely reevaluate how it worked with its higher education. The fear that the West was falling behind in terms of scientific industrial power led to the U.S. government to become the main source of R&D funding in the United States. It was not before. So why dwell on these stories from the past? Well, for three reasons. Firstly, because they demonstrate what the long-term holodation approach that this report calls for is perhaps not as foreign to Australia as it might seem. Countries like Sweden and France managed to build national defense industries that served their strategic needs, as well as helping with their nation building. It's not something that is beyond Australia. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, the investments from the post-war era are still bearing fruit. A&U, for example, still has the only department of nuclear physics in the country, something we have kept open despite, I would say, many reasons not to keep it open. And that is youth school, having the heavy eye on accelerated facility that allows us to do cutting-edge experiments but also help us deal with what is the emerging issue around nuclear settlements. We also have a national space test facility which can go through and fully qualify satellites in all means that you could imagine that provides a sovereign capability that would not exist otherwise. University infrastructure, like HAYA and the space test facility, which uses HAYA, are important because they also fuel small to medium air processes that supposedly cannot have access to that type of equipment on their own, but they need so that they can get their products up in the air and off the ground. Thirdly, these examples show us that the defense industry innovation we need is part of a continuum, one that starts with universities and foundational research because everything starts, like it or not, from the basic stuff like me going after neutron stars merging that seemingly have no relation to anything. But that's how we understand nuclear physics because it's such extreme inside those stars you could actually learn things you just simply can't do with your other. And it goes through this all-stem disciplines and the humanities. Getting these technologies to interact successfully with humans is absolutely essential. And so universities across all the things we do have a great way to contribute. Currently, Australia does not get the same level of economic dividend from defense-related R&D as countries such as the United States. And this is because the funding vehicles and models here are siloed and highly transactional. They don't think about the whole ecosystem. I do believe the recently introduced Defense Export Bill should be supported to enable AUKUS and help Australia protect its interest. It includes in the United States research at technical readiness levels one to three. That's the basic research that I do. It gets a pass through. It's got to be published. It's open. That is something that we absolutely need to keep here in Australia. And failing to do so I think would really be a bad idea. And so I hope that that is included and what goes forth. But otherwise it gives us I think a really nice way of looking at how we do work in this area using a long established protocol developed by the United States which is well understood by universities around the world because we all deal with it when we use USIP. So I think it's actually quite a good jump forward provided we actually mirror how the United States. The government has also recently established the Australian Strategic Capability Accelerator which is an initiative the university welcomes and we look forward to working through and with the accelerator in partnership with defense industry. The accelerator promises to be much better the early iterations of bringing promising technologies from what we would say is TRL 5 and higher. Those are the things that aren't quite ready to be on shelf but are definitely out of the lab of the university. And so we think that's an important part of the puzzle that this report addresses. But where are the ideas and technology this will sustain and feed into the accelerated come from? Well they come from that TRL 123 work dotted universities. It is how we can go through and keep priming the pond. And ultimately this is the research that not only primes the pump it actually motivates young people to go in and study to begin. If you look at our numeracy in this country it has been monotomically decreasing since we've been measuring through pieces since 2000. We have to have a national priority at stopping that decline. Some more things for literacy as well. But giving students things to study that are interesting that motivate them when they're 8, 10, 12. Well that's also something that curiosity driven research does because it is truly curiosity driven. The fact that government is now allocating commonwealth supported places specifically to support AUKUS is something that we welcome and is of course recognition of the continuum. But it's also indication of how far we are from where we need to be. How far we are from the kind uplift of the national technology research and education ecosystem that for example followed Sputnik in the United States. So the recommendations of this report by watching are far reaching. It is important to think of defense industry as a capability in its own right to embed and manage defense industry as part of the Australia broader national industry structure to prioritize and support these companies to achieve scale and to use a full range of policy levels of the government disposal. So being able to manage this at the whole of government level will make it all possible and certainly something that I think is the foundation of this report. Of course we need to build government expertise that does not create any existing universities working with the district in L. There are changes that we need to make. It will be a generational undertaking. But education is and always is a generational undertaking. And I look forward to being part of that journey to help ensure that future generations have the same safe and secure Australia that we are more benefit. Thank you. Thank you so much Brian for reminding us that the the giants whose shoulders we stand on are both theoretical, theoretically important but also practically relevant. Before we invite some questions from the floor and I'm sure there will be many. I'd like to invite Kate Lewis from AIG to say a few words on behalf of the authors of the report. It is the head of the defense and national security section at AIG. She joined AIG in 2017 following an extensive career in the Department of Defense with her final position there as first assistant secretary defense industry policy division where she was responsible for the effective implementation of the government's approach to defense industry policy. Importantly for us of course we understand that Kate is also an alum having studied her bachelor of arts and bachelor of rules here at the ANU. So welcome Kent. