ADF chief warns Australia must be ready to launch combat operations from home
Speaking at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Defence Conference in Canberra on Wednesday, Admiral Johnston said Australia needed to "reconsider" how it thought about war, resilience and national preparedness.
"Perhaps finally we are having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations," he said.
"That is a very different way — almost since the Second World War of how we think of national resilience and preparedness.
"We might need to operate and conduct operations from this country — everything from our northern infrastructure, our supply chains …"
Admiral Johnston also pointed to the rapid evolution of modern warfare, highlighting that military technology could become obsolete in as little as 12 weeks, as seen in the Ukraine conflict.
"The cycle is somewhere about 12 weeks before tech investments become irrelevant because of counter strategies," he said. "We need to be very clear about where we make investments in our technical capability."
His remarks come amid growing international pressure for allies to lift their defence budgets, with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urging Australia over the weekend to boost spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP.
Asked about the national conversation around funding, Admiral Johnston laughed but acknowledged the strain on resources and defended the current approach shaped by Labor's recent strategic review of defence.
"The Australian community wants education, a health system to look after the elderly, so making sure we do the best we can to present the issues of national security issues in our country, and we do that unambiguously and without avoiding some of those key areas of risk.
"Frank advice is key but knowing that's not the only issue the government contends with and working with our partners — where are our common interests — where our interests intersect so we can push outcomes that meet multiple objectives."
Pressed specifically on Mr Hegseth's request and the Coalition's calls for higher spending, he said it was an important debate and acknowledged the associated challenges.
"Defence is fully expending its budget at the moment," he said.
"That's a good thing as we've uplifted our acquisition delivery, [our] workforce is improving … It does put pressure on the budget we need to make choices on."
He said it was "helpful" that the government had moved to a biannual strategic review cycle, noting that it allowed Defence to continually update its case about where resources were most needed.
"It's unlike in the past … where the frequency or structure of reviews was an open-ended proposition," Admiral Johnston said.
"We keep coming back, reviewing the strategy and looking at the opportunities or where the investments are required."
Admiral Johnston said he would continue to give frank advice to the government to inform its spending decisions and flagged that Defence was working on a fresh strategy to be released next year.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to attend the G7 summit in Canada in a couple of weeks, where defence spending will likely feature in a potential sideline discussion between Mr Albanese and US President Donald Trump. That meeting is not yet locked in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Productivity has been a prickly issue for Australia for more than a century
On August 19, a group of advocates and experts will converge on Canberra for an economic roundtable. "Productivity," announced Treasurer Jim Chalmers, is to be the event's "primary focus". What does this mean? The term "productivity" can intimidate the outsider, but its basic meaning is simple: the effectiveness of productive effort — the extent to which inputs lead to outputs. Greater productivity means we produce more with less. Rising productivity has been crucial to expanding living standards over time. How we might increase productivity is more contentious. As the lobbying before the roundtable demonstrates, there is no firm agreement on the best measures to adopt. Business leaders have suggested reduced regulation and lower tax. Unions have promoted a renovation of the tax system, that might direct investment away from housing and towards other outlets, more likely to enhance efficiency. University vice-chancellors have suggested greater education; Scott Farquhar of software company Atlassian has promoted the potential of artificial intelligence. Though Chalmers has solicited fresh ideas, none suggest new or striking departures. In this context, an historical perspective might offer some insights. Reaching back into the early 20th century, 100 years ago, shows us that government-led debates on "productivity" are not new. It also discloses policy proposals that might raise new questions and new possibilities for government and society. As detailed in my forthcoming book, A Fair Day's Work: The Quest to Win Back Time, "productivity" was also on the minds of the world's statesmen a century ago. As the first world war was fought with terrible intensity, the battle for martial supremacy went from battlefront to home front. Antagonists quickly recognised that victory rested not just on the size of armies, but also on the capacity to produce armaments. In an effort to gain predominance, rivals expanded factories and pushed workers into longer shifts. They commissioned experts in engineering, medicine and the developing social sciences to monitor results and propose reforms. Those studies, undertaken by researchers in the United States, United Kingdom and continental Europe, also made their way to Australia. Longer hours, it was found, reduced productivity. Reduced hours lessened absenteeism and accidents. A shorter working day promoted employee satisfaction and health. It reduced both overt industrial conflict and covert resistance to employer requests. It encouraged cooperation between employees and management. It heightened productivity. In the war's aftermath, workers drew on this research to justify their quest for a shorter working day. Australia was in the vanguard. Just as Australian employees were among the first to win an eight-hour day, from the mid-19th century (which was initially a 48-hour week, worked over six days), they were also at the front of the pack in the achievement of a 44- and a 40-hour week. The reduction of the working week was widely considered a means of heightening productivity. It was also regarded as a means of securing social justice. These dual principles were most famously expressed in a notable case brought before the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration in 1920. Justice H.B. Higgins was required to decide on the claims of timber workers to reduce their standard working hours to 44 per week. In granting their claim, Higgins explained his reasoning. Not only did he draw on international studies that emphasised the link between productivity and hours, he also enunciated a more general principle or idea. Changes to work, and the introduction of new technologies, imposed new burdens on employees, Higgins emphasised. For timber workers, they made work less autonomous and less creative, more repetitive and more fatiguing. Yet despite these difficulties, he noted, employees had not resisted the imposition of new technology. As a consequence, employers had enjoyed greater output and often higher profits. Higgins suggested that the one-sidedness of this exchange created the pressure for some compensatory reward for employees, asking "are they to get no direct advantage from the introduction of labour-saving devices?" Though Higgins's judgement was delivered more than 100 years ago, the principles remain worthy of consideration. In a world where artificial intelligence promises enormous advances in productivity, though also great threats, the interests of employees — and the recompense of reduced time at work — should be central to any collective conversation. This would enhance social acceptance of change. Since the late 1990s, increases in productivity have flagged. But can this be surprising, as employees have increasingly been asked to work longer hours, often unpaid. Research from the Australia Institute suggests that in 2024, full-time employees in Australia worked on average 4.1 hours of unpaid overtime every week. They are also enduring longer commutes, and are drained by the burden of caring for children and increasingly for elderly parents. Australian women — who carry an outsized share of the domestic burden — are especially at the risk of exhaustion. Extended working days have long been associated with declining productivity. Might not reduced hours again offer some corrective? As a succession of international trials demonstrate the practical possibilities of a four-day week, it is somewhat dispiriting that a Labor government has not yet sought to test the matter with its own experiments. The 2023 Senate Inquiry into Work and Care proposed that the Australian government trial a four-day week. ACTU President Michele O'Neil publicly supported the plan. But the government's formal response merely "noted" this recommendation. It has initiated no further action. Attention to working time might help to deliver heightened productivity. It is certainly in harmony with the reforming traditions of Australian social democracy. Sean Scalmer is an associate professor at The University of Melbourne's School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
News.com.au
39 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Kiwi MP booted from parliament over Palestine speech
New Zealand Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has been booted out of parliament for a fiery speech in which she suggested the government was 'spineless' for refusing to sanction Israel. Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would recognise a Palestinian state but his Kiwi counterpart, Christopher Luxon, has been more hesitant on the issue. On Tuesday Mr Luxon, who recently hosted a visit from the Aussie PM, announced New Zealand would make a decision on whether to recognise Palestine as a state next month. That afternoon in an urgent debate, Ms Swarbrick, who is in opposition, urged government MPs to back her private member's bill allowing New Zealand to apply sanctions on Israel. 'My question for this place is what the hell is the point of our jobs?' she said. ' … I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our unlawful occupation of Palestine sanctions bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. 'If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine we can stand on the right side of history.' Speaker Gerry Brownlee took exception to that last comment, telling Ms Swarbrick it was 'completely unacceptable to make that statement – withdraw it and apologise'. 'No,' she replied. 'Then leave the house for the rest of the week,' Mr Brownlee said. 'Happily,' said Ms Swarbrick, who along with her Greens colleagues was wearing a Middle Eastern keffiyeh around her neck. Mr Brownlee later explained Ms Swarbrick would be allowed back into parliament on Wednesday if she agreed to withdraw her statement and apologise. Emotions ran high during Tuesday's debate and Ms Swarbrick was not the only MP to attract the ire of Mr Brownlee. The speaker also demanded that ACT MP Simon Curry – part of the coalition government – apologise after he accused Ms Swarbrick of 'hallucinating outrage'. No National MPs spoke during the debate but Mr Curry said in his speech that recognition of a Palestinian state must be conditional on all Israeli hostages being returned and Hamas being removed from power. Speaking to reporters outside parliament after she was ejected, Ms Swarbrick said the speaker had been heavy-handed. 'As far as the robust rebate goes in that place, I think that was pretty mild in the context of the war crimes that are currently unfolding,' she said. 'What the hell is the point of everything that we do if the people if the people in my place, in my job don't do their job? 'If we allow other human beings to be just mercilessly slaughtered, to be shot while waiting for food aid, what hope is there for humanity?' ACT leader and deputy prime minister, David Seymour, had earlier criticised Ms Swarbrick's decision to display a keffiyeh in parliament. 'I invite you to consider what this house might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or another of a conflict,' he said.
News.com.au
39 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Won't stop': Major company targeted by vandals in Melbourne
An anonymous group targeting freight company Toll Group has struck again, in the fourth attack across sites in Melbourne in recent weeks. Footage posted to anarchist Instagram account 'forautonomydestroyaustralia' showed the latest incident at Toll's Truganina facility, which police confirmed took place last week. Body cam video shared in the 'anonymous submission' showed anti-Israel activists smashing keycard swipes with a hammer before spray painting a message at the site. See the video in the player above. 'We are coming for you,' a caption says. 'We are everywhere. We won't stop. 'We're just getting started.' The video also includes slogans 'glory to the martyrs' and 'death to Israel'. A blog website apparently created by the group accuses Toll of being part of a weapons supply chain to Israel during the ongoing Gaza war. It demands the logistics company 'renounce all contracts' with weapons manufacturers. The group also accuses 'so-called' Australia of supplying arms parts through the logistics chain to Israel via the US, which the federal government has repeatedly denied. They site similar campaigns by Palestine Action – a UK organisation that was controversially proscribed as a terror group in July – as inspiration for their conduct. Toll Group confirmed the incident, saying 'fortunately, no one was harmed'. 'We are taking these incidents and allegations extremely seriously. This latest incident has been reported to police, who are continuing to investigate. 'The safety and wellbeing of our employees is our highest priority. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics and the law. 'We do not condone or support any actions that could be perceived as contributing to harm or violence against any individual or group.' A Victoria Police spokesperson said officers were investigating a 'criminal damage incident' at the Truganina business on August 8. 'It is believed a number of offenders attended the Founders Place address shortly before 2.40am and tried to gain entry to the property,' they said. 'The offenders then graffitied the exterior of the building before leaving the area. 'An investigation into the incident is underway including whether it is linked to any other recent criminal damage incidents in Melbourne.' It followed Toll's Melbourne CBD office having its windows smashed in with sledgehammers and red paint sprayed across the front of the buildings. Sites in Westmeadows and Campbellfield were also targeted between July 15 and 21. 'Toll transports weapons and munitions from Australian manufacturers to America where they are used as a second supply line to support Israel's genocidal occupation of Palestine,' a video of the Collins St incident posted last month read. Police have urged anyone with information to contact Crime Stoppers.
