Lethal defences to protect against strategic dangers

The blunt message of the government’s Defence Strategic Review must not be kicked down the road to be dealt with in more favourable economic times. The review has found the Australian Defence Force “as currently constituted and equipped is not fully fit for purpose” as our region faces its most challenging circumstances in decades: “Combined with rising tensions and reduced warning time for conflict, the risks of military escalation or miscalculation are rising.” Former defence minister Stephen Smith and former Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston have not minced words about China’s military build-up, “the largest and most ambitious of any country” since the end of World War II. It is occurring “without transparency or reassurance to the Indo-Pacific region of China’s strategic intent”.

China’s assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea threatens the global rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific in a way that adversely affects Australia’s national interests. China is also engaged in strategic competition in Australia’s near neighbourhood. As a consequence, for the first time in 80 years, the review says, the nation must “go back to fundamentals, to take a first-principles approach as to how we manage and seek to avoid the highest level of strategic risk we now face as a nation: the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest”.

While there is “only a remote possibility of any power contemplating an invasion of our continent, the threat of the use of military force or coercion against Australia does not require invasion”. More countries are able to project combat power across our trade and supply routes, which are vital for Australia’s economic prosperity. And “cyber warfare is not bound by geography”. The nation’s cyber and information capabilities need to be improved, the strategic review notes. It also emphasises the importance of defence co-operation with allies and with neighbours in the region.

The review does the nation a vital service scrapping the longstanding assumption that Australia would have a 10-year warning time to prepare for conflict. Instead, it identifies three periods for defence planning. They are the three years from 2023 to 2025 for matters that must be prioritised and addressed urgently; the five years from 2026 to 2030, and the period 2031 and beyond. Those time frames make sense. What does not is the government’s decision not to reallocate extra funding for a defence reboot across the forward estimates.

Much about the report is good. It notes that the missile age has radically reduced the nation’s geographic benefits and the comfort of distance, a point noted by The Australian for years as we have argued that missiles and attack drones need to be prioritised over tanks and that the nation’s northern bases should be upgraded. Sir Angus and Mr Smith recommend “an enhanced network of bases, ports and barracks across northern Australia” with upgrades to start immediately. Fuel storage and supply issues should be rectified, they point out, and they call for a whole-of-government and industry fuel council to address vulnerabilities.

After 9/11, Australia’s commitment to the war on terror shifted the focus on defence capabilities to wars in the Middle East. But as the review says, the area of primary interest for Australia’s defence is the immediate region encompassing the northeastern Indian Ocean through Southeast Asia into the Pacific, including Australia’s northern approaches. That is why reducing the number of infantry fighting vehicles to be bought from 450 to 129 makes sense. It is sufficient to equip a mechanised battalion, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy says. But, more important, the money and resources freed up will fund the acceleration and expansion of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and associated missiles.

A missile-defence-heavy force – to be fired from vehicles, ships, planes and submarines – capable of attacking enemies hundreds of kilometres away will help rectify an embarrassing lack of firepower in the ADF. It will create a formidable deterrent for would-be aggressors, as chief international correspondent Cameron Stewart writes. But, while the review injects a sense of urgency into the subject, progress in coming years will be limited, unfortunately, because the government, for now, has ducked the crucial issue of funding. In his introduction to the review, Defence Minister Richard Marles stipulates the government’s intention to do no more than maintain the “overall level of Defence funding over the forward estimates”. That business-as-usual approach raises questions about when and how the investments needed will be made and the strength of the government’s commitment to upgrade the ADF to be “fully fit for purpose” as soon as possible.

Beyond the forward estimates, defence funding will need to increase across the next decade to implement the review and deliver the conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS. The review recommends that these be acquired as soon as possible. But it falls short, unfortunately, in not recommending the size and composition of the navy’s surface fleet. In doing so, it has avoided significant decisions about the future of the $45bn Hunter-class frigate program or whether the navy will acquire a fleet of corvettes (medium-sized, heavily armed warships) or more air warfare destroyers. Instead of making a recommendation, Sir Angus and Mr Smith have called for another review – a quick one – to report in the third quarter of this year.

Mr Marles is correct when he says one of the biggest challenges stemming from the review will be finding the workforce to support the expansion of the defence system, including building nuclear-powered submarines. Increasing the number of Defence Force personnel and retaining them is a priority, he says, and immigration is not the answer. From the point of view of security, “we really need citizens” to wear the nation’s uniform, work in the Defence Department and in the defence industry. Meeting the expansion will be a challenge for the education, skills and industry training systems but will boost employment in the medium to long term.

Coming ahead of Anzac Day, which is our biggest reminder of the heavy human toll of war, the strategic review has set out virtually a new defence doctrine. Implementing it will take years of effort by government, the ADF and taxpayers. Not all answers have been provided. It is the right strategy, however, to make Australia safer.