By Darian Macey, March 25 2026

Day 2 exposed a gap that’s been sitting in plain sight. Defence is pushing for speed, scale and minimum viable capability, while industry is already demonstrating that faster, leaner delivery is achievable — but the system in between hasn’t caught up. Across the sessions, the constraints weren’t technical. They were behavioural, contractual and structural: unclear requirements, risk-averse decision making, fragmented communication, and contract settings that still reward completeness over outcomes. At the same time, CFI is starting to adjust the foundations — tightening scope discipline, reshaping contracts, and signalling a willingness to change. The direction is clear, but it’s not aligned yet. Until Defence, consultants and contractors start operating to the same definition of “good enough, delivered fast,” the friction will remain — and that’s where most of the time, cost and opportunity is still being lost.

---

Capital Facilities Infrastructure and Industry Collaboration

Ese Rainey, Executive Director Capability – Capital Facilities & Infrastructure, Department of Defence

12:20pm – Update 4 | Bottom line

Rainey: “You tell me… I’ll fix it.”

This was the most direct signal from Defence all day.

CFI knows the contracts aren’t working perfectly.

And they are actively rewriting them — in response to industry pressure.

12:10pm – Update 3 | Contracts are being reset (quietly but significantly)

Key changes flagged:

• Standard of care being aligned to insurance reality
• Removal of “utmost good faith” ambiguity
• Liability caps clarified (linked to insured amounts)
• Consequential loss exposure tightened
• Payment provisions being restructured (more frequent milestones)

Translation: Defence is backing off positions that industry has been pushing against for years

12:00pm – Update 2 | Prequalification is replacing Supply Nation for Indigenous Procurement

New approach:

• Prequalification list (not a panel)
• Applies to >$3.5m projects
• Focus on:
  • DISP readiness
  • licences
  • basic capability checks

Also:

• Construction first
• Designers / PMs later

Implication: This is about filtering capability – not limiting competition

11:50am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Focus is on contract reform

• Design services contracts being updated
• Managing contractor model being refined
• 30% design standardisation being introduced

Consistent feedback from industry has driven these changes

---

Upcoming Industry Opportunities within the Indo-Pacific

Laura Darlington, Assistant Secretary – Indo Pacific Infrastructure Branch, Department of Defence

11:50am – Update 4 | Bottom line

Darlington: This is not Defence estate work.

It’s foreign policy delivered through infrastructure.

Success is not:

• on time
• on budget

Success is:

• building partner capability
• strengthening relationships
• leaving something that can actually be sustained

If you treat this like a normal Defence project, you will fail.

11:40am – Update 3 | What Defence actually wants from industry

Darlington is explicit:

• Be agile
• Be flexible
• Solve problems yourself
• Expect disruption

“You will have landowner issues… blockades… regulatory challenges.”

And:

“We don’t own a lot of the risks.”

Translation:

You are operating in environments where:

• Defence does not control outcomes
• Risk cannot be fully allocated
• Conditions will change

This is not a controlled delivery model

11:30am – Update 2 | Design principles are completely different

Darlington:

“I do not want the same thing you provide to the Australian estate.”

Core requirements:

• Low maintenance
• Locally maintainable
• Use local materials
• Culturally appropriate
• Modular / staged delivery
• Minimum viable capability

Also:

• Break projects into smaller packages
• Enable local participation
• Reduce logistics complexity

This is not optimisation for performance

It’s optimisation for survivability

11:20am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Darlington:

Infrastructure is being delivered across 17 partner countries
—from major naval bases to small remote outposts

Purpose:

• Build sovereign capability
• Strengthen regional security
• Support economic stability

Key point:

This programme is growing
And it is increasingly strategic

---

Collaborative MVP – Sharing Risk to Understand Requirements Baseline

Melissa Mailler, Assistant Defence Leader, GHD
Michael Yeomans, Director – Defence, KBR
Quentin Flowers, National Defence Manager, ICON
Facilitator: Robin Mellon

11:20am – Update 4 | Bottom line

Flowers: MVP is not what’s currently being delivered.

“What we’re doing now is maximum affordable product… not minimum viable product.”

This panel exposed the gap:

MVP is policy.
Not practice.

The system is still optimising scope to budget — not redefining scope itself.

11:10am – Update 3 | MVP requires behavioural and contractual change

Mailler:

• “We need to abandon the pursuit of perfection.”
• “This is a cultural shift, not just mindset.”

Flowers:

• Collaboration must be real, not transactional
• Contractors are being asked to deliver less scope for the same outcome
• That only works with trust and repeat relationships

Key tension:

MVP requires:

• less scope
• faster decisions
• shared risk

But contracts and behaviours still reward:

• completeness
• compliance
• risk transfer

11:00am – Update 2 | MVP in practice (rare, but proven)

Mailler: Port Wakefield

• Outcomes-focused delivery
• Right people in the room
• Decisions made in real time
• Obstacles engaged early

Key insight:

MVP works when:

• authority is present
• decisions are made immediately
• process is secondary to outcome

This is the exception — not the norm

10:55am – Update 1 | What MVP actually means

Flowers:

Minimum viable product =

• minimum infrastructure to enable capability
• prioritising time over perfection
• accepting trade-offs between cost, time and quality

Yeomans:

“Strip off the bling… build only what you need.”