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for joining us today and yes I am indeed a very proud graduate of Bachelor of Human Arts and Law so it's wonderful to be back here today. It does seem a long time ago in July 2021 that I visited the ANU officer Professor Brendan Sargent, pitched the idea of a collaboration between AI Group and the ANU in relation to defense industry policy. Brendan was as always extremely gracious, full of ideas, knowledge and enthusiasm as we built project together. Tragically Brendan passed away in February 2022. However I'm sure Brendan would be proud of the report that we are launching today. Some of you may know I was involved in development of the 2016 defense industry policy statement. As the previous speakers have demonstrated so much has changed since then in terms of risk strategy and indeed the shape of our industry. One of the foundational elements of this report is a solid intellectual framework on which policy options can be built. Industry policy can tend to race towards solutions at how questions, rather than take your step back and working out what we are trying to achieve in the first place. In that context one of the team's first steps in the project was to develop a framework discussion paper that examined defense industry policy from first principles. It then used the framework to examine the policies of five countries have mentioned asking experts what does government try to achieve through their defense industry policy? What are the principle policy levers of defense industry policy used by governments? What mechanisms are there for government to develop its understanding of defense industry? We undertook wide-ranging research and sought views through a roundtable discussion with state advocates, think tanks and industry members. We noted that defense industry policies can seek to maximize two fundamental objectives. The strategic effect of that industry for defense purposes and the economic impact of that industry for its host economy. We also find our analysis of the countries around the following concepts. Government's ability to define requirements, industry's ability to marshal factors at production and the availability of required factors of production including infrastructure, trained workforce, intellectual property and so on. Within this framework we made key observations from the case study countries. For example we found that France has actively shaped defense industry for decades through influence on the strategic direction of the industry, direct R&D funding, major acquisition programs and support for defense exports. France also has a range of important government institutions actively focused on maintaining French strategic autonomy. As another example Israel has an advanced and innovative defense industry driven by national priorities. The industry's capability planning involves most collaboration between the Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Ministry of Defense and research and development agencies.  Total defense requires a high degree of government involvement and regulation over all the relevant entities from military to civilian defense. It was clear from analysis of the case studies country choices depend on unique economic institutional and strategic considerations. However several key issues that are relevant to Australia emerged and formed the basis of chapter four of the report including defense industry does not operate independently of the economy in which it is embedded. It interfaces with and draws on goods and services from border industry. Second multiple policy leaders can shape defense industry. We saw a wide range of examples in the case studies from government ownership, golden shares, restrictions on IP and so forth. Third formal and informal government coordination is critical. Many countries encourage close connections and continuous engagement between industry and defense. Fourth we noted in successful examples the need to balance market competition with long-term strategic partnerships. Many instances of single supplier relationships were evident in the case studies including as national champions. And finally international markets offer scale for capacity and capability particularly through international collaboration and exports. So building on these findings the report makes five recommendations in relation to Australian defense industry policy reflecting a world where Australia needs to be prepared for major conflict in our region. Number one Australian defense industry should be considered a capability in its own right. A capability that supports the ADF force in being but the strategic value lies in situations where the force is fully committed needs to be expanded and rapidly constituted. What the international case studies in this report show is that such change is possible and that countries can build defense industrial bases that reflect their strategic needs. Of particular importance is the role of industry in expanding and reconstituting forces during a protracted conflict. The conflict in your credit has demonstrated the domestic defense industry base will need the capability and capacity to address non-traditional military options to quickly produce critical components and technologies. This requires recognition of industry as a national capability in its own right required for the nation to meet the demands of a major conflict. Recommendation two defense industry should be embedded within and managed as part of Australia's national industry structure and policy. International experience shows that defense industries are competitive flexible and scalable when they're embedded in their country's areas of industrial strength. This is important particularly because the ability to surge defense industry production during conflict has historically rested on the ability to repurpose civil facilities and workforce. In that context defense industry support should be integrated with and not simply alongside support offered to civilian counterparts. Third defense industry should be strategically prioritized and supported to achieve scale and surge capacities. Increased capacity would alleviate current pressures on supply chains helping to meet Australia's needs and relieve pressure on allies. This is particularly important because adaptation, improvisation and battle damage repair in wartime will have to rest on locally available industry. Four, government should utilize the full range of formal and informal policy levers to grow and shape defense industry. Government is not just a contractual partner. It can also be a legislator, a regulator, a provider of direct and indirect support, a landlord and a part of full owner. If industry is to become a national capability it is important government makes intentional and appropriate use the full range of tools. In addition changes will be required in culture, processes and the information flow between government and industry. And finally the report recommends that government should establish an industry capability manager to define the capability and capacity the government needs to develop to meet the preparedness required. Throughout the case studies examined in the report overall industry policy objectives are reflected in the internal organization of how defense interacts with industry. The industry capability manager should have a range of important roles including understanding the capability and capacity of the Australian industrial base including its capacity to surge in the event of a conflict. So in conclusion a defense industry that prepares the country for the challenges of conflict will be a significant national undertaking. The country case studies we examined demonstrate doing so is possible even during the most challenging strategic circumstances. So the team and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those from the defense industry policy and business communities who contributed to this project. We'd like to thank the international experts who provided exceptional insights of the case study countries. I would note and acknowledge that our research was supported by the Australian government through the Department of Defense Strategic Policy Grants Program. However the views expressed in our report are those of the authors and not the Australian government for the Department of Defense. While I can I take a moment please to express my heartfelt thanks to the team from the ANU Professor Stefan Freiland who led the team so ably and is just an absolute tower of intellect and thought. Thank you Stefan. Mr Graham Donk and Ms Sahar Latif and from AI group Dr Geoffrey Wilson. I had no idea how this report would have got done from my pro AI group's perspective without you Jack. So thank you so much. You're incredible to work with. Thank you and Mr Tyler McDonald for all your patience and support and hard work. Thank you for your incredible expertise, your knowledge, your tireless work and of course your sense of humour over the past 18 months. It's been an absolute honour to work with you all. Thank you. Okay and Kate thank you so much for that really terrific summation of what's in the report. We now have an opportunity. We have a reasonable amount of time because every walk of the speaker is kept to time which is wonderful for some questions for the audience. I'd invite you to please pose a question rather than making a statement and identify yourself. If you want to address your questions toward a particular person on the panel then please do so but otherwise I will encourage whoever on the panel thinks they're appropriate to respond to do so. So who would like to start the questions? Yes. Thank you to the AI group and the AI new project and the effort. Very, very interesting reading so go to the sun break and keep. I suppose my question is allowed the panel to target it as best they can. With the AUKUS Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 you've seen greater integration between the three industrial bases. To what extent do we need a trilateral industry base by the mindset or specific government framework to best distribute and understand the three distinct but now extremely leaked industry bases? I'll go first and then hand over. It's a really good question and a really germane question and it's something that we have been giving a lot of consideration to over the past couple of years quite frankly as we've seen AUKUS develop and evolve. The reality is that we're not going to achieve AUKUS and all those aims and ambitions and aspirations unless we have an industrial base that is united and cognizant of each other's capabilities and skills, areas of strength. So a couple of things there. We've been working with our SISSA organisations, our counterparts in both the UK and the US in the defence space to work together on that and we've done a lot of work and Kate and maybe we'll talk a little bit about that separately but around things around skills exchange, information exchange, workforce exchange, that which are easy because of you know necessary barriers that are in place by the respective software and nations around migration and the like and protection of data protection information. So it's been something that we've been working on and frankly we need to speed up our work on that front. It's also something that we've been pressing on government is that you're not going to see AUKUS deliver unless you soon have an AUKUS industry framework in place. Governments rightly made pronouncements and rightly set objectives but in the end it's the industry that gets it done and so we've been talking to governments in all three nations about the need essentially to have an AUKUS industry pillar which covers not just pillar one but also pillar two and this is our pillar three around energy of course which came out of Washington in October but you've got to have an industrial basis functioning together. Of course there'll be competitive tensions at times and that's natural but there needs to be an underlying attitude that we have to work together to achieve this but Kate and I want to talk a little bit more about the one way pandemic. Shilin, great question indeed thank you and I guess the AUKUS is really such an important new strategic framework that really frames so much of what we're doing in the industrial is part of that and as Ines said it there's been a very significant important amount of government to government work done but we're really advocating that you know having an industry pillar as part of that we've been we've actually got a full partnership now with the two industry associations in the US and in the UK to really try to operationalise AUKUS from an industry perspective and so I think situating industry policy within