WA minister must drive force posture review

The rise of Peter Dutton broke the short-held Western Australian ministerial dominance over the Defence portfolio.

Despite being in office only a few weeks Mr Dutton has set down some critical markers by which his tenure as Defence Minister will be judged. Picture: Max Bree

The rise of Peter Dutton broke the short-held Western Australian ministerial dominance over the Defence portfolio. For a brief period WA members of the federal parliament controlled the Defence, Defence Industry and assistant Defence Minister roles. While surely serendipitous in many ways this council of ministers from WA reflected the growing significance of the state to Australia’s strategic interests.

From its geographical position on the frontline of Australia’s defence in a more competitive Indo-Pacific region, to its increasing economic importance through critical minerals, shipbuilding and broader defence industry,
WA’s growing importance to the nation’s defence effort is here to stay.

While many will lament the loss of the former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds — she has several accomplishments in strategic policy, force posture, defence reform and defence cultural change to hang her hat on — a new cabinet also provides for new opportunities. Here there are two urgent issues that the new Defence Minister needs to focus on: full-cycle docking (FCD) for our submarines and our future Defence Force Posture.

In assessing both of these critical areas Mr Dutton will need to consider the importance of WA to the nation’s defence and issues such as: Indian Ocean geopolitical trends, the importance of the WA resources sector to the national economy, the significance of critical minerals to sovereign supply chains, the role of WA’s shipbuilding industry, the momentum behind the push to build a critically needed large vessel dry-docking facility, and the contribution of WA industry to national defence capabilities.

The ascension of a Queenslander to the Defence portfolio also means that the opportunity has arisen to address these key defence issues, and their impact on WA, in a way that only a nonpartisan minister can do.

Despite being in office only a few weeks Mr Dutton has set down some critical markers by which his tenure as Defence Minister will be judged.

These include an upfront commitment to making sure new submarines and ships are “delivered on time and on budget”, while also affirming that there will no submarine capability gap as the life of the Collins class is extended.

In order to fulfil this commitment, Mr Dutton needs to act now. Shipbuilding and maintenance are two of the more difficult capability enterprises that the Defence Department undertakes. For two years now the nation has been waiting on the federal government to make a decision about the future of full-cycle docking of the Collins-class fleet: a critical maintenance cycle that modernises and extends the life of our submarines.

The impasse must be broken. A decision must be made whether the capability is to be maintained in South Australia or moved to WA. Continuing to vacillate on this issue of national importance has the potential to cripple Mr Dutton’s hopes of delivering both the new Attack-class submarines and avoiding a capability gap when the Collins-class vessels are eventually retired.

From a WA perspective, the relocation of FCD to the West is a logical step in ensuring the longevity of the Collins-class submarine capability. Cost, labour force and infrastructure decisions all favour the move while the SA gets on with building the already controversial new submarine and bringing it into service.

If Mr Dutton talks to the Defence Department they will tell him of their preference for the
WA option and detail the continuing cost and risks of the current do-nothing position. On this issue Mr Dutton has the opportunity to use his considerable power and influence in the federal cabinet to end the decision-making log jam. If not, uncertainty will continue to plague the system, undermining the new minister’s commitment to both naval shipbuilding and Collins-class maintenance right from the start.

While Mr Dutton’s “Collins issue” might be one of the most urgent major decisions that needs attention, he also sits on the cusp of a major opportunity if he chooses to seize it.

Former Minister Reynolds put in place three key pieces of policy assessment and reform as minister: a Defence Strategic Update (DSU), a Force Structure Review (FSR) and a Defence Transformation Strategy. These are exceptionally important documents and there is considerable work that Mr Dutton needs to oversee if they are going to be a success.

However there’s one key element of this policy package that is missing — a force posture review.

Defence has only undertaken two major force posture reviews in modern times. The first was under then Defence Minister Kim Beazley in the mid-1980s and the other under another WA Defence Minister, Stephen Smith in 2012. The later was followed by new force posture initiatives with the US that led to the current Marine Rotational Force — Darwin. But much of the 2012 force posture review remains to be implemented, especially in relation to Indian Ocean security and the northwestern approaches of Australia, both of which have only grown in strategic importance over the past decade.

Force posture is all about the future security and strategic environment, the importance of domestic and demographic issues and their impact on Defence facilities and where the ADF is based. The 2012 review was undertaken to see if the ADF
was “correctly geographically positioned to meet Australia’s modern and future strategic and security challenges.” Now a fresh force posture review needs to be undertaken in light of the significant reassessments made in the 2020 DSU and the program of new capabilities flowing from the corresponding FSR.

This is something the new Defence Minister will need to drive. If he asks his department they are likely to resist such a move. This would be a major undertaking with the potential to disrupt many sacred cows in Defence. But time is now pressing for this review.

Australia’s closest ally, the US, is embarking on a global force posture review. This is being done “to ensure the footprint of American service members worldwide is correctly sized and supports strategy”. Undertaking our own force posture review would make it easier to influence US strategy and work more closely with our major ally. For instance, Australia could leverage such a move to further discussions about the establishment a new US fleet headquarters in the Indian Ocean and the synergies of basing such a facility at HMAS Stirling in Western Australian.

It would also allow an opportunity to rebalance our strategic positioning. As Hervé Lemahieu from the Lowy Institute has shown, the much-trumpeted Pacific Step-up has resulted in skewed international priorities, with funds and presence being removed from South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean to address concerns in the South Pacific. While the South Pacific will remain vital to Australia’s national security, in terms of strategic weight and influence, the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia far out-rank the South Pacific in every key measure of importance: from population size, economic influence and trade, as well as considerations of strategic risk and great power competition.

If Mr Dutton tackles these issues he will serve the national interest as well as those of WA.

-

Professor Peter Dean is chair of Defence Studies and director of the UWA Defence and Security Institute