Login
iscover
At the core of the Defence Strategic Review is the recognition that it takes a nation to defend a nation, with reinvigorated emphasis placed on mobilising Australia in a whole-of-nation and whole-of-government response to prepare for the coming challenges, but are we moving fast enough?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
For many, the traditional concept of “national security” has generally been based in the “hard power” concepts of conventional economic and military power, espionage, and intelligence factors.
Quantifiable factors that can be analysed and tabulated to give an understanding of one nation’s power, relative to others. However, as the global balance of power continues to deteriorate and evolve into a multipolar system, many thinkers have called for the West to embrace a more holistic view of national security.
This push has been further reinforced by the growing prevalence of “grey zone” and hybrid operations by various adversaries which seek to undermine the social cohesion, the political unity, economic resilience, and competitiveness, effectively bringing to bare the whole scope of national and government power to bring an adversary to its knees.
In particular, a growing number of potential rivals from Russia to China and even potential partners in Ukraine and India have begun to increasingly embrace a new “whole-of-nation” concept of national security. One which leverages the whole power of the nation and building a system that sees their respective populations invested in the future direction and security of the nation, either through direct coercion, “benevolent” policies that engender trust and personal investment, or more commonly, a combination of the two.
This contemporary reimagining of national security is best defined by US academic Charles Maier, who explains, “National security ... is best described as a capacity to control those domestic and foreign conditions that the public opinion of a given community believes necessary to enjoy its own self-determination or autonomy, prosperity and well-being.”
Broadly speaking, this new concept is in line with the Albanese government’s conceptualisation of National Defence outlined in the recently released Defence Strategic Review, which expands on the concept of Maier, explained as: "National Defence must be part of a broader national strategy of whole-of-government coordinated and focused statecraft and diplomacy in our region. This approach requires much more active Australian statecraft that works to support the maintenance of a regional balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
“Key to successful outcomes in implementing National Defence will be: national leadership, statecraft and diplomatic proficiency; accelerated military preparedness; economic stewardship; scientific and technological prowess; and climate change action and domestic resilience. It will be challenging to effect ... Australian statecraft now requires a consistent and coordinated whole-of- government approach to international affairs and the harmonisation of a range of domestic and external national security portfolios, from trade and investment to education, minerals and resources, clean energy, climate, industry, infrastructure and more,” the Defence Strategic Review explains.
The Defence Strategic Review identifies that this whole-of-nation and whole-of-government approach is, at least, in large, focused on delivering defence capabilities, industrial sovereignty and resilience, and effective statecraft in an era of renewed great power competition.
Certainty is essential for industry development and legitimises the whole-of-nation approach
Certainty is fast emerging as the foundation for developing a resilient and competitive Australian economy and the industrial base is fundamental not only to enhancing Australia’s national security under the guise of “National Defence” but equally to ensuring that Defence has the workforce, the industrial base, and the capabilities it needs to effectively enforce the “hard power” elements of the nation’s new defence strategy.
One of the foremost examples of this approach is the nation’s multi-billion-dollar Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance enterprise, which has received significant attention in the past week, particularly following the government’s announcement that the enterprise would undergo a review as part of the government’s broader Defence Industry Development Strategy slated for release later this year.
Major General (Ret’d) Marcus Thompson explained in a piece for ParaFlare the logic behind this thinking, despite public criticism around the government’s rhetoric, not necessarily correlating with actions, particularly as it relates to a whole-of-nation and whole-of-government approach, stating: “Defence, alone, cannot build the capabilities nor the workforce required to meet these challenges head-on. This will take a significant national effort, and there is much to be done — including challenging policy and cultural changes to quickly get the required capabilities into the hands of our warfighters.”
Going further, Thompson adds, “While the review has been developed relatively quickly in contrast to previous Defence reviews, members of Defence industry must be thinking it’s about time ... The Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Pat Conroy MP, has committed to a sovereign defence industrial base, and this must surely be the priority for government as it sets a course for a ‘Future made in Australia’. The government must not take a backward step in the pursuit of homegrown Defence assets and capabilities.”
Fundamental to building the industrial base needed to provide Australia with the economic and industrial resilience necessary to enforce the concept of “National Defence” is an environment of certainty.
Thompson explains the importance of certainty and its impact on Australia’s defence industrial base, stating, “Australian Defence suppliers have been subject to sustained uncertainty through the pre-election caretaker period, the inevitable hiatus of a new government, the requirement to await funding certainty from the supplementary FY23 budget, and then delayed acquisition decisions in anticipation of the review. For many in Australia’s defence industry, this must seem at odds with repeated calls for a sense of urgency regarding the revision of ADF capabilities and force structure.”
This emphasis on certainty is reinforced by empowering policy systems and structures which enhance Australia’s areas of natural competitive advantage, while also serving to open doors to industries of the future, in line with the government’s ambitious “Future made in Australia” agenda.
However, certainty alone can’t guarantee the development of a sustainable, competitive industrial base. We equally need a broader realignment of the nation’s industrial policy and industrial relations systems combined with a shift in Australian business’ attitude and appetite towards risk and government’s appetite for partnering with industry to deliver the desired outcomes.
Final thoughts
In recent years, Australia, like much of the developed world, has gone through a period of unprecedented turmoil and change. The economic turmoil wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the increasingly multipolar world, have demonstrated to both Australia’s political leaders and large portions of the Australian public just how vulnerable the nation and economy truly is.
This now appears to be reinforced by the Albanese government and its recognition that it takes a nation to defend a nation, which is increasingly relevant as Australia seeks to navigate the era of multipolarity and rising tensions between the world’s great powers.
The important question now becomes, when will we see a more detailed explanation of the Australian Defence Force’s force structure to better help industry and the Australian public understand the challenges faced and opportunities we have presented before us?
As events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political, and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?
To find out more about the impact and opportunities of the government's Defence Strategic Review, join us at the Defence Connect DSR Summit Day, reserve your tickets here.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