But:

• Requires accepting risk
• Requires accepting imperfection
• Requires occasional failure

And that’s where the system struggles

This panel is uncomfortable if you take it seriously.

Everyone agrees MVP is needed.

No one is consistently doing it.

Because MVP forces three things the system resists:

• real collaboration
• early risk acceptance
• genuine reduction in scope

Until those change, MVP stays a slogan.

---

Mission Ready – Collaboration as the Key to Speed, Resilience and Capability

Brigadier Matt Quinn, Director General – Capital Facilities & Infrastructure, Department of Defence
Craig Simpson, General Manager – Defence Delivery, Built
Facilitator: Tanya Sideris, Executive Director & Vice President Cities & Places, ANZ, Jacobs

10:30am – Update 5 | Bottom line

Quinn: Speed is not the constraint.

The constraint is convincing government — on scope, cost and value.

Simpson: “We just need to talk.”

This session reframed the problem.

Delivery isn’t slow because of process.

It’s slow because:

• requirements aren’t clear
• communication is poor
• scope isn’t controlled

This session sits in direct tension with the previous one.

Billington and Sarri showed what’s possible.

This panel explained why it’s not happening consistently: Communication, risk adversity, and scope discipline.

---

10:20am – Update 4 | Risk is being avoided, not managed

Simpson: “If you have a project without risk… it’s the holy grail.”

Key issue:

• Industry has become risk averse
• People won’t raise problems early
• Risks are pushed, not owned

Result:

Problems emerge late
Time and cost blow out

Quinn reinforces:

Early risk visibility is critical for funding and programme decisions

---

10:10am – Update 3 | Communication is the system failure

Simpson:

• “We expect others to have the same clarity”
• “Most decisions are made off cold documents”

Reality:

Stakeholders don’t understand:

• designs
• intent
• trade-offs

Digital engineering = communication tool, not a design tool

Quinn:

Better communication = faster approvals

Poor communication = delays in committees and funding

---

10:00am – Update 2 | Designing without knowing the capability

Quinn:

“You’ve got to be comfortable with the uncomfortable.”

Examples:

• Designing buildings before platform is defined
• Designing envelopes instead of exact solutions
• Trading precision for speed

This is deliberate

Minimum viable capability (MVC) is driving:

• simplified design
• faster delivery
• reduced cost

---

9:50am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Sideris: Infrastructure is no longer background work

It is now central to:

• capability
• readiness
• deployment

Implication:

Delivery timelines are compressing

And industry is expected to adapt

---

Innovation – The Key to Unlocking Productivity

Kieran Sarri, National Head of Defence, Built
Glen Billington, General Manager – Defence, Laing O’Rourke
Facilitator: Kristin Moss, Head of Policy, Australian Constructors Association

9:50am – Update 5 | Bottom line

Billington: “Just ask for it.”

Sarri: “It’s proven… this delivers value for money.”

This session cut through a lot of the noise.

The tools exist.
The delivery models exist.
The results are already being achieved.

Defence isn’t constrained by capability.

If you read between the lines, this wasn’t a technical session.

It was a quiet critique of the system.

Defence is asking industry to be more productive.

Industry is showing it already can be.

The gap is in how projects are set up — not how they’re delivered.

---

9:45am – Update 4 | What actually drives productivity

Consistent pattern across all case studies:

• Early contractor involvement (ECI)
• Integrated digital model from day one
• Supply chain engaged early
• Design issues solved before site

Sarri: “We build it virtually first… solve issues up front.”

Outcome:

• Fewer RFIs
• Less rework
• Better cost certainty
• Faster delivery

This isn’t innovation.
It’s sequencing.

---

9:40am – Update 3 | Offsite + standardisation (already working)

Grange Hospital (UK):

• 2/3 modular
• Started later, finished earlier
• ~42-week programme saving

Sydney Central Station:

• Complex roof installed in 6 days
• No disruption to ~270,000 daily users

ASMTI (Defence):

• Workforce constraint solved by building components offsite

Key point:

This is not theoretical.
It’s already being done — including in Defence.

---

9:35am – Update 2 | Workforce is being misdiagnosed

Sarri: “We need to unlock the talent that already exists.”

The industry response has been:

“we need more people”

Their response is:

• standardise
• modularise
• shift work offsite
• use the same workforce more efficiently

This is a productivity problem, not a labour problem.

---

9:25am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Moss: “We don’t need big changes to procurement rules… we’re delivering like this now.”

Also:

Up to ~$56bn of additional value if construction productivity matched the broader economy

Equivalent to:

A Henderson-scale uplift in output

The prize is clear.

So is the gap.

---

Day One Reflections

Pat Sowry – First Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure

9:22am – Update 10 | AI (reality check)

Sowry: “Not to my knowledge… issues around security of cumulative knowledge.”

