Adopt the posture of defending this continent rather than offence — a coherent strategy with the national interest at its core.
Global Affairs & DefenceSecuring the Nation
Global Affairs · Securing the NationBuilt to defend Australia — not to fight someone else's wars.
Australia is spending up big on platforms that arrive decades from now and defend someone else’s priorities — while the likelier threats to this continent go under-resourced. Our plan starts from one question: what actually defends Australia?
Three decisions, two postures
Pick any of the three decision points and set today's approach beside the plan's answer. The test is the same each time: does it actually defend Australia?
All figures are drawn from the policy text on this page.
The plan at a glance
Uncrewed aircraft over vulnerable frigates (saving $36bn); 20 diesel-electric submarines over 8 nuclear (saving $80bn); missiles over more armour.
An independent voice in foreign affairs, with education, trade, aid and development work across Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Reserves recruited and fully equipped for homeland roles, a substantially stronger air force, and new space, cyber and intelligence assets.
Both Houses to authorise any warlike deployment within 60 days and review it annually — a change the Democrats have pursued since 1985.
Today's posture v. the Democrats' plan
Both columns are drawn from the policy itself: the settings we have today, beside the eleven commitments in the plan.
Today's settings
- Billions on long-range, long-lead-time platforms that offer Australia little protection
- Drawn into far-flung wars — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan
- Diplomacy underfunded and foreign aid at record lows
- $590m of a $9–12bn strategy budget for space capability
- The power to go to war held, in practice, by the prime minister alone
Under the plan
- Smaller, smarter kit chosen to defend Australia — $36bn and $80bn saved on two swaps alone
- An independent voice, with diplomacy the front line in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
- Reserves, air power, space, cyber and intelligence built for homeland defence
- Both Houses of Parliament to authorise any warlike deployment within 60 days
- Regional arms-control talks on the existential threat of nuclear weapons
The full policy
Word for word — the platform as our members wrote it.
The Issues
Australia’s defence strategy should be coherent and have our national interest at its core. We should not squander billions of dollars on doubtful long-range, long lead-time war-fighting equipment that offers Australia little protection.
The US is a friend and ally but has drawn us into too many far-flung and failed wars – Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially China with its sights on Taiwan. Instead, Australia should be protecting its borders and tackling the real and present threats we face.
The consequences for us of a major conflict would be very serious in terms of the Australian economy, the impact on the Australian people and the ravages to our way of life throughout the land. …. Our nation is ill-prepared for climate impacts, instead fueling security implications in one of the highest risk regions in the world, the Indo-Pacific.
— Admiral Chris Barrie
Our Plan
-
Adopt the posture of defence of Australia rather than offence
-
Be an independent voice in foreign affairs
-
Acquire defence equipment that is smaller, smarter, far less costly and more effective than the current plan in defending the nation.
-
Broaden defence to encompass diplomacy, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands
-
Recruit, train and fully equip army reserves for homeland defence role
-
Substantially increase Australia’s Airforce capability
-
Purchase and deploy space reconnaissance and communications assets
-
Raise the level of cyber and intelligence capability
-
Complete and act on the risk assessment to Australia of global warming
-
Entrust the Parliament to decide whether or not to go to war or engage in war-like operations
-
Initiate arms control talks for the region and raise the alarm about existential threats from nuclear weapons
The Evidence
The unhappy reality is that nations can sleep-walk into war, even when rational, objective self-interest on all sides cries out against it. Bellicose nationalist rhetoric, designed mainly for domestic political consumption, can generate over-reactions elsewhere. Small provocations, economic or otherwise, can generate an escalating cycle of larger reactions. Precautionary defence spending can escalate into a full-blown arms race.
— Gareth Evans, former Minister for Defence
Adopt the posture of defence of Australia
The Labor Government has taken a more measured approach to China than its predecessor but with Australia’s interests now ever more deeply aligned with the US, our economic and geopolitical interests in East Asia and the Asia Pacific regions are at risk. Threats to Australia are more likely to be economic and disruptive than any sort of invasion and quite different from the role the US adopts. The war between Hamas and Israel, the death of over 36,000 Palestinians (June 2024), mostly civilians, the ongoing military strikes in Gaza and Rafah and the crisis of mass starvation and displacement is undermining regional stability.
It is said China’s build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the Second World War at around 500 nuclear weapons. This is a small number compared with those of Russia and the US. However, the UN estimates that just 400 of today’s 22,000 nuclear weapons could wipe out all humanity and other biota.
Australia should initiate arms control talks for the region and raise the alarm about existential threat of nuclear weapons.
Be an independent voice in foreign affairs
Australia’s foreign policy directly affects our trade, security, peace, and international standing. Diplomacy should be the front line of advancing Australia’s national interest through persuasion and good relationships, especially in our Asia-Pacific region. However, underfunded diplomacy, record low levels of foreign aid.
Acquire defence equipment that is smaller, smarter, far less costly and more effective
Such as:
-
Uncrewed aircraft or land based missiles instead of vulnerable frigates – saving $36b
-
20 advanced diesel-electric submarines that can stay submerged for weeks instead of 8 nuclear submarines – saving $80b
-
Anti-ship missiles instead of more armoured vehicles
Broaden defence to encompass diplomacy
Particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands where these countries, unlike Australia, do not wish to adopt the language of the ‘China threat’ or take sides between the two great powers. Australia’s role in education, free trade agreements, development and aid programs is crucial, as are positive encouragements towards democratic reforms, gender equality and closer relationships.
Recruit, train, fully equip and properly integrate Defence Reserves for homeland roles
The single greatest contribution to national security this Reserve Strategic Review submission can make is to enable an outcome where Government and Defence approach future planning with a common understanding that the nation requires a fully integrated and aligned ADF, with Permanent and Reserve components that complement and sustain each other.
Substantially increase Australia’s Airforce capability
RAAF chief, Mel Hupfeld says the RAAF is the region’s most technologically advanced air force, but technology alone will not see it succeed.
Purchase and deploy space reconnaissance and communications assets
The National Defence Strategy was released in April however, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says that of a budget of $9-$12 billion, a mere $590 million will be spent on ‘enhanced space capabilities’, including satellite communications, space sensors and space control.
Raise the level of cyber and intelligence capability
An Independent Intelligence Review, due to report mid-year, raised questions about how Australia will build and maintain cyber capability and improve communications.
Complete and act on the risk assessment to Australia of global warming
The UN and leading international security agencies have identified climate change as a security threat for the last decade. Rapid climate change is likely to create, accelerate and exacerbate already unstable situations world-wide. Forced migration, social and political tensions are likely to cause conflict and violence. Climate change has a direct effect on war fighting, threatening to overwhelm our security and undermine Defence’s contribution to Pacific Step-Up initiatives which puts us at a competitive disadvantage in developing regional influence and power projection.
Overall, climate change is degrading stability and increasing complexity in Defence and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief environments. This is having a major effect on our region, as archipelagic nations are seeing their whole landmass at risk of falling beneath rising sea levels, threatening habitability. The inhabitants of these archipelagic nations will likely become climate refugees, forced to find a new home.
Australia’s reluctance to act seriously on climate threatens Australia’s interests and standing on the global stage.
Entrust the Parliament to decide whether or not Australia will go to war
The decision to go to war is one of the most serious choices any government will face. Though not explicitly stated in the Australian Constitution, in practice, the power to make war, deploy troops and declare peace, has been assumed by the prime minister; not the governor general nor the parliament. It is however constitutionally possible to change this practice by agreement of the parliament.
Since 1985 the Australian Democrats have attempted to remove the exclusive power of the government to commit Australia to war, without success. In 2023 that power was again affirmed by a joint parliamentary committee.
Both Houses of Parliament should be required to authorise by resolution any decision to commit the Australian Defence Force to warlike operations or potential hostilities within sixty days of the decision to commit forces. Given that the contemporary kinds of conflict tend to run for many years, ADF deployments should then be reconsidered by the Parliament on an annual basis.
Former Australian Army chief, Peter Leahy
Initiate arms control talks for the region
And raise the alarm about existential threats from nuclear weapons.
References
-
Admiral Chris Barrie, on Australia’s defence posture and climate risk in the Indo-Pacific.
-
Gareth Evans, former Minister for Defence — on how nations “sleep-walk into war”.
-
Reserve Strategic Review submission — on an integrated and aligned ADF.
-
Mel Hupfeld, RAAF chief — on the RAAF as the region’s most technologically advanced air force.
-
Australian Strategic Policy Institute — National Defence Strategy space-capabilities spending.
-
Peter Leahy, former Australian Army chief — on parliamentary authorisation of war.
Make it happen.
Policies like this only become law when enough people push. Push with us.