most large international security framework industry as part of national defence is a really significant part of this report and Stefan, I just want to add to that. Yeah thank you I think it's a I think it's a very good question and there's no doubt that close international collaboration is going to be crucial if we are to grow our defence industry or base there's a lot of things that we can do together in terms of developing technologies if you think about building supply chains and critical minerals and the like but I think it's important to think about what the measure of success is and that is that in the end even at collaboration we need to build an industry in the country that can within the country grow and adapt our capabilities in the in the in the context of conflict and I think that that's that is a big change because in many ways our industry defence industry policy has encouraged kind of integration into international supply chains and some other things but if you if your measure of success is that that doesn't necessarily mean that you build a defence industry that can do this and that can pivot in in wartime I mean if we build no certain witches for the old global JSF program that doesn't really help us scale defence industry and the kind of capabilities that we need to do in country year so it is about like more collaboration with government with it for and with with particular August partners on R&D on building a sense and industry but we need to define requirements and success in a way that we actually within that broader context build a defence industry here that can then first address Australian needs because we know that if there is a major conflict you know American, British and one on defence industrial basis are primarily going to serve the old needs before they serve others and I think a good example here is the I think we cited in the report the boomerang of of World War II in the sense that I mean it's a it's a plane that was built I think around a American engine so it's not like Australia could have built a boomerang on its own but in the end we had to build a fighter around the transport plane engine because it was the only thing we had available at that particular point in time and I think that it's worthwhile kind of recording some of those older lessons because that's where we're going to head I think in in the future yeah and I do want to make a shout out on the university side of this as well because we can see that universities drive people people relations okay so getting student mobility research and mobility across the three countries will help build up the research base for emerging companies in Australia so it's not just people here you'll get a wider rank and student mobility are people are going to have a relationship to be able to move like fluidly fluidly between the three countries and work on these things rather than us just being signed so universities have a real role to play here but in the end you're going to have then three-way investment rather than the cyber individual investments we have okay well that's a pretty comprehensive response to that question I have other questions yes please right so let me hear David Wade a former member of the old industry policy area back in the early 2000s late 90s early 2000s if I could go down to the weeks a bit to probably address this more to Kate when I was in that area the project heads were largely uniform people taking straight out of operational areas straight out of the squadron of off a ship and made a acquisition manager they had no understanding of industry and I've got to say I bought both industry and public sectors so I hope someone I did what was going on but I was wondering how knowing the problems I had at the time how CSG today and industry policy in SNI today are accepting and have contributed to this report thank you thank you very much and yes thank you for your question and and for all your previous work I think one of the really significant findings of the report is the importance of those institutional organisations that support industry and and France is a good example of that and it also informed the finding and recommendation the report about the industry capability manager and the industry desire but so we certainly and to inform that or broadly we interviewed international experts but also as Ryan experts across industry think tanks and so forth so I think it was well informed and I think your point is very well made that industry policy industry delivery and procurement acquisition Cadmium development you need those that you need military and operational input you need industrial experience and of course a public service it's a three-legged stall really supporting those outcomes and for I go to another question I'd just like to ask Jeff just building on on that point and one of the capabilities we haven't really talked too much about is the cost benefit assessment of any of this and as somebody who is not the defense specialist but is somebody who now I'm an Australian citizen I get to vote one of the things we worry about as citizens is how things that start off costing x amount of money then seem to end up costing much more money and because it's defense that doesn't matter so in this report do you say anything about the the ways in which as well as priorities of national security and and building industry that we can actually do that in a way that isn't going to bankrupt the citizenry thanks thanks I'm I guess I'm not either I'm a economist so you know I'm the that road of God here saying how much is all this going to cost to you as well but um look this is what when we make this this points in this report that I guess to the project team coming from industry same trivial which is defense industry is hard to be destroyed without of course it is you make yourself but it but it actually cuts to what you said there which is you know this view in the public that defense it's special defense industry sui generous it's often so in budget with buy with giant ships and death laces and who knows whatever else and and cost overruns on everything in that currency um what we're going to try and say with this is actually asking that question about how defense industry because it is foremost part you know there are some defense specific components in any military platform but 90% of it is routine stuff ships have chairs and bolts and washers on them as well how do you actually connect that to your industrial base I mean the observation we'd make is these discussions we're talking about the local capability and defense industry