Australia and New Zealand have faced an important test over the past three weeks, and the results so far look like a failure.
A flotilla of Chinese ships from the People’s Liberation Army Navy has been prowling the waters off the Australian east coast, conducting surprise back-to-back live-fire exercises in busy air traffic space in the Tasman Sea. We can expect more of this as the Chinese military seeks to project its strength far from its shores. How much faith can we have that the relevant authorities will know what’s going on and keep the public accurately informed about the threats on the high seas?
Very little, based on what we’ve seen so far.
Beijing has accused Australia of overhyping the military drills. The evidence suggests the opposite is true. The government initially downplayed the seriousness of what took place, providing Australians with a whitewashed and, in some crucial respects, misleading version of what occurred.
In fact, we would probably still be in the dark about what happened were it not for the lucky coincidence that Senate estimates hearings were scheduled in Canberra this week. These hearings have flushed out details from Defence officials that would otherwise have remained secret. The more we learn, the worse the chain of events looks.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stands out for providing a distinctly untroubled interpretation of the live-fire exercises. After being briefed by Defence chief David Johnston on Friday afternoon about the first drill, which took place that morning, Albanese spoke to reporters and gave the impression nothing unusual had happened.
“China issued, in accordance with practice, an alert that it would be conducting these activities, including the potential use of live fire,” he told reporters.
The use of the future tense – “would be conducting” – suggested Australian authorities knew about the drills in advance.
Now, thanks to Senate estimates, we know that Airservices Australia only learnt about the exercise 30 minutes after the live-fire window began. The Australian Defence Force was informed another 10 minutes after that. The lag would have been even longer had a Virgin Australia pilot not tipped off authorities that the exercise was taking place. If the ADF had been relying on the New Zealand Navy, which was shadowing the ship, it would not have known until 90 minutes after the exercise began.
Liberal and Greens senators, who rarely agree on much, expressed incredulity on Wednesday that such a long time could be seen as acceptable.
“It is the case that the notice was given,” Albanese went on to say. “When that occurs, airlines are notified and stay out of the area.”
We now know that China only gave notice in the sense of a notification of what was already happening, not a warning of what was to come. A much more serious equivalent of a next-door neighbour “notifying” you of a raucous party when the music is already blaring through the wall rather than giving you a heads-up the day before.
As for planes staying out of the area, some were already in the air and had to change course. Defence officials told reporters in a briefing on Friday afternoon they believed around three commercial flights had been disrupted because of the exercise. A few days later, Airservices Australia revealed 49 flights had been disrupted. That’s more than a rounding error.
Asked whether he was concerned about the drills, Albanese seemed nonchalant, saying the activity was “consistent with international law”.
This was technically true, but far from the full story. Activity doesn’t have to be illegal to be provocative, dangerous, reckless and unprofessional – all words that describe the Chinese Navy’s behaviour.
Albanese noted Johnston had told him it was not clear if there was any live firing. This opens the troubling possibility the New Zealand frigate tracking the Chinese flotilla couldn’t tell what was happening, perhaps because it was too far away. The crew on the Kiwi frigate did observe behaviour “consistent with a live-fire activity” and monitored the Chinese ships deploying and recovering a floating target, according to Australian defence officials.
The following day, Albanese still appeared relaxed. “I think they could have given notice, but given Australia has a presence from time to time in the South China Sea – its location is hinted at there by the title of the sea – that we engage in activities that are lawful,” he said.
Importantly, Albanese did not note, as Defence officials did while briefing reporters earlier, that the Australian military has a longstanding policy of providing 24 to 48 hours’ notice of similar exercises and avoids areas with significant commercial air and sea travel. This is the crucial way in which the Chinese Navy’s behaviour in the Tasman Sea differs from Australia’s activities in the South China Sea. By connecting the two without including this important context, Albanese created an unfortunate impression of equivalence – one that benefited Beijing.
Johnston gave forthright answers about who knew what and when at Senate estimates on Wednesday, labelling the Chinese Navy’s behaviour “clearly disruptive” and “irresponsible”. This is the type of direct language Albanese has avoided.
The prime minister rightly prides himself on his government’s success at stabilising relations with Beijing. After the deep freeze of the Morrison years, normal diplomatic relations have resumed and Australian wine, beef, barley and rock lobster are sold in China. He sees it as a vote winner too, especially in marginal seats like Bennelong in Sydney and Chisholm in Melbourne that have large numbers of Chinese-Australian voters.
The danger of the stabilisation success story is that it becomes a straitjacket, restraining Albanese’s ability to call out Beijing for bad behaviour and leaving him looking weak.
Being too bellicose about the threat of China is not smart, but neither is appearing blasé.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.