iscover
The recent appointment of former head of Joint Aviation Systems for Defence Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Jeremy King, as new chief executive for Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand has drawn criticism during recent Senate estimates.
The appointment was debated during a Senate estimates discussion between Senator David Shoebridge, Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Andrew Stuart and Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) Deputy Secretary Chris Deeble on 11 February.
King, a former director general - Army Aviation Systems Branch in CASG, was announced as the new chief executive for Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand earlier this year.
King has extensive experience in the Australian Army in a range of high-ranking leadership positions throughout global missions and is a fellow at the Institute of Engineers Australia and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
Shoebridge alleged that the appointment could breach internal conflict of interest guidelines, due to King’s role alongside Joint Aviation Systems Division within CASG.
“In 2023 there was a decision to replace the Taipans with 40 Black Hawks that are made by Lockheed Martin. I think that’s a $2.8 billion purchase contract,” Senator Shoebridge said.
“Major General King, I recall in informal interactions I had with Defence, was critical in responding to some of the issues around the Taipans. His knowledge was critical for responding to some of the issues and the decision to remove the Taipans from service.
“He left Defence on 5 January having gone from heading Joint Aviation Systems Division, which was overseeing the Lockheed Martin contract and Army Aviation. We’re now in early February, barely a month after (he’s working for Lockheed Martin).
“How is it that you don’t even have a month of cooling off between being the head of the Joint Aviation Systems Division managing the Lockheed Martin contract – the part of Defence that is making these critical decisions about platforms including Lockheed Martin’s Black Hawks – in working for Defence and then working for the world’s biggest arms manufacturer in an area directly related to where you were in Defence?
“I don’t even think it was a month off because in January, last month, Lockheed Martin made its announcement. In fact, here it is – 12 January. It wasn’t even a week. He goes from the head of a key part of Defence, managing the Lockheed Martin contract, making decisions about acquisitions, including Lockheed Martin products – and in not even a week he steps out of that into working for Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest arms manufacturer and a huge client of Defence. Are you saying there’s no policy in Defence that would prevent that; that this was lawful? Is that your position?
“Isn’t there at least a cooling-off period so people don’t go from immediately applying all of the knowledge they had inside Defence to working for a defence contractor, in particular a defence contractor who was intimately connected with their work in Defence? Is there no cooling-off period?
“Whatever the assurances are, this is what very recently former Major General King said in the press release from Lockheed Martin: ‘I am eager to leverage my extensive program leadership experience and commitment to customer success in leading Lockheed Martin’s efforts in Australia and New Zealand.’
“He was being absolutely clear about this. He was going to leverage what he knew – his contacts and his Defence career – with barely a week off to maximise the profits for Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest arms manufacturer. Did anyone have to sign off on this?
“When members of the public look at this and they see someone who has been the head of a key capability, in this case the Joint Aviation Systems Division, responsible for making decisions about multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, managing multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, and see someone step out of that from the uniform and in less than a week take a job with Lockheed Martin, that doesn’t just miss the pub test, that brings Defence into disrepute, the Public Service into disrepute.
“They see people leveraging their very recent experience to maximise corporate profits, in this case for the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer. Don’t you see how this looks to the public and see how this kind of behaviour stinks in the eyes of the public?”
King ceased working with CASG late last year on 31 December and was not creating a conflict of interest, according to Chief of Army LTGEN Stuart.
“In terms of the previous government’s decision on the acquisition of Black Hawk helicopters, then Brigadier King didn’t have a part in Army aviation planning or decisions at that point. Certainly, in his employment as the head of aviation systems in CASG he was responsible for the execution of those decisions,” according to LTGEN Stuart.
“There are clear policies on conflict of interest management. In now retired Major General King’s circumstances – there are obligations on him. As part of this process, Defence also sought undertakings from Lockheed Martin to assure ourselves that it would comply with the conflict of interest requirements, in particular around the roles that Major General King had previously performed.
“Assurances were received from Defence around the management of those conflict of interest areas … The assurances from the company were provided to us.”
Conflicts of interest were also assessed by Deputy Secretary Chris Deeble and an agreement with Lockheed Martin was also reviewed, according to the discussion.
“I reviewed the conflict of interest. I also reviewed with respect to Major General (Retired) Jeremy King recusing himself from any of the projects that had been under his management in the past. At the point that he notified me in the October time frame last year that he was potentially being considered by Lockheed Martin, I assured that he put in a conflict of interest,” according to Deeble.
“That occurred in the early November time frame. That ensured he was not engaged in any contractual activity related to Lockheed Martin through the remaining period of time. Any of the projects in which he had a role to play as the head of Joint Aerospace Systems he is recused from for 12 months.
