‘Get our act in order': Call for Labor to listen to US' defence spending request
Strategic Analysis Australia Director Peter Jennings discusses Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's call for Australia to up its defence spending.
'We have got to get our act in order,' Mr Jennings told Sky News host Peta Credlin.
'I am sad Australian governments have not seen their own way to concluding we need to spend more on defence but the call from Pete Hegseth is timely, and we really should be paying attention to it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
33 minutes ago
- The Age
Ukrainian drone strikes show up Australia's out-of-date defences
Over the weekend, Ukraine provided a demonstration of something that has been largely misinterpreted by the many 'pop-up' war experts that have emerged here and elsewhere in the past three years. What the audacious Ukrainian strikes showed was not a new way of war nor new drone capabilities. Both have been on display for more than three years – for those who have noticed. What the Ukrainians actually provided on the weekend was a lesson that has two sides: On one side, they showed what can be done when politicians and military leaders take risk and free up their people to exercise creativity. The other side of the lesson is that Ukraine showed what happens to those who do not pay sufficient attention to the lessons of war, and whose learning and adaptation culture and systems are inadequate. Unfortunately, the Australian defence department and its part-time minister have shown no indication they have learned the first lesson but have demonstrated a full measure of the second. Australia's defence force is slowly but surely being degraded in size and capacity by being denied funding, due to a focus on submarines that will arrive too late to deter China's rapid military build-up and aggression. The 2 per cent of GDP being spent on defence has been recognised by every credible defence expert in this country as insufficient for normal defence needs, let along running a defence force and paying down the nuclear submarines as well as paying the exorbitant salaries of the hundreds of AUKUS bureaucrats who are travelling the world, writing briefs and producing nothing. The Ukrainian drone strikes on the weekend are another 'foot-stomp' moment for Australia. They demonstrated that taking risks and being innovative can result in the development of a long-range strike capability that does not just have to build on the small number of exquisite and expensive systems Australia is procuring. And unlike these big expensive systems, which once lost are gone forever, drones can be produced in mass quantities by Australian industry in case we are involved in a sustained war. Loading The expensive and exquisitely 'focused' defence force we are building is designed for 20th century war. It will also take decades to deliver because of the zero-risk procurement policy of the defence department. We need to shift to a balanced force that balances crewed and uncrewed systems, expensive and cheap systems – designed for 21st century war. And we need to speed up and delegate down authorities to procure more relevant equipment that can be upgraded regularly. Drones are not just an aerial asset – land and maritime drones have proven their utility in Ukraine and this has been ignored in Canberra. And with the latest developments, which include uncrewed naval vessels that carry strike drones and uncrewed aerial vehicles that carry smaller attack drones, Australia has an opportunity to learn from Ukraine and develop new kinds of high-tech deterrents to Chinese aggression. The second lesson of the weekend is that those who are slow to learn and adapt pay the consequences. The Russians, who have had their airbases attacked regularly in the past two years, have been slow to upgrade their defences and paid the price on the weekend. Australian military bases and critical infrastructure are totally defenceless against these kinds of drone attacks. That has been clear from three years of war in Ukraine ,and yet, this government has done nothing to protect Australian soldiers from such threats. Not only have budgets for drone defences not materialised, but an extraordinarily dense air safety bureaucracy has also prevented units from using drones and experimenting with new ideas like the Ukrainian military has throughout the war. Few soldiers see drones on training exercises these days.