Barrier = classification, not capability

Most AI pitches are irrelevant in current Defence environments

9:20am – Update 9 | Panel reality

Sowry: “We haven’t even picked it 12 months up… not going to change it anytime soon.”

Panel refresh ~2030. No near-term reset

9:18am – Update 8 | Cost pressure (blunt)

Sowry: “$50,000 worth of joinery… and it’s empty.”

Clear frustration with over-specification. MVC will be enforced

9:16am – Update 7 | Pipeline misunderstanding

Sowry: “We are increasing the pipeline… but projects are getting larger.”

Also: Defence is not the only player

Meaning:

• Fewer projects
• Bigger packages
• Higher bar to compete

9:14am – Update 6 | Relationship contracting — conditional

Sowry: “That project was right size… right scale for that model.”

Works in controlled conditions

Not scalable across the system

9:12am – Update 5 | Behaviour over contracts

Sowry: “Strong partnerships show their value in moments of stress.”

Base services cited as proof

Performance = behaviour under pressure

9:10am – Update 4 | Scope creep is cultural

Sowry: “People at the unit level… don’t have any reason to change scope.”

Yet it’s happening

• This is not process failure
• It’s behaviour

9:08am – Update 3 | Scope discipline (hard line)

Sowry: “Scope is determined by government… it shouldn’t be changing.”

“If you’re experiencing that… shut it down.”

Enforcement, not guidance

9:06am – Update 2 | Policy backlog acknowledged

Sowry: “We haven’t had the bandwidth… but we’ve made deliberate decisions to get after it.”

Policy is messy

But discipline comes first

9:04am – Update 1 | Financing (early signal)

Sowry: “We’ll convene a roundtable… to understand option sets.”

No model yet

But intent is real

9:00am – Day 2 commences

Day 2 has commenced with reflections from the Chair, including result of the poll that 31% believe more open and candid communication would have the biggest impact on performance in Defence estate projects.

---

Day One

---

That’s a wrap for Day 1. No major announcements, but themes of alignment and tension. Across every session, a consistent picture emerged: Defence is firmly in delivery mode, the pipeline is real but visibility remains limited, the system is under pressure from scale, workforce and cost, minimum viable capability is now driving decisions, and industry is increasingly being treated as a capability rather than just a supplier.

The one clear exception was the Port Wakefield case study, which showed that when alignment is strong, policy is flexed and urgency is real, Defence can move fast. That example now sets a benchmark that sits jarringly against the rest of the system.

At the same time, the core questions remain unresolved. There is still no clear answer on how pipeline visibility will improve, how trade-offs between projects will be made, how delivery will scale without breaking the market, or where data, digital and AI will actually land in practice. The signal is clear: the system is evolving, but it is not yet settled, and industry is feeling that uncertainty.

Day 2 should shift the focus from what is happening to how it improves, with more attention on productivity, collaboration models and delivery reform. Stay tuned.

---

4:46pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

da Costa: “This demonstrates that Defence can deliver facilities at pace.”

“That narrative… that it takes a long time… is clearly not the case.”

This session directly challenges the day’s dominant narrative.

---

4:44pm – Update 9 | The outcome

da Costa: “Delivered on time, on budget… within 12 months of PwC.”

Taylor: “To achieve this in seven months… was phenomenal.”

Wheeler: “Everything had to go right… all the time.”

This was a compressed, high-performance delivery.

---

4:42pm – Update 8 | Alignment was the key

da Costa: “Alignment across the sponsor, OEM… delivery team… base users… CFI.”

Wheeler: “Everyone had a specific role… and they did it.”

This is consistent with earlier sessions — but actually demonstrated here.

---

4:40pm – Update 7 | Policy was challenged

da Costa: “We took a critical look at policy… where we could manage risk.”

“Some policies are quite legacy… from when somebody did something stupid.”

Clear point:

Policy was flexed — deliberately.

---

4:38pm – Update 6 | Tempo over process

da Costa: “Challenge the paradigm of business as usual.”

Taylor: “We were on site the day after award.”

Execution approach:

• Early works packages
• Parallel design + construction
• Continuous mobilisation

---

4:36pm – Update 5 | Delivery model (important)

da Costa: “HC D&C using IPP provisions… select tender.”

Taylor: “Fully competitive… but fast.”

This is one of the few examples today of how to actually accelerate delivery.

---

4:34pm – Update 4 | Workforce + culture

Taylor: “We were working six days a week… sometimes seven.”

“You don’t want to burn your team out.”

Wheeler: “Mostly the same people all the way through… huge benefit.”

Continuity drives speed.

---

4:32pm – Update 3 | Indigenous participation (real)

Taylor: “16% Indigenous employment on the project.”

“Invest in your business… you can’t just come in at the top.”

da Costa: “This helps close the gap… real structural change.”

Not policy.
Actual delivery.

---

4:30pm – Update 2 | Risk management (practical)

da Costa: “Alignment with Felix’s team… enabled approvals.”

“Understanding the site… managing risk early.”

