Anthony Albanese’s stance ‘blowing up nation’s defence hopes’

Australia risks falling down the queue to get critical missiles from the US due to the growing gulf over defence spending between Canberra and Washington DC.

A Patriot missile battery fires an interceptor during a test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Picture: Raytheon

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Australia risks falling down the queue to get critical missiles from the US due to the growing gulf over defence spending between Canberra and Washington DC.

Multiple sources familiar with the weapons sales process have warned a $7bn missile order by the government last year remains subject to final approval by the White House, which could redirect the weapons to countries prepared to sign up to the administration’s defence funding agenda, amid skyrocketing global de­mand for guided weapons.

They warned Australia wasn’t even in the queue to obtain key defensive missiles to destroy incoming guided weapons, which could take three to five years to ­arrive even if they were ordered immediately.

Anthony Albanese has steadfastly refused to lift defence funding from 2 per cent of GDP to the 3.5 per cent demanded by the Trump administration, and on Monday would not say whether he was concerned about the military threat posed by China, which the US has warned is the region’s “biggest troublemaker” and poses an “imminent” threat to Taiwan.

The Prime Minister’s reluctance to call out Beijing comes ahead of his upcoming visit to China for talks with President Xi Jinping, and follows a warning by the country’s ambassador in Canberra against any move by Australia to boost its defence budget.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy touted the $7bn agreement with the US last year to purchase Standard Missile 2 Block IIIC (SM-2 IIIC) and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) for frontline naval warships as a “revolutionary” step-up in Australia’s defence capability.

But the deal, while approved by congress, could be sidelined by the Trump administration, which is facing pleas from US allies across the world for urgent missile deliveries, amid dire shortages due to the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

“There seems to be a misconception that the weapons manufacturers influence the delivery schedules,” a well-placed source said. “But if the government orders something via a foreign military sale, the ultimate discretion is held by the US government in terms of who gets the missile and when. I don’t think we will be at the top of the queue given our ­reluctance to move beyond 2 per cent of GDP.”

Another source said the government’s failure to order ­medium and long-range missile defence systems, which were slashed from its investment program last year, stood in stark contrast with the actions of other US allies.

“We are not putting in letters of request in the same rapid order that other countries are in Europe, the Middle East and Indo-Pacific,” they said.

“We need to order them now. There is a global shortage. Everyone is in the same boat.”

Anthony Albanese, former US president Joe Biden and former British prime minister Rishi Sunak commit to progressing the AUKUS submarine partnership after meeting in San Diego, California, in March 2023. Picture: PMO

Australia has invested in short-to-medium range NASAMS missile defence systems but needs longer range systems, such as the Patriot surface-to-air missiles, to protect key bases from incoming ballistic missiles.

Days after NATO countries pledged to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence, Mr Albanese again defended his government’s military funding trajectory, which is set to hit 2.3 per cent of GDP within eight years.

“We’ll invest in whatever capability Australia needs to defend ourselves. And that is the way you make sure that you maximise the defence of this country,” he said.

China’s ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian fired a shot across the government’s bows on Monday, warning in an opinion article in The Australian that following NATO’s example on defence spending would threaten peace and undermine the nation’s economic development.

The government’s 2023 Defence Strategic Review warned “China’s military build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the end of the Second World War”, and that Beijing’s assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea “threatens the global rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific”.

But Mr Albanese, when asked on Monday about Beijing’s military build-up, declined to identify China as a military threat.

“The Chinese ambassador speaks for China. My job is to speak for Australia, and it’s in ­Australia’s national interest for us to invest in our capability and to invest in our relationships and we’re doing just that,” he said.

Former Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo said Australia should not expect preferential treatment from the US to obtain critical weapons if it was unable to make a compelling case on the threat the nation faced.

“Given the supply chain constraints in the United States and in the West generally in relation to scarce military systems and munitions, we should expect that Australian requirements would not be prioritised over, say, key US allies and partners that might be closer to combat zones or more likely to be threatened in the near-term, such as Israel, Poland, the Baltic States, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and so on.

“If Australia itself is satisfied that it is militarily secure when it is not proposing to lift defence to 2.3 per cent of GDP before 2033; cannot or will not name the strategic adversary that it is seeking to deter under its strategy of ‘deterrence by denial’; and is willing to grant the United States military access and overflight for unspecified strategic purposes, then it is hard to see why its military requirements would be prioritised over those whose needs are clearer, greater and more immediate.”

Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said Mr Albanese, who is still chasing a first meeting with the US President, had demonstrated “a complete failure … to manage our most important strategic relationship”.

“The consequence of Labor’s failure to stand with our allies with serious commitments to self-­defence means Australians are paying the price twice: in the risk to our defence capability, and the opportunity cost of the substantial spends associated with these programs,” Mr Taylor said.

“Relationships matter and the fact the Prime Minister is yet to ­secure a meeting with President is becoming embarrassing.”

He said Mr Albanese’s failure to speak clearly about the strategic threats the nation faced represented “a failure of leadership”.

Mr Albanese was unable to say on Monday when he would get a meeting with Mr Trump, who stood him up at the G7 summit in Canada nearly a fortnight ago without a phone call to apologise.