Melissa Price: PM must be clear-eyed to security threat posed by China
This duty intensifies when the Government declares that Australia is confronting its most complex strategic environment in 80 years.
In large part this is because of the rapid expansion of China's People's Liberation Army, which our Minister for Defence has described as the biggest increase in military capability and build-up in a conventional sense by any country since World War II.
At such a time, you would rightly expect the Government to not just be talking about the threat, but to be working to make us as strong as possible, as fast as possible.
Regrettably, that is not what our Government is doing.
The Prime Minister has not budged on defence spending which not only limits our own strategic capability, but has the secondary effect of undermining the backbone of our security policy — our alliance with the United States.
The US has served as the guarantor of regional stability since WWII. This role hasn't been limited to our region, and it has been costly for the US taxpayer.
The US is currently US$37 trillion in debt and the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East have many Americans asking why America's allies aren't bearing more of the cost burden to guarantee their own defence.
This push from the Americans culminated in NATO countries last month committing to lift core defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP and a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on broader defence and security related investments by 2035.
The Trump administration has called on Australia to increase our own defence spending and is currently reviewing the AUKUS agreement.
I'm a believer in AUKUS and proud to have been part of the team as minister for defence industry who secured it. Obtaining nuclear submarines will serve as a significant deterrent to future attacks on Australia.
To ensure the continuation of this agreement, it is imperative we demonstrate that we are a credible ally. This means investing enough to operate and maintain these submarines, while not skimping out on other defence priorities.
The Coalition took to the last election a policy to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP over the next 10 years and we are prepared to work in a bipartisan manner with the Government to deliver increased investment.
Like NATO we should also strengthen our sovereign industrial base and commit to greater funding to protect our critical infrastructure against attacks including cyber. As shadow minister for cyber security, I understand that cyber security is national security.
As the Government's last annual cyber threat report outlined, state-sponsored cyber operations are an ongoing concern.
These actors are engaged in intelligence gathering, interference, coercion and are working to gain a foothold within critical networks. Should the strategic environment deteriorate significantly, Australia could face major and disruptive cyber attacks.
This is an awkward fact for the Prime Minister to navigate with him last week in China. While they are our major trading partner, they are also the source of our consternation.
This was an important trip for the Australia-China relationship, but it could also send the wrong message to our US allies.
The Prime Minister should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
He should advocate for continued trade with China, which is vital for our economic prosperity, particularly here in WA, but he must be clear-eyed about our national security and call out unacceptable behaviour.
Reiterating where we stand will send an important message to the US as AUKUS remains under review.
This is assuming the Prime Minister's failure to meet with President Trump since the November election, his bizarre John Curtin Oration, and his resistance to increase defence spending haven't spoiled the deal already.
If not, there is still a lot of work to be done.
While we may not get our first submarines until the early 2030s, US and UK submarines are set to begin rotating through HMAS Stirling in 2027. Our readiness to host these submarines will be an early test and critical in signalling our commitment to AUKUS.
State and Federal Labor need to put their shoulder to the wheel to get that part of AUKUS right, otherwise we can almost kiss goodbye having our own fleet of nuclear submarines.
Australia is at a crossroads. It is past time the Prime Minister gets serious.
Melissa Price is the Member for Durack
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
24 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Overkill in Gaza: Penny Wong was right to call out Israel
This week's joint statement signed by Penny Wong and more than two dozen other foreign affairs ministers calling for an end to the war in Gaza was notable for its directness. It reflects the growing frustration of the Australian and other governments with how Israel is prosecuting the war. The disconnect between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unreconcilable twin aims of destroying Hamas, while at the same rescuing the hostages, is becoming increasingly apparent with the death of every civilian and the lack of hostages being returned. Revenge for the 1200 people Hamas slaughtered in October 2023 should by now have been achieved, and Hamas' military capabilities have been dealt a grievous blow. There is no argument that Hamas had to pay a heavy price for its terrorist attack, and the brutal reality is that the civilians among whom they hide would suffer as a result. But there are limits to such suffering, and the principles of military necessity and proportionality are supposed to guide and constrain the use of military force. For some time now, there has been a growing international consensus that Israel is exacting far too heavy a toll on all Gazans for the sins of Hamas. And it is also increasingly apparent that the Israeli government lacks any coherent plan for post-conflict Gaza. Canberra knows that on its own it has little clout with Israel, so it has used a multinational approach to call for an end to the fighting. It was also notable that the letter co-signed by Wong focused first on Israel's aid delivery model, a privatised version designed to tie the location and provision of humanitarian aid to military goals and to sideline professional international humanitarian organisations. The Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was controversial from the start – its original executive director, US military veteran Jake Wood, resigned before the first meal was delivered, citing his personal concerns that 'it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence'. Boston Consulting Group issued a public apology once it was revealed that two of its partners were involved in the scoping and planning for what was to become the GHF. The opaque funding sources for the foundation are concerning, as is the fact that the executive chairman is an evangelical preacher with close personal ties to US President Donald Trump. The security, provided by masked US private security contractors at the distribution points and the Israeli military in the area surrounding those sites, has been equally controversial. Reports of hundreds of aid-seekers being killed during the operation of the centres is alarming. Even if only partially true, nobody should die trying to feed their families.