new technologies becoming into that you know bronze talk about and use contribution on that front to loss as well this thing is happening across the Australian economy the challenge Australia has in terms of decarbonisation a lot of digital transition AI and those things are coming in and so you really see those things paying out there's a lot of no defense industry policy that we've seen in Australia the last 18 months we've mentioned in the comments the National Reconstruction Fund but there's a laundry list of new initiatives across everything to do this most of the people that are going to be doing that stuff are also going to be doing that stuff into the defense supply chain so why are these why are these treated as two buckets will be the first question we say they shouldn't but the second one is how you can actually create synergies back and forth between those things look our report count and it's there's some I think most people can imagine some fairly difficult international strategic circumstances that would all want not to have happened but there's huge applications for a lot of these things that we could do for defense that could then be used across the Australian industrial tech ecosystem and you know to point to the nuclear program and the Manhattan program aren't large the benefits of that ended up becoming civilian over history so these are not just investments for defense but the investments in Australia's civilian industrial ecosystem that have applications across the board that's the kind of discussions we're asking people to have about the defense industry not just why is it she costs so much and what to take as well let's get here great another to us I thought now I can I don't know how to fight Jeff Jeff talking to stocks tell a story and one of the privileges of my job is I could talk to a lot of very different people at various times and early on in COVID if you can remember those days of lockdowns trade slowing almost to a halt in some cases one of the searing conversations I had with the CEO of a defense prime doing very important work as defense primes in protecting the nation and providing security with a very very important piece of capability and telling me that they were down to two days worth of screws in their factory and their workshop at one point and then they'd have to stop so it suggests what it is not just about the big stuff it's also about the little things the main stuff happen and without those we can't have the big things and that's really started that really a refrained conversations not that incident but incidents like that around our preparedness around and framed as national resilience but it's much broader than that it's around the scale the surge capability as Kate mentioned but also just running stuff on a day-to-day basis that we really need to get right great thank you I'm gonna go to because we don't have much time step on I'm sure there's that now I've hijacked the thing I'm sure there's a proper question yes you please sir let's assume for a moment that all our dreams have been fulfilled and Australia has a world-class weapons industry how can one be sure that well as this world-class weapons industry becomes the envy of of the world is it not unrealistic to assume that people would like to acquire some of this technology and wouldn't this be a wonderful poon for export markets in which case how do one control to what use of these weapons of war are put I think for example of the Royal Navy which became the model for the Japanese Imperial Navy and how British expertise British expertise assisted in the development of Japanese naval aviation capability which 20 years later resulted in the sinking of the HMS repulse and HMS Proust of Wales off the Malaysian coast I think also in France I think we've gotten really sorry to cut you off but we don't have much time and I think people have got the point Stefan I think this is one for you Suford et al dark missiles thank you thank you that's a good question and certainly the report highlights that in the end as Innes mentioned scale is a crucial issue if we want to look at defense industry from a from a strategic point of view and the strategic value of the industry and exports is one way which you can achieve that some countries are very successful at doing that now obviously when I defense exports are a politically and morally can or can be a different politically and morally charged issue I think what we have kind of fairly rigorous regulatory environments in Australia around that to some extent it also goes to this question about all Chris in the sense that I mean we can we don't a lot of the capabilities that we need to build we need to make sure that we don't build the defense industry of the last century we need to build the defense industry of this century which means that there are probably more kind of opportunities for collaboration with like-minded countries in Europe in the on the orcas partners on this if you look at the way the defense exports have evolved over time in particular amongst the industry as countries often it's not actually about moving stuff across borders anymore it's about kind of co-production and actually you know license production setting up infrastructure in other countries if you look at that as a model of defense exports I mean you can look at for example orcas integration as a way of generating that scale and in a way that doesn't necessarily mean we we get to the issues we discussed before about like not building scale in country and for us you can defray a lot of the you know RD cost infrastructure costs and so on and so forth so I think that there are ways the key issue here is building scale exports is lining up exports of you know closely related civilian technology if you think of for example drones I mean Australia probably has a potential to be I mean if you look at agricultural drones and so on large-scale industrial drones I mean there's probably certain advanced inherent advantages that we have in our civilian industry structure which are closely enough related that you can build the relevant industry at scale the issue though is that you need to be strategic about it it's the it can it's the strategic outcomes we argue that matter not necessarily that you like economic the economic benefits of anything that kind of like is being sold off to the fence and if you look at strategically prioritizing those to those industries exports can be an important way of achieving that scale that currently not the only one okay I guess that I'm getting a quite a bit of interest but I think we are