Canberra is consolidating delivery under one armaments chief, while Ottawa coordinates procurement across departments through industrial policy

Australia’s government released its Rebuilding Defence Capability report and an updated Defence Industry Development Strategy this week, formally launching what it calls the country’s biggest defence acquisition reform in 50 years. The changes offer a useful comparison for Canada, which is also pursuing a similar goal.

Australia’s move

Canberra is merging three organizations, Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Group, and Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group, into a single Defence Delivery Agency, led by a National Armaments Director. The agency builds on a reform plan Canberra first outlined last year, backed by a broader National Defence Strategy released this spring.

This week’s strategy also sets workforce targets for major contractors and adds roughly A$127 million across internships, school STEM programs and industry grants, plus a reform of the underused USD $3 billion Defence Export Facility.

Canada’s parallel

Canada launched its Defence Investment Agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada to pursue a similar goal. Rather than merging organizations, the DIA coordinates a system that still involves National Defence, PSPC and ISED. Bill C-31 would establish the DIA as a stand-alone agency with a mandate covering production, procurement and investment related to national defence and national security.

Under Build-Partner-Buy, the DIA prioritizes Canadian production in sovereign capability areas, partners with allies where domestic capacity is insufficient, and buys from foreign suppliers only when neither works, with conditions attached to support Canadian industry.

The structural difference

Australia is placing acquisition, sustainment and delivery under one official. Canada is keeping requirements, procurement and industrial policy split across departments, with the DIA layered on top to coordinate them.

Australia’s model concentrates responsibility for delivery in a single agency. Canada’s model spreads its emphasis across several levers – where equipment gets built, how allies are engaged as partners, and what conditions apply to foreign purchases, including IP access.

The bottom line

Australia is bringing its main defence delivery organizations together under one agency. Canada is building an agency to steer a system that remains spread across several departments while also using procurement to strengthen domestic industry. Australia is betting that clearer accountability will improve delivery. Canada is asking its new agency to improve delivery and shape the industrial outcome at the same time.