Sydney Morning Herald
38 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Ukrainian drone strikes show up Australia's out-of-date defences
Over the weekend, Ukraine provided a demonstration of something that has been largely misinterpreted by the many 'pop-up' war experts that have emerged here and elsewhere in the past three years. What the audacious Ukrainian strikes showed was not a new way of war nor new drone capabilities. Both have been on display for more than three years – for those who have noticed. What the Ukrainians actually provided on the weekend was a lesson that has two sides: On one side, they showed what can be done when politicians and military leaders take risk and free up their people to exercise creativity. The other side of the lesson is that Ukraine showed what happens to those who do not pay sufficient attention to the lessons of war, and whose learning and adaptation culture and systems are inadequate. Unfortunately, the Australian defence department and its part-time minister have shown no indication they have learned the first lesson but have demonstrated a full measure of the second. Australia's defence force is slowly but surely being degraded in size and capacity by being denied funding, due to a focus on submarines that will arrive too late to deter China's rapid military build-up and aggression. The 2 per cent of GDP being spent on defence has been recognised by every credible defence expert in this country as insufficient for normal defence needs, let along running a defence force and paying down the nuclear submarines as well as paying the exorbitant salaries of the hundreds of AUKUS bureaucrats who are travelling the world, writing briefs and producing nothing. The Ukrainian drone strikes on the weekend are another 'foot-stomp' moment for Australia. They demonstrated that taking risks and being innovative can result in the development of a long-range strike capability that does not just have to build on the small number of exquisite and expensive systems Australia is procuring. And unlike these big expensive systems, which once lost are gone forever, drones can be produced in mass quantities by Australian industry in case we are involved in a sustained war. Loading The expensive and exquisitely 'focused' defence force we are building is designed for 20th century war. It will also take decades to deliver because of the zero-risk procurement policy of the defence department. We need to shift to a balanced force that balances crewed and uncrewed systems, expensive and cheap systems – designed for 21st century war. And we need to speed up and delegate down authorities to procure more relevant equipment that can be upgraded regularly. Drones are not just an aerial asset – land and maritime drones have proven their utility in Ukraine and this has been ignored in Canberra. And with the latest developments, which include uncrewed naval vessels that carry strike drones and uncrewed aerial vehicles that carry smaller attack drones, Australia has an opportunity to learn from Ukraine and develop new kinds of high-tech deterrents to Chinese aggression. The second lesson of the weekend is that those who are slow to learn and adapt pay the consequences. The Russians, who have had their airbases attacked regularly in the past two years, have been slow to upgrade their defences and paid the price on the weekend. Australian military bases and critical infrastructure are totally defenceless against these kinds of drone attacks. That has been clear from three years of war in Ukraine ,and yet, this government has done nothing to protect Australian soldiers from such threats. Not only have budgets for drone defences not materialised, but an extraordinarily dense air safety bureaucracy has also prevented units from using drones and experimenting with new ideas like the Ukrainian military has throughout the war. Few soldiers see drones on training exercises these days.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Combat might be launched from Australia: defence chief
Australia's defence force chief warns the nation might need to prepare for launching combat operations from home soil. Addressing the Australian Strategic Policy Institute defence conference in Canberra on Wednesday, Admiral David Johnston spoke on national preparedness and how the nation could mobilise all of society. "We're having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations," he said. "That, again, is a very different way, almost since the Second World War, about how we think of national resilience and preparedness ... we may need to operate and conduct combat operations from this country." Admiral Johnston said this included infrastructure in northern Australia, to supply chains, and integrating industry with the states and territories. Asked about the request made by the US that Australia boost its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, Admiral Johnston said Defence was "fully expending its budget at the moment". "That's a good thing, as we've uplifted our acquisition, delivery workforce is improving our view of what we need to do around readiness, but that does put pressure on a budget that we have to make choices on," he said. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke to Defence Minister Richard Marles about increased spending on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy repeated that the Albanese government was open to the discussion. PNG's Defence Minister Billy Joseph said while his nation had a strong economic partnership with China, it preferred for regional security to be provided for by the Pacific. "The security and defence of both Australia and Papua New Guinea are inextricably intertwined," he said. Dr Joseph noted there were a few "notable" missing countries from the security summit in Singapore who he said should have been there but weren't, including China who did not send its defence minister this year. On the issue of the use of the ADF in disaster response, Admiral Johnston said the military probably won't be able to provide the community with the support it previously has. "It is vital that the defence force is able to focus on that mission that has consequences to the training we perform," he said. The defence strategic review, released in 2023, warned against using the ADF as a domestic disaster recovery agency. The ADF is increasingly being called on by governments to help in the face of extreme flooding and bushfires.