Also:

• OEM-controlled security simplified process
• Limited ICT complexity reduced risk

---

4:28pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

da Costa: “First ever missile assembly facility… delivered at pace.”

“This is about sovereign capability.”

Strategic priority + delivery urgency.

---

Net Zero and Resilience: Policy Simplifies, Trade-offs Intensify

Felix Bowman-Derick (Defence) | Michelle Brownlie (WSP)
Facilitated by Jonathan Cartledge (Consult Australia)

4:10pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

Bowman-Derick: “Sustainability has struggled… but it’s becoming a mandatory requirement.”

Brownlie: “If it was actually super important… you would absolutely put a weighting on it.”

That’s the tension.

Policy is moving forward.
Commercial signals are not.

3:58pm – Update 9 | The real constraint

Brownlie: “One of the biggest constraints… is policy confusion.”

“I pulled together a list… all the different policies… it is confusing to say the least.”

Simplification is overdue.

3:51pm – Update 8 | MVC vs sustainability

Brownlie: “As soon as we hear minimum viable capability… sustainability initiatives get pulled out.”

This is the clash: Cost discipline vs Sustainability ambition

3:48pm – Update 7 | Policy reset (Defence response)

Bowman-Derick: “We’ve got this amazing web… you need to read half a dozen documents.”

Response:

• New Environment Manual
• New Engineering Manual

“Here’s what you must do.”

3:45pm – Update 6 | Less bespoke Defence rules

Bowman-Derick: “If Defence doesn’t need a bespoke requirement… we’ve pulled it out.”

Shift toward:

• NCC
• National standards
• Simpler compliance

Brownlie reinforces: “I’m not a fan of reinventing the wheel.”

3:42pm – Update 5 | Sustainability = ‘BAU’, not aspirational

Bowman-Derick: “We don’t want the sustainability award… we want industry standard.”

Focus:

• Practical
• Repeatable
• Affordable

Not showcase projects.

3:39pm – Update 4 | Embodied carbon gap

Brownlie: “Defence is not quite ready for embodied carbon.”

Outside Defence:

• Voluntary reporting happening
• Likely mandatory (NCC ~2028)

Inside Defence: Still early.

3:36pm – Update 3 | Data and emissions reality

Bowman-Derick: “Most of our emissions… come from fuel… particularly aviation.”

“4% down… within normal variation.”

Estate sustainability is not the main driver of Defence’s emissions.

3:33pm – Update 2 | Procurement shift

Bowman-Derick: “Sustainable procurement… applies to projects over $7.5 million.”

Expanding across:

• Construction
• ICT
• Equipment

But Brownlie counters: “Typically not a weighted criterion.”

3:30pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

Bowman-Derick: “Net zero… clean energy transition… engineering policy.”

Branch focus:

• Policy
• Standards
• Guidance

---

Base Services Transformation – Partnering Alignment and Opportunities

Luke McLeod – Assistant Secretary, Transformation and Estate Data Systems

3:05pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

McLeod: “Every dollar we spend on base services is a dollar not available for other priorities.”

That’s the anchor. Base services = trade-offs.

2:58pm – Update 9 | Data is the big shift

McLeod: “Historically we’ve operated with data that’s fragmented, inconsistent… out of date.”

“We’re moving from reactive to predictive.”

Data is now:

• Decision tool
• Cost control mechanism
• Procurement enabler

2:51pm – Update 8 | API-based system

McLeod: “Defence Estate Exchange… API-based data sharing.”

Replacing:

• Manual processes
• Firewall-heavy integrations

Aim: Cleaner, faster data flow between Defence and industry.

2:48pm – Update 7 | Workforce pressure (again)

McLeod: “Cleared staff have become a valuable commodity.”

Also:

• Staff being pulled across agencies
• Shared workforce models emerging

System strain is visible.

2:45pm – Update 6 | Contracts changed fundamentally

McLeod: “We’ve removed punitive sanctions from our contracts.”

Focus now:

• System health
• Continuous improvement
• Performance conversations

Not penalties.

2:42pm – Update 5 | Co-design success (from Defence view)

McLeod: “Industry participants… did not hold back.”

“Engaged genuinely.”

Also:

• 5 new entrants into the system
• Competitive tension increased

2:39pm – Update 4 | Team of teams

McLeod: “We’re a team of teams… not a single group.”

“Performance lives at the point of delivery.”

Site-level relationships matter more than central policy.

2:36pm – Update 3 | Base services = capability

McLeod: “Base services fundamentally underpin defence capability.”

Not support. Core function.

2:33pm – Update 2 | Scale confirmed

McLeod: “~$12.5 billion over six years.”

Largest non-material procurement in Defence.

2:30pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

McLeod: “Two themes… make Defence life like community life… and be digitally centric.”

Translation:

• User experience matters
• Data matters

---

Priorities in Service Delivery and Delivering Estate Outcomes

Brigadier Gabrielle Follett

2:25pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

Follett: “Speed to capability… probity… budget… are all in tension.”

2:20pm – Update 9 | Scope creep warning

Follett: “Scope creep… underpinned by really good intentions.”

“And it carries the potential to undermine speed to capability.”

Clear message: Discipline is now critical.

2:15pm – Update 8 | Scrutiny increasing

Follett: “Government is… incredibly interested in what we are delivering and what we are paying for it.”

• More oversight.
• More accountability.
• Less room for error.

2:10pm – Update 7 | Minimum viable capability

Follett: “Only designing and delivering what we truly need.”

“If we do too much here… we can’t do something else.”

MVC is now being enforced.

2:05pm – Update 6 | Budget pressure confirmed

Follett: “Fuel pressures… supply chain pressures… cost of utilities… all going up.”

“These impose difficult decisions… sometimes impacting the estate.”

Pressure is persistent, not temporary.

1:59pm – Update 5 | Pipeline signal (EWP)

Follett: “Up to 100 projects preparing for market release in Q2.”

But:

• Programme remains “a source of flexibility.”
• Pipeline exists — but not fully locked.

1:56pm – Update 4 | Procurement reform (important)

Follett: “Micro and minor works… to simplify procurement.”

“Make things faster… easier for SMEs.”

Thresholds: ~$4–5M.

One of the few concrete changes discussed today.

1:53pm – Update 3 | Contracts reset

Follett: “These new contracts are modernising our service delivery.”

“Improving accountability… clearer definition of responsibilities.”

Base Services Transformation now live.

1:50pm – Update 2 | EWP scale

Follett: “135 projects… ~$750 million transitioned.”

“Programme now approaching $1 billion.”

Major sustainment engine.

1:45pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

Follett: “All contracts… fully operative… delivering what we expect.”

Base Services Transformation is now in delivery.

---

Defence Infrastructure: Delivery, Coordination and Regional Alignment

Luke Parsons (NSSG) | Matt Quinn (SEG) | Peta Arbuckle (Defence West)
Facilitated by Robin Mellon

1:20pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

Luke Parsons: “Industry is a capability.”

1:18pm – Update 9 | Confidence problem acknowledged

Luke Parsons: “We need to be conscious of the signals we’re sending to the market over time.”

This is the first real acknowledgement of the issue. Confidence isn’t just about pipeline. It’s about sequencing and communication.

1:16pm – Update 8 | SMEs matter (explicitly)

Luke Parsons: “Success… is not a vertically integrated outcome.”

Luke Parsons: “Maintaining the health of the SME sector.”

Clear intent: Continuity must reach beyond primes.

1:14pm – Update 7 | Workforce reality

Luke Parsons: “It can take longer to train a nuclear-certified welder than a brain surgeon.”

Implication:

• Workforce is the constraint
• Lead times are long
• Planning must be generational

1:12pm – Update 6 | Henderson = system problem

Luke Parsons: “It’s like five games of Tetris… all at once.”

At Henderson:

• Submarines
• Surface fleet
• Sustainment
• Commercial users
• New infrastructure

All competing for space.

1:10pm – Update 5 | Siting is the unlock

Luke Parsons: “Siting decision… this year.”

This is critical for Henderson. Everything flows from:

• Location
• Footprint
• Regulatory boundary

1:08pm – Update 4 | Industry uncertainty acknowledged

Peta Arbuckle: “Industry… crying out for information.”

Peta Arbuckle: “They want surety around access… transition… impacts.”

This directly mirrors the Slido feed.

1:06pm – Update 3 | Strategy shift confirmed

Luke Parsons: “From feast/famine… to continuous build and sustain.”

This is a fundamental change. Continuous workload is now policy.

1:04pm – Update 2 | Scale increasing

Matt Quinn: “Massively increased scale… beyond CFI delivery.”

Also raised:

• International expertise required
• Alternate financing being explored
• Speed of delivery improving (but still an issue)

1:02pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

Matt Quinn: “Upscaling the size of our projects… across Defence.”

---

Nuclear Submarine Infrastructure: $60B+, 50-Year Pipeline, System Still Forming

Toff Idrus | COL Len Rouwhorst | Josh Watkin
Australian Submarine Agency

12:23pm – Update 10 | Bottom line

“Over $60 billion in capital works over the next 15–20 years.”

“Genuinely next level… as complex as you can get.”

This is not just another programme. It’s a national-scale industrial system.

12:21pm – Update 9 | The real requirement

“I need a 50-year pipeline… builders, logisticians, designers, maintainers.”

This is the clearest statement of the day so far.

12:19pm – Update 8 | Can’t cannibalise industry

“We cannot cannibalise the wider construction sector… we need to grow the overall pie.”

This directly links to earlier sessions. Defence knows it can’t just outbid the market.

12:17pm – Update 7 | Safety mindset shift

“A nuclear safety mindset is a step up again.”

Implications:

• New standards
• New assurance layers
• Longer lead times

12:15pm – Update 6 | Urgency vs complexity

“We have a responsibility to deliver… as efficiently as possible.”

But also:

• Trilateral programme (US/UK/AU)
• Global supply chains
• Complex approvals

Speed is required. System is complex.

12:13pm – Update 5 | Stirling reality

“Only 18 months to go before initial operating capability.”

Peak spend: ~$650M per year at HMAS Stirling.

This is immediate pressure.

12:11am – Update 4 | Rolling programme (not projects)

“This is a rolling programme… not start–finish projects.”

Critical point:

• Sequencing approvals and packages is everything.
• Miss the sequence → lose momentum.

12:09pm – Update 3 | Henderson challenge

“Like painting the Mona Lisa on a Rembrandt.”

Not a greenfield site.

• Existing industry
• Existing constraints
• New nuclear requirements layered in

12:07pm – Update 2 | Timeframes are tight

“Six years to get a minimum viable dockyard capability.”

Target:

• IOC ~2032
• Full capability later

Minimum viable capability is driving sequencing.

12:05pm – Update 1 | Opening signal

“We are moving from strategy and policy… into delivery at pace.”

Infrastructure is now:

“Central to aligning ready-by dates with submarine capability.”

---

Jimmy Kiploks – General Manager, Defence NT

11:37am – Update 10 | Bottom line

“Treat delivery as a system… not a string of standalone projects.”

That’s the message.

• People.
• Seasons.
• Integration.
• Coordination.

11:35am – Update 9 | The rule set

• “If you want to deliver successfully in the north… come early.”
• “If you do late… it’ll feel like a closed shop.”

Clear stance:

• Partner locally
• Design for conditions
• Work inside the system

11:33am – Update 8 | Local is not optional

• “Make local and Indigenous participation a delivery strategy… not a report.”
• “95% of subcontract value… local.”
• “14% Indigenous.”

Positioning: Local capability = performance, not policy.

11:31am – Update 7 | Coordination is power

“Statutory Territory Coordinator… to keep delivery moving.”

Approvals can be:

• Sequenced
• Accelerated
• Unblocked

This is active intervention to protect schedule.

11:29am – Update 6 | Precinct thinking

“Northern Marine Complex… a coordinated multi-user precinct.”

Not waiting for Defence work. Building the system first:

• Ship lift
• Supply chain
• Industry ecosystem

11:27am – Update 5 | Integration discipline

“Integration is a discipline… not a phase.”

• Civil
• ICT
• Security
• Operations

“All planned as one programme.”

11:25am – Update 4 | Digital + sequencing

“Digital twins… clash detection… 4D scheduling.”

“Resolve interfaces before they hit the slab.”

Also:

“Design for seasons… not around them.”

• Wet = prep
• Dry = build

11:23am – Update 3 | Friction removal

“Remove friction where it counts.”

Examples:

• Isolated construction zones on live bases
• Separate access + controls
• ~$6M saved through interface management

11:21am – Update 2 | Workforce first

“Workforce is the first design input.”

• Camps built early
• Mobilisation staged
• Work sequenced to match labour availability

Not an afterthought.

11:19am – Update 1 | Opening signal

“Regional delivery works best when approached as a system.”

Example:

Tindal ISR project:

• Delivered ~4 months early
• Within budget
• Zero defects at handover

What this adds

This is the first speaker to actually show how to deliver differently:

• Design around workforce
• Sequence around environment
• Integrate early
• Remove friction deliberately
• Use local capability as a core input

The gap

Strong delivery model.

Still no connection back to:

• National pipeline visibility
• Procurement reform
• How this scales beyond the NT

Bottom line

• “If you treat it like a project… it will struggle.”
• “If you treat it like a system… it performs.”

This is the most practical session so far.

---

Adam Cropp – Chief Executive, Infrastructure Australia

11:35am – Update 10 | Bottom line

This session wasn’t about Defence.

It was about the system Defence sits inside.

And the message is simple: The system is stretched.

11:33am – Update 9 | Productivity is the real issue

Strong emphasis on:

• Productivity
• Capacity
• System inefficiency

Underlying signal: The problem isn’t just pipeline. It’s the industry’s ability to deliver it efficiently.

11:31am – Update 8 | Too much work, not enough capacity

Repeated theme:

• Labour constraints
• Supply chain pressure
• Market saturation

This aligns directly with earlier sessions.

The pipeline isn’t the constraint.

Delivery capacity is.

11:29am – Update 7 | National vs Defence tension

Clear subtext:

Defence is competing with:

• State infrastructure
• Energy transition
• Housing

Same people.
Same contractors.
Same constraints.

11:27am – Update 6 | Collaboration still unresolved

Strong language around:

• “Collaboration”
• “Working together”
• “Shared outcomes”

But no clear mechanism.

Industry is hearing this repeatedly — still waiting for structure behind it.

11:25am – Update 5 | Risk allocation still broken

Implicit but clear:

• Risk sits too heavily with industry
• Insurance constraints growing
• Commercial tension increasing

This links directly to the Slido questions.

11:23am – Update 4 | Pipeline vs confidence

Key disconnect:

• Government view: Pipeline is strong.
• Industry view: Confidence is low.

No resolution yet.

11:21am – Update 3 | Reform language increasing

Terms being used:

• Productivity uplift
• System reform
• Better engagement

But still high-level. No concrete delivery mechanisms discussed.

11:19am – Update 2 | Industry frustration visible

Tone of discussion:

Measured, but clear.

Industry wants:

• Earlier visibility
• Faster decisions
• Less friction

This is consistent across every session so far.

11:17am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Framed as:

“Global challenges meeting national opportunity.”

Translation:

• Demand is high
• Constraints are real
• Trade-offs are unavoidable

---

10:49am – Q&A Feed – The real conversation

So far, the Slido feed is where the real signal is. The questions coming through are consistent, and they’re not subtle. They cluster around a few themes:

1. Pipeline visibility (still the dominant issue)

Multiple variations of the same question:

• “Lack of confidence in the pipeline’s delivery… due to lack of useful information”
• “Only one project in planning… are we hitting a cliff?”
• “Is there enough pipeline to sustain continuity?”

This is the core problem.

Industry isn’t questioning whether work exists.
It’s questioning whether it can see it early enough to plan for it.

2. Confidence in delivery

“60% not confident the system can deliver the pipeline as planned…”

That’s a big number.

And it aligns with what’s been said on stage:

• Peak workload
• Budget pressure
• Forecast sensitivity

The market is effectively saying:

We don’t doubt the intent.
We doubt the system.

3. Procurement friction and delay

Questions pointing to:

• Slow procurement
• Long review cycles
• Decision lag
• Escalation risk

One of the sharper ones:

“Is there a need for minimum viable governance?”

That’s the right question.

Because right now:

Governance is seen as a drag on delivery, not an enabler.

4. Market structure and access

Clear concern from industry:

• “Are primes being favoured for large projects?”
• “How do non-panel providers engage?”
• “Will there be forums for those outside panels?”

This is a structural issue.

Access to work is narrowing — or at least perceived to be.

5. Indigenous engagement (early stage gap)

“Will SEG establish an Indigenous engagement function… how will it speed things up?”

This aligns with what we heard earlier:

• Strong intent
• New initiatives coming

But still uncertainty around:

• How it works in practice
• Whether it improves delivery, not just compliance

6. Risk and insurance

“Limited appetite from Defence to negotiate risk… impacts insurance availability”

This is a serious commercial signal.

If insurance becomes constrained:

→ Fewer bidders
→ Higher prices
→ Reduced competition

7. Alternative procurement models

“Is there appetite for NEC / collaborative contracting?”

This is industry asking: Are we actually going to change how projects are delivered? Or just talk about collaboration?

What’s actually happening

Only two questions have been answered so far.

There’s clearly more demand for answers than time allocated.

And that’s the issue.

The gap

The event is framed around collaboration.

But the Q&A is showing:

• Industry wants clarity
• Industry wants specifics
• Industry wants commitment

And right now: There isn’t enough space in the format to deal with that properly.

Bottom line

The Slido feed is telling you everything:

• Confidence is fragile
• Visibility is limited
• Friction is real
• Appetite for reform is high

And most importantly: The hardest questions are not being answered in the room.

---

Brigadier Matt Quinn – Director General, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure

Key themes:

• Peak workload
• Increased scrutiny
• Tightening discipline
• Reduced tolerance for error

And still: No improvements to pipeline clarity.

10:15am – Update 10 | Bottom line

“Peak construction period… record spend last financial year… another record this year.”

System is fully loaded. Now under scrutiny.

10:13am – Update 9 | No pipeline today

“There won’t be any specific pipeline information today.”

“This forum is more about collaboration.”

Pipeline visibility still constrained.

10:11am – Update 8 | Scrutiny increasing

“Parliamentary Works Committee… asking why there’s been so many changes… where costs have gone.”

Pressure is coming from government, not just Defence.

10:09am – Update 7 | Security warning

“I’ve read on LinkedIn… contracts awarded when government hasn’t signed off.”

“That reduces trust.”

Direct message: Stop leaking.
Trust is being tested.

10:07am – Update 6 | Contractor performance

“We need our industry smarts… multiple solutions.”

Concern: Some contractors behaving like head contractors, not managing contractors.

Expectation: Bring solutions, not just problems.

10:06am – Update 5 | Design discipline

“Challenge our designers… don’t over-design.”

“Look at opportunities where we don’t actually have to build anything.”

Also: Better communication to non-technical stakeholders.

10:05am – Update 4 | Procurement focus

Key personal priorities:

• Collaboration (CFI + PMCA + contractors)
• Delivery phase fee traceability
• Speed of delivery
• Commercial discipline

“I haven’t been overly happy with some of the traceability.”

10:04am – Update 3 | Construction peak

“We normally have about a third of projects in construction… we have about half at the moment.”

This is the peak.

Lots of completions this year.

10:03am – Update 2 | Programme scale

“Most number of projects in the Defence acquisition programme.”

Also:

• Multiple capability managers
• Mix of capability + estate projects

Complexity is high.

10:02am – Update 1 | Opening signal

“Focused on delivering minimum viable capability outcomes.”

Structure built around:

• Delivery directorates
• Enabling directorates

Everything geared toward delivery.

---

Pat Sowry – First Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure

Quick read: Perkins set the pressure. Sowry showed the system responding:

• Reorganising
• Reprioritising
• Looking for new delivery and financing models

10:00am – Update 10 | Bottom line

“Budget pressures… construction market pressures… accurate forecasting.”

This is about managing constraints, not expanding ambition.

9:58am – Update 9 | Indigenous shift

“We are going to establish a Defence-specific prequalification list for Indigenous construction businesses in 2026.”

This is a material move. It affects access to work, not just participation targets.

9:56am – Update 8 | Financing pressure

“We will look to pursue… public private partnerships… and leasing models.”

Budget pressure is driving financing reform.

9:54am – Update 7 | Maritime focus

“Maritime is the largest sector… around 38%.”

Key locations:

• HMAS Stirling
• Henderson precinct

Heavy coordination challenge: supply chain, equipment, workforce.

9:52am – Update 6 | Regional planning

“Looking more broadly… beyond the boundaries of our bases.”

Focus areas:

• North West Cape
• Far North Queensland

Signals to state and local government becoming more deliberate.

9:50am – Update 5 | Estate strategy

“Once the NDS 26 is released… the Defence Estate Strategy will follow.”

20-year outlook.

More structured planning cycle coming.

9:48am – Update 4 | Forecasting pressure

“Accurate forecasting… particularly at the end of March… is critical.”

“If we are divergent… project funding will be subject to that.”

Clear message: Get forecasts wrong → lose funding.

9:46am – Update 3 | Priorities

“Top priorities… northern bases… submarines… infrastructure delivery.”

Continuity in direction. Delivery is the focus.

9:44am – Update 2 | Internal changes

“Estate transformation… divestment… relocation of units and functions.”

Organisation reshaping to support delivery.

9:42am – Update 1 | Opening signal

“A broad range of areas of Defence… heavily engaged in disruption.”

Multiple groups now in play:

• Submarine Agency
• Sustainment
• Indo-Pacific infrastructure

---

Celia Perkins – Deputy Secretary, Estate

9:40am – Update 12 | Bottom line

The tone is set.

• The money is real.
• The pipeline is real.
• The constraints are now just as real.

This is a delivery market now.

9:38am – Update 11 | What’s missing

Still no clarity on:

• Pipeline transparency
• Contract award visibility
• Scheduling standards
• AI in estate delivery

These are the real gaps.

9:36am – Update 10 | The subtext

• Collaboration is no longer optional.
• Industry will share the pressure.
• This is not a soft market.

9:34am – Update 9 | Capability reform

New capability system coming (maturing by 2027).

Focus:

• Faster delivery.
• More realistic scope.
• Minimum viable capability.

9:32am – Update 8 | Structural change

Estate is being reshaped.

• Legacy sites going
• Focus on operational locations
• Driven by Estate Audit

This is long-term repositioning.

9:30am – Update 7 | Industry warning

Strong emphasis on:

• Cost accuracy
• Forecast reliability
• Collaboration

Defence is signalling frustration with delivery performance.

9:28am – Update 6 | Design philosophy shift

“We’re not here to win architecture awards.”

This is blunt.

Functional.
Resilient.
Fit-for-purpose.

Gold-plating is out.

9:26am – Update 5 | Fiscal pressure

“The fiscal environment will remain constrained.”

This matters more than anything else said.

Implication:

Not everything gets funded.
Priorities will tighten.

9:24am – Update 4 | IIP reality

IIP update coming with the Federal Budget.

But no detail yet.

Signals first.
Clarity later.

Pipeline visibility still an issue.

9:22am – Update 3 | Phase shift

“We are absolutely now into the delivery phase.”

Translation:

Less tolerance for delay.
Less tolerance for variation.
More scrutiny on industry.

9:19am – Update 2 | The big headline

~$3.5B capital works
~$3.8B sustainment

Record investment.

But the real message:

Execution under pressure starts now.

9:15am – Update 1 | Opening signal

Celia Perkins opening keynote.

Clear shift:

Defence is no longer planning the estate.
It’s delivering it.

---

Today’s Agenda (Wednesday)

Day 1 runs from 9:00am to 4:50pm and sets the tone for the entire event.

Morning – Strategy & Direction

• Opening + keynote from SEG leadership
• Infrastructure priorities and capital program context
• Expect high-level signals on IIP direction and delivery challenges

Midday – Programs & Regions

• Northern Territory and WA infrastructure focus
• Nuclear-powered submarine infrastructure (AUKUS-related)
• This is where “opportunity” will be discussed — but watch for what’s actually funded

Afternoon – Delivery & Reform

• Service delivery priorities and estate outcomes
• Base Services Transformation (key session)
• Sustainability, resilience and Indigenous partnerships

0855h Collab X 2026 – Live Commentary Begins
Thanks for joining. I’ll post updates here as the session progresses.
I’ll keep each update short and focused on what matters for designers, contractors, and service providers in the Defence estate.