Sovereign Subsidies, Private Scandals: The Defence Firms Shaping Australia’s Policy and Profiting from the Public Purse

Australia’s defence economy is not a marketplace. It is a habitat designed for a handful of well-connected firms that harvest subsidies, influence policy, and treat public probity as a negotiable cost. The names are familiar to anyone who follows procurement notices: Thales, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Elbit, Rafael, and Austal. Each operates in Australia in some form, each benefits from taxpayer underwriting, and each arrives carrying a trail of serious compliance failures or criminal findings drawn from Australia or from its home jurisdictions. What follows is a concise dossier of that system at work.

Thales: a case study in capture

The Australian National Audit Office detailed how Defence ran a non-competitive process that culminated in a ten-year, 1.2 to 1.3 billion dollar deal for Thales to operate the Commonwealth-owned munitions plants at Benalla and Mulwala. The audit found poor probity controls, a failure to ensure value for money, and evidence of “unethical conduct,” including a Defence official soliciting champagne from Thales and sharing confidential tender information before later taking employment with the company. Defence referred the matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission in June 2024. These are not minor lapses. They go to the heart of the state’s ability to run clean tenders for sovereign capability.

Thales also features in a long-running corruption saga outside Australia. Prosecutors in South Africa have kept charges alive in the 1999 arms-deal case. In June 2025 the High Court dismissed applications for acquittal by both Thales and former president Jacob Zuma, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

BAE Systems: quality questions and a corruption record

BAE Systems helped deliver the Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Dock program. Across their service lives, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide have experienced significant sustainment deficiencies and critical failures. An ANAO report in mid-2025 noted a 2019 multi-party settlement with Siemens, BAE Systems Australia, and Navantia over propulsion pod issues, agreed without admissions of liability, and concluded that sustainment had not achieved value for money.

BAE’s global integrity record is worse. In 2010 the company pleaded guilty in the United States to making false statements about its anti-corruption program and export controls, and paid a 400 million US dollar criminal fine, one of the largest of its kind. The UK Parliament’s research briefing maps additional investigations tied to contracts in Saudi Arabia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Related reporting in 2024 underscored the UK government’s own handling of the Saudi relationship during the BAE scandal.

Austal: the “sovereign” shipbuilder with a fraud case and wage alarms

Austal markets itself as a pillar of Australia’s sovereign shipbuilding. Its US subsidiary pleaded guilty in 2024 to an accounting-fraud scheme and to obstructing a Defence Contract Audit Agency review, agreeing to a 24 million US dollar resolution with the US Department of Justice. The US Securities and Exchange Commission announced parallel settled charges. This followed earlier regulatory attention in Australia.

On the labour front, Australia has seen a broad wave of wage-underpayment enforcement by the Fair Work Ombudsman across industries, a context relevant to shipyards and heavy industry supply chains. The regulator recovered 473 million dollars in 2023–24, with large employers driving a significant share of repayments. While that headline figure is not specific to Austal, it illustrates a compliance environment where systematic underpayment has been common enough to warrant criminalisation reforms and large recoveries.

Rheinmetall: a bribery fine in Europe, a footprint in Australia

Rheinmetall is expanding armour and munitions work in Australia while carrying a corruption history abroad. In 2015 a German prosecutor imposed a 37 million euro penalty on a Rheinmetall subsidiary for bribery connected to Greek defence deals. Independent trackers and local press have documented that case and related payments.

Elbit and Rafael: Australian contracts despite international controversy

Elbit Systems markets itself as the “backbone” of the Israeli drone fleet and has been linked by human rights groups to serious violations in Gaza. Australia’s sovereign wealth fund once excluded Elbit over cluster-munitions concerns, then later disclosed fresh holdings during the 2023–25 surge in defence equities. Rafael, another Israeli defence firm, also holds Australian work. These choices sit awkwardly with stated government positions on humanitarian law.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing: embedded in Australian supply chains

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program integrates parts from more than seventy Australian suppliers, while Boeing straddles civil and defence markets that both benefited from rearmament and post-pandemic recovery. Returns to investors have been substantial in the recent cycle, helped by budget settings in Australia and among allies. The policy question is whether the public gets value for money in capability terms, rather than only balance-sheet gains for contractors.