Sydney Morning Herald
24 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Lost in translation: Trump doesn't seem to understand the ‘massive' deal he just made
The other big 'win' for the US was, Trump claims, the opening of its agricultural markets to US exports, particularly the market for rice, which has historically been extremely politically sensitive in Japan. According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, American farmers will have the same advantage as countries within the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership in selling into the Japanese market. During the Obama administration, America was going to be a party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement whose members include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. It was Trump, within days of taking office in his first in January 2017, who withdrew the US from the TPP. America's farmers could have had the same trade terms with Japan as those countries eight years ago, if not for Trump. As for rice, Japan already imports up to 770,000 tonnes a year (the amount is capped to protect its own rice farmers), with the US supplying about 45 per cent of that volume. Yes, the US may be able to sell more and perhaps displace other suppliers, but Japan has reserved the right to decide the additional volume and quality of any extra imports from the US. Loading The bottom line for the trade elements of the deal is that it does lift the tariff rate on Japan's exports to the US – US consumers will pay more for Japanese products – but Japan has negotiated a deal that does only minor damage to its exports and economy in the process while presenting Trump with the ability to trumpet that he has opened up access to its domestic markets even though nothing material is likely to change. Indeed, unless Trump is forced to lower the rates on other countries auto and auto parts exports to the US, along with his sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper, the Japanese negotiators have given their key exporters a competitive edge. Trump says there's never been anything like the deal with Japan. He may be right, even if it appears he doesn't understand how it might play out in practice. There is a very large non-trade element to the deal. Japan has promised, it seems, to invest up to $US550 billion in the US, at Trump's direction and with the US allocated 90 per cent of any profits the investments might generate. The White House described the funding as the 'centrepiece' of the agreement with Japan, with the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, saying Japan had been awarded the 15 per cent tariff rate 'because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism.' There are few details available on what is being loosely described as a Japanese sovereign wealth fund dedicated to investing in strategic sectors like semi-conductors, pharmaceuticals, steel, shipbuilding, critical minerals and energy in the US. The Japanese say the funds will come from their state banks and government agencies and will be in the form of equity, debt and guarantees. That suggests the $US550 billion, if it ever materialises, will be largely loans and loan guarantees for Japanese and US companies investing in projects Trump deems important. The detail will matter. Having effectively been extorted into agreeing to provide the funding, they are hardly likely to hand over $US550 billion without conditions and safeguards to someone who has declared bankruptcy four times. Loading They also have China's precedent to guide them. To end Trump's 2018-19 trade war, China agreed to buy a massively increased volume of US products. It eventually bought a little more than half what it had agreed to. Japan can slow-walk the handing over of the funds, knowing that, if it stretches the process out, a new administration in 2029 might have different views on trade. The investment agreement, apparently the brainchild of the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick as it became clear that Japan wasn't going to accede to Trump's most aggressive demands for market access, is a peculiar one if Trump's aim is, as he has always claimed, to reduce America's trade deficit. If Japan were to actually deliver $US550 billion of new capital inflows to the US, it would increase the trade deficit, not decrease it. It would also probably help push up the value of the US dollar, which has been tumbling, making US exports less competitive in international markets. Did anyone explain that to Trump? Trump says there's never been anything like the deal with Japan. He may be right, even if it appears he doesn't understand how it might play out in practice. The deal with Japan provides a benchmark for the European Union, which appears very close to either agreeing its own deal or walking away and retaliating with punitive tariffs on US imports. It could probably live with a 15 per cent rate and no cap on its auto exports, provided there is nothing in the US demands that relates to its valued-added tax system or its regulation of social media platforms and big technology companies. Once Trump's August 1 deadline for deals is reached, the larger picture of Trump's trade wars will be clear, if still quite messy with its range of different tariffs, different rates and side-deals like the Japanese funding. Loading Crudely, however, the new 'baseline' tariff rate for America's major trading partners now appears to be 15 per cent. The average effective US tariff rate will have risen from about 2.4 per cent before he took office again to something around 20 per cent. Trade flows will be distorted, global supply chains severely disrupted, US companies and consumers will be paying a big new tax on their spending and the US inflation rate, and interest rates, will be higher than they would otherwise have been. Will that make America great again?
The Age
24 minutes ago
- The Age
Overkill in Gaza: Penny Wong was right to call out Israel
This week's joint statement signed by Penny Wong and more than two dozen other foreign affairs ministers calling for an end to the war in Gaza was notable for its directness. It reflects the growing frustration of the Australian and other governments with how Israel is prosecuting the war. The disconnect between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unreconcilable twin aims of destroying Hamas, while at the same rescuing the hostages, is becoming increasingly apparent with the death of every civilian and the lack of hostages being returned. Revenge for the 1200 people Hamas slaughtered in October 2023 should by now have been achieved, and Hamas' military capabilities have been dealt a grievous blow. There is no argument that Hamas had to pay a heavy price for its terrorist attack, and the brutal reality is that the civilians among whom they hide would suffer as a result. But there are limits to such suffering, and the principles of military necessity and proportionality are supposed to guide and constrain the use of military force. For some time now, there has been a growing international consensus that Israel is exacting far too heavy a toll on all Gazans for the sins of Hamas. And it is also increasingly apparent that the Israeli government lacks any coherent plan for post-conflict Gaza. Canberra knows that on its own it has little clout with Israel, so it has used a multinational approach to call for an end to the fighting. It was also notable that the letter co-signed by Wong focused first on Israel's aid delivery model, a privatised version designed to tie the location and provision of humanitarian aid to military goals and to sideline professional international humanitarian organisations. The Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was controversial from the start – its original executive director, US military veteran Jake Wood, resigned before the first meal was delivered, citing his personal concerns that 'it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence'. Boston Consulting Group issued a public apology once it was revealed that two of its partners were involved in the scoping and planning for what was to become the GHF. The opaque funding sources for the foundation are concerning, as is the fact that the executive chairman is an evangelical preacher with close personal ties to US President Donald Trump. The security, provided by masked US private security contractors at the distribution points and the Israeli military in the area surrounding those sites, has been equally controversial. Reports of hundreds of aid-seekers being killed during the operation of the centres is alarming. Even if only partially true, nobody should die trying to feed their families.
