Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Defence Update grapples with the new developments in defending Australia

By Des Moore - posted Saturday, 4 January 2003

More is implied than spelt out in the Government's A Defence Update, issued last week by Defence Minister Robert Hill. But all of it is good news, and gives hope of even better.

On the face of it, the document confirms rather than replaces the strategic tasks identified in the white paper Defence 2000. These are: defence of Australia (meaning our territorial integrity); operations in our immediate neighbourhood (a flexible term of varying definition); coalition operations further afield; and peacetime national tasks.

That apparent affirmation of the continuing soundness of our strategic priorities is nevertheless followed by recognition of the need for a rebalancing of military capability, particularly an increased emphasis on mobility, readiness, sustainability, and interoperability (basically with US forces and equipment).


Exactly how these objectives are to be met is not revealed, though reference is made to already announced (and in some cases implemented) measures, such as increasing the size of our Special Forces and better troop-lift helicopters.

What justifies this rebalancing? The need to take account of three developments new since Defence 2000: the rise of international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and adverse trends in our immediate neighbourhood.

The Defence Update's analysis of these things is sober, sensible and realistic. It carries conviction.

Whether the rebalancing these developments have prompted will actually meet the need, and how it will be paid for (unfortunately, Senator Hill reportedly lost his Cabinet bid for more money), remain to be seen.

The new developments make a case for lifting the proportion of national resources allocated to defence from the pre-World War II levels to which they have fallen. But what we already know is welcome.

Even more welcome are the indications that our changing strategic environment and the consequent rebalancing, while said in the Update not to call into question Defence's long-standing strategic tasks, do imply, in fact and philosophy, a very considerable modification of those tasks.


No mention is made in Defence Update of the concentric circles theory, from which our defence policy has suffered for so long by wrongly assuming that Australia's national interests necessarily diminish with distance. But the implication is strong that the theory no longer grips and distorts the Department of Defence's thinking.

Thus the distant regions of North Asia (Canberra is more distant than Dublin from Peking) and the Middle East are accorded "high strategic significance to Australia"; and the heightened threat and long reach of international terrorists and WMD are emphasised.

Likewise, the update does not openly displace the primacy in Defence's thinking of the defence of Australia against invasion - long a contingency of vanishingly small probability, with disproportionate effect on Defence's force structure decisions. But it does acknowledge that the threat of direct military attack on Australia is less than it was in 2000; and the implication is strong that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) needs to be sized and shaped for high-priority tasks other than defence against invasion.

Likewise also, Defence Update does not mention the bogus doctrine of self-reliance - the capability to defeat an invasion without calling in aid from US combat forces. But again, the implication is strong that Defence now realises the importance to Australia's security of our working in with the USA in coalition operations far distant from Australia, and realises also that those operations require different or enhanced capabilities from the ADF, not least interoperability.

The recognition that many values and interests are shared with the USA supports this approach.

Those, hitherto including Defence, with a narrow view of Australia's needs have been dubbed regionalists; those with a wider view, who recognise that security and defence, though different, are connected by time, are called globalists. Senator Hill himself says it is not a question of "or" but "and". It's a welcome recognition of a new global reality.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

An edited version of this article was first published in The Herald Sun on 27 February 2003.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Des Moore is Director, Institute for Private Enterprise and a former Deputy Secretary, Treasury. He authored Schooling Victorians, 1992, Institute of Public Affairs as part of the Project Victoria series which contributed to the educational and other reforms instituted by the Kennett Government. The views are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Des Moore
Related Links
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Department of Defence
Institute for Private Enterpise
Photo of Des Moore
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy