Australia’s defence to major overhaul

The government has accepted, or accepted in principle, all of the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review, which found as it stands Australia is ill-equipped to defend itself against conflict in the region.

“We aim to change the calculus so no potential aggressor can ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks,” Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in the report.

The review led by former chief of defence Sir Angus Houston and former defence minister Stephen Smith, looked at the location and make up of Australia’s military forces and the weapons they use.

“The threat of the use of military force or coercion against Australia does not require invasion … Cyber warfare is not bound by geography,” the reviewers said.

“The rise of the ‘missile age’ in modern warfare, crystallised by the proliferation of long-range precision strike weapons, has radically reduced Australia’s geographic benefits, the comfort of distance and our qualitative regional capability edge.”

An unclassified version of the DSR was made public on Monday. The number of recommendations made, understood to be around 108, were kept secret.

But it recommended Australia shift its defence posture from a fortress mindset to forward deploying – meaning it would be more beyond our borders.

It said with rising tension in our region, with the review specifically mentioning China, business as usual was no longer appropriate.

In total, $7.8bn will be saved over the next four years by gutting, delaying or scrapping a number of projects, including the third phase of the Land 400 infantry fighting vehicles and the second tranche of self-propelled howitzers.

That funding will be repriortised to the acquisition of long-range missiles and the scale up air bases and facilities in Northern Australia.

While the review stated that funding should be funneled into defence spending, the full cost of the recommendations were not made public.

“The full cost of the review recommendations will not be able to be fully quantified until Defence has analysed the capability recommendations in the review and costed them,” it said.

The $19bn price tag put forward by the government to deliver on the report’s six priority areas will be made up of the savings and money already within the defence budget.

It’s understood that defence spending will not increase until the next decade.

It comes a month after the government revealed the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal would come at a price tag of up to $368bn between now and the mid-2050s.

The last major review, undertaken in 1987 by former deputy secretary for defence’s strategy and intelligence Paul Dibb, described Australia as “one of the most secure countries in the world”.

Since then, China has undertaken the largest peacetime military buildup in recorded history.

By the time of the Morrison government era 2020 Defence Strategic Update, Mr Dibb’s estimate of a ten year warning of a substantial assault had evaporated.

On Monday, the DSR bluntly stated the 1987 approach was “no longer fit for purpose”.

“(The DSR) is focused on the defence of Australia in the face of potential threats in our region. Our nation and its leaders must take a much more whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to security,” it said.

An entire chapter of the review was dedicated to the workforce crisis facing the ADF. Its frank assessment was pay and service conditions and workplace culture for the ADF, and public service, need to be improved.

The workforce crisis is not entirely new news for the government.

In Defence Minister Richard Marles’ incoming minister brief, the department warned it faced an uphill battle to find and retain staff, outlining it was not a “competitive employer”.