The government and opposition are not equal in defence policy, even though Labor is doing its best to say that they are. In fact, Labor is crucially ahead - though you have to listen carefully to know it, because the party is determined not to politicise national-security planning.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In barely more than a whisper, Labor is saying we need more military strength soon, not just fancy new kit the government plans for the 2030s and 2040s. This is what defence analysts are not whispering about but shouting and screaming.
But our defence establishment will oppose fast action if it takes money from entrenched programs, even those that are unnecessary or even obsolete.
There's no guarantee that Labor, if elected, will actually do something about our short-term military weakness. The Defence Department and armed services have their ways of bamboozling a new minister to protect their programs.
But at least Labor is aware of the need for speed.
"One of the problems I have is the little investment that's been made on the short-term capability gaps that need to be addressed," opposition defence spokesperson Brendan O'Connor said in a debate with Defence Minister Peter Dutton at the National Press Club on May 5.
He added that Labor, if elected, would immediately reassess defence plans not just for the medium and long term but also the near future. He's previously said Labor would focus on building up military strength in the next 3-5 years.
This means a Labor government is our best hope of getting the rapid shift in defence policy we need.
There's no sign that we'll get it from the Coalition.
Dutton is clearly a serious minister who is absolutely earnest about national security. But, equally clearly, he has been unwilling or unable to overcome the inertia of the defence establishment.
The result is that, while he and Scott Morrison talk big on defence and China, they're actually doing very little to strengthen our air and maritime power in the next few years.
The air force we will have in 2030 will be basically the air force we planned 10 years ago to have in 2030. The navy will actually be weaker than intended, because of delays in its frigate program.
For the moment, the army just doesn't matter. We face no risk of invasion and are never obliged to intervene in the Middle East.
Yet the big-spending programs that will deliver more defence capability this decade are for re-equipping the army.
You won't find defence analysts who are comfortable with our failure to rapidly add military power that faces north, except maybe some who are aligned with the army and can't shift their gaze from the prospect of heavy land battles.
"We live in times echoing the 1930s, with belligerent autocrats seeking once again to use force to achieve political outcomes," Dutton told the press club. That's right. What a pity he's not acting with the urgency of the 1930s.
Money should be pouring into toughening up our bases and logistics, building up weapon stocks for a possibly protracted war, and importing more tanker and surveillance aircraft - all as quickly as possible.
Labor does criticise the Coalition on defence - but in relation to past performance, not planning. For the future, it simply says it backs Coalition spending plans (while murmuring about getting things done faster).
Every so often, O'Connor is asked what he thinks about some prospective plan, such as buying more destroyers. He answers that it's difficult for an opposition to judge such things - meaning it doesn't have the expert advice and intelligence assessments available to a government.
The attitude is commendable. We can't afford our main parties to campaign against military programs just to score political points, as sometimes happens in other countries.
But there is a limit to this. Mistakes in strategic planning can in fact be perfectly obvious to outsiders.
If Labor fails to win the May 21 election, criticism of the Coalition's slowness in defence preparation would be quite in keeping with the notion of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It would be a duty.
MORE AGE OF THE DRAGON:
Meanwhile, Morrison and Dutton are still blowing our defence budget on kit that would be good for returning to the Middle East but useless for facing China.
The latest instance is particularly disgraceful, a go-ahead for the army to get 29 Boeing Apache attack helicopters, equipment for land battles. They'll cost $5.5 billion, including such extras as weapons and spare parts.
Apaches are superb machines. But we already have 22 effective, if not ideal, Airbus Tiger attack helicopters that are not worn out. So we'll be spending all that money to get 29 Apaches minus 22 Tigers.
Worse, the usefulness of attack helicopters is declining as cheap drones are increasingly able to reconnoitre a battlefield and hit enemy targets. Also, anti-aircraft defences are becoming ever more lethal.
So this is an excellent time for waiting to see how battlefield air technology develops - especially for countries that already have attack helicopters, and all the more for those that don't actually need an ability to fight intensive ground battles. Australia, for example.
But the army got the new choppers into defence planning a few years ago and Dutton has not used his authority to insist that we have more important things to spend our money on.
Australian defence policy is like one of those enormous iron ore trains in the Pilbara. It just keeps rolling, sticking to its established track and hardly changing speed.
We need something much more manoeuvrable. If Labor wins, we just might get it.
- Bradley Perrett was based in Beijing as a journalist from 2004 to 2020.