The system that makes all of this possible

Subsidies disguised as strategy.
Australian governments offset capital costs through facilities, grants, and long-horizon sustainment contracts. Once embedded, programs become politically impossible to unwind. Thales’s hold over Benalla and Mulwala is the clearest example of a structure that outlasts accountability.
Policy distortion through dependence.
Every dollar sunk into bespoke platforms or single-vendor sustainment narrows choices later. The AUKUS propulsion ecosystem, the F-35 global supply chain, and sole-source munitions arrangements create an interdependence that prioritises contractor solvency over contestability.
A compliance pattern, not isolated lapses.
The record shows criminal fines, guilty pleas, ongoing corruption cases, and adverse audit findings across several flagship suppliers. When a nation’s procurement relies on firms with such histories, probity frameworks must be exceptionally strict. Instead, Australia’s own auditors describe arrangements that were not effective and not value-for-money.
Austal’s cautionary tale.
The company sells itself as sovereign capability, yet its US arm admitted to accounting fraud and obstruction. If a prime contractor can misstate performance in one jurisdiction while seeking subsidies and preference in another, Canberra’s defence market design has a structural problem.

What accountability would look like

Mandatory multi-vendor competitions for renewals and sustainment with public release of evaluation weightings and independent cost realism checks. The Benalla and Mulwala episode shows why.
A rolling probity audit program tied to contract gates, with automatic referrals to the NACC for red-flag indicators such as undisclosed gifts, pre-tender contact, and post-employment conflicts.
An integrity bar for supplier eligibility using global enforcement data. Firms with recent criminal settlements or fines would face enhanced scrutiny or temporary exclusion until remedial actions are verified by an external monitor.
Transparency on subsidy and tax concessions attached to “sovereign” projects, with annual public reporting of effective support and realised Australian content, rather than marketing claims.
Labour compliance undertakings across the supply chain in line with Fair Work enforcement trends, with independent audits and debarment for serious or repeated contraventions.

AUKUS and the Integrity Problem

The credibility of the AUKUS project is directly bound to the integrity of the firms contracted to deliver it. Submarine propulsion systems, combat management technology, weapons integration, and sustainment contracts will all flow through the same pool of companies that already dominate Australia’s procurement landscape. Yet several of these firms such as Thales, BAE Systems, Austal, and others, carry unresolved histories of corruption, fraud, or mismanagement. If those patterns repeat inside AUKUS, the consequences will be felt not only in wasted billions but also in strained alliances and eroded trust with partners in Washington and London.

For Canberra, the stakes are especially high. AUKUS has been sold to the Australian public as a once-in-a-generation project to guarantee sovereignty and deterrence. But the reality is that sovereignty becomes hollow when it rests on companies with a record of distorting policy, securing sweetheart subsidies, and cutting ethical corners. If scandals like Thales’s manipulation of bureaucrats at Benalla or Austal’s fraud case in the United States surface again within AUKUS, the partnership risks becoming a showcase not of technological innovation but of systemic capture and compromised governance.

The bottom line

Australia’s defence industrial base is being built by companies that have, in many cases, broken the law somewhere. That fact does not automatically disqualify them from every future contract, but it does place a heavy burden on government to enforce competition, probity, and labour standards. The recent ANAO findings on Thales, the US fraud case involving Austal, the historic BAE corruption penalties, and the Rheinmetall bribery fine in Europe are not background noise. They are warnings. If the state continues to subsidise and privilege suppliers without strict guardrails, it is not buying capability. It is buying risk, and inviting scandal to repeat itself.

If Australia wants a sovereign industry worthy of public trust, it should start by choosing partners who can pass the most basic tests of integrity, and by designing a market where capture is impossible and competition is real.

Stop Greed Financing the War Machine

Search This Blog