almost out of time so in order to let you have sorry there's a time for one all right I could look at whether you were raising your hand or telling me to stop if I made you cool sorry just on behalf of of my jail nine news if Australia was to join the US mission in the Renzi what exactly would that entail and why does the Australian government seem reluctant to sign an Australian warship up to this mission thank you I guess that's for me everyone's looking at me look the request has been made it will be considered in its natural course by the Australian government there are a couple of things that obviously need to be considered the strategic importance for Australia of sending bodies literally a combat mission to the Red Sea is not a decision to be taken lightly because of the dangers involved so we have to weigh up the strategic importance there's a lot of talk around and obviously a lot of focus around trade and what you know disruption in that part of the world does to our trade we're a trading nation and we trade largely by sea and so it's not just security there's also economic interests that need to be taken into account when making this this decision as part of recognising that it's a request made by an ally at a request not made lightly either just as the decision needs to be made so the government has to weigh all that up the danger the importance to Australia strategically and economically in making a decision to send a ship to the Red Sea and there's obviously enormous danger involved in this given what's what's going on there with with broader conflict and the unknown of how that conflict could escalate or spiral out of control so there's a lot here for the government to work through we would need to obviously operationalise and sustain that mission and have to think ahead too that it might not just be one it may be more missions ahead there's a lot to consider I think it's reasonable for the government to consider it very carefully but though they'll also have to come to a decision quite quickly because it's just not easy just to send a boat out for months at a time it's a big endeavor thank you very much Innis we will have to oh okay clear you've got a very injured engaged paddle yes sir you will be the last it's an honour. Toll Worthington from the School of Computing and a former policy advisor at Defence Headquarters and Materiel I just did a quick search through the port it mentions training education several times in the in the national studies but not really in the recommendation was I wonder if we need a follow-up report on how we're going to combine vocational, university and industry training to equip the workforce for these defence industries. Well I certainly the accord process is going there is a big focus on bringing those together not just for defence but for everything that Australia needs to do they are siloed now in a way that I think is not serving the nation well and as we see the future of industry we are going to need people with a high degree of training on building things sitting next to people who know how to design things and having those things be alien to each other which the current system I think reinforces is a problem so I would hope that part of this might emerge from the accord but I also think as as you know there will be specific aspects of it that we need as we talked earlier to get August 4, 1, 2 and 3 across the line and if the recommendations of this report are to be followed clearly we're going to have to have the people to support the Australian industry as we ask it to go up and take a giant leap up. Great and then if you want. Well just just for a great little bit of reason process and brawning to make it here regarding all the August stuff regarding nuclear component the pillar two things that's been involved in the the ask a discussion as well but we would point that they're a broader workforce and skills needs beyond nuclear physicists so we do need those as well I mean I point at the moment 2.7 percent of all jobs in Australian manufacturing writ large are vacant at the moment so when we talk about the defence manufacturing not having basic trades well this is the right locations or the right certifications that's also true of a regular manufacturer so this really cuts to the point about locating locating this in there you can have specific defence industry skills training programs so those point to defence things but we also need general skills training so we have machine fitter fittings across the economy. Great thank you all very much to our questioners and also to our panel this brings us to the end of the formal proceedings there are refreshments outside which enable you to both be refreshed but also continue your discussions and clearly there is a lot to talk about if you don't have a copy of the report please do pick one up. A couple of thanks to make before we do depart I mean obviously thank you to Kate the lead author of the report and the teams Devan and Jen for this but for supporting this I think it is a really good example of what we do here in the air and you and my final thanks really to Brian who has always been an absolutely passionate advocate for higher education of course he has a particular affection for the ANU but he has been out there in his time as vice chancellor really advocating for the importance of higher education and the way in which it underpins all of the kinds of things that that we do and so it's a great privilege that this may be he's not entirely committed to his last public appearance but it's certainly one of them and it's wonderful to have him here with such a well-informed and thoughtful panel so please join me in thanking all of them.


Welcome to All Hands Update. This is your week in Navy history. November 9, 1921, USS Olympia arrived at the Washington Navy Yard with the body of the unknown soldier of World War I. On November 11, President Warren G. Harding officiated the Intermittent Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. On November 12, 1912, Lieutenant Theodore Ellison made the first successful launch of an airplane by a catapult at Washington Navy Yard. The successful launch led to a flying boat being launched from the same catapult a month later. On November 12, 1942, the naval battle of Guadalcanal began with a Japanese air attack on U.S. ships. Over the next four days, the Japanese would lose two battleships, a heavy cruiser, three destroyers and many valuable transports, allowing the U.S. to shift to the offensive. To learn more about the Navy's history, visit the Naval History and Heritage Command website.