Lessons in leadership: Interviews with 11 of Australia’s former Defence Ministers

In a time of growing strategic uncertainty, 11 of Australia’s former defence ministers have shared valuable lessons they learned over decades running one of the toughest portfolios in government.

In this compendium, the former ministers from both sides of politics give their views on topics ranging from the complexity of dealing with a massive department, to the grief they shared with families at the funerals of slain soldiers.

The pieces are drawn from interviews with former ASPI executive director Peter Jennings and links to the original video interviews are available in the posts on The Strategist site.

When China knocks at the door of New Caledonia

China’s covert foreign interference activities in the Pacific are a very important, and yet under-researched, topic. This report uses New Caledonia as the case study to examine China’s hidden front, 隐蔽战线, throughout the wider Pacific.

Successive months of violence and unrest in New Caledonia in 2024, have heightened regional and international awareness of the uncertain future of the territory, and the role of China in that future. The unrest erupted after France pushed through legislation extending voting rights in the territory.

The CCP has engaged in a range of foreign interference activities in New Caledonia over many decades, targeting political and economic elites, and attempting to utilise the ethnic Chinese diaspora and PRC companies as tools of CCP interests. Local elites have at times actively courted China’s assistance, willingly working with CCP front organisations.

Assessing the extent of China’s foreign interference in New Caledonia is a legitimate and necessary inquiry. The debate about China’s interests, intentions and activities in the territory has lacked concrete, publicly available evidence until now. This study aims to help fill that lacuna. The report draws on open-source data collection and analysis in Chinese, French and English. It was also informed by interviews and discussions that took place during my visits to New Caledonia and France in 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023, as well as conversations in New Zealand.

My research shows that the French Government and New Caledonian authorities are working to manage risks in the China – New Caledonia relationship. Moreover, civil society, the New Caledonian media, many politicians, and Kanak traditional leadership have also had a role in restraining the extent of the CCP’s foreign interference activities in New Caledonia. Few Pacific Island peoples would welcome a relationship of dependency with China or having the Pacific become part of a China-centred order.

The report concludes by recommending that New Caledonia be included in all regional security discussions as an equal partner. New Caledonia needs to rebalance its economy and it needs help with the rebuild from the riots. Supportive partner states should work with France and New Caledonia to facilitate this.

The big wins for a stronger Australia out of AUSMIN talks

This week’s AUSMIN dialogue between Australia and the United States has delivered some important policy agreements that will strengthen the vital US-Australia alliance in the face of a strategic outlook that Australia’s National Defence Strategy, released in April, characterises as “the most challenging environment since the Second World War”.

Of greatest concern in confronting the risks ahead must be that China will seek to impose unification on Taiwan, against the wishes of the Taiwanese people, through use of force, if necessary, with a crisis potentially coming as early as this decade.

China also continues aggressive provocations, notably against the Philippines, in an effort to dominate and control the South China Sea.

In the longer term, Chinese success in these territorial disputes would see it then well placed to control maritime trade routes that are vital to Australia’s security and economic prosperity in the 2030s and beyond.

In the face of this growing challenge, Australia and the US must continue to strengthen their alliance and reinforce credible deterrence against the risk that Beijing will seek to use military force to achieve its geostrategic ambitions in the coming decade and beyond.

The latest round of AUSMIN talks saw very practical and sensible steps being taken towards this goal.

Most importantly, AUSMIN saw agreement between Canberra and Washington that Australia’s defence facilities in the north will be enhanced to enable greater access and sustained use by US military forces during a crisis. This makes eminent sense.

Australia’s key role in any future war with China would be to act as a secure rear area for US and allied forces to operate from and to sustain and support allied military operations in what is likely to be protracted major power war lasting months or longer.

The agreement out of AUSMIN to enhance airbases at Darwin and Tindal in the Northern Territory, and to consider upgrades to the “bare bases” at Curtin, Learmonth and Scherger, as well as at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, will give US and ADF forces greater flexibility to conduct forward operations in a crisis.

Important agreements were made on combined logistics, sustainment and maintenance that builds on a demonstration of pre-positioned US Army equipment at Albury-Wodonga and will consider requirements for establishing a logistics support area in Queensland.

It is sensible for Australia and the United States to prioritise the steps needed to ensure that the US, and other allied partners in the Indo-Pacific, can operate on a sustained basis from Australia in a future war in the Indo-Pacific.

AUSMIN 2024 thus has produced some practical and sensible outcomes which will not only contribute to strengthened deterrence to ideally prevent such a war from happening in the first place, but also ensure that Australia and the United States and other partners are best placed to respond if a crisis were to emerge.

The second key outcome from AUSMIN is a focus on technology co-operation that can lead to key new military capabilities. There has been important progress on new mechanisms which can circumvent onerous defence trade regulations that would otherwise stifle the prospect of progress under AUKUS Pillar 2.

These include greater integration between the US and Australia on defence innovation, and enhanced co-operation within the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) enterprise to enable co-development of long-range missile capabilities to facilitate ‘impactful projection’. Of key importance is an agreement on securing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on building the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), and continued work on developing hypersonic weapons, with both supporting the urgent requirement for greater long-range strike capabilities for the ADF and also for the US military.

AUSMIN has produced an opportunity for greater co-operation to counter threats in new domains such as space and cyberspace. For example, AUSMIN has reinforced the importance of norms of responsible behaviour in space, and opposed Russia’s development of a nuclear weapons-based anti-satellite capability. Given the importance of the space domain for Australia’s security and prosperity, it’s vital that states stand together to oppose and deter any move by Moscow to deploy such a destabilising weapon, that would effectively destroy the 1967 Outer Space Treaty even if the weapon itself was never used, and in doing so, ensure that space was a battleground in future wars.

The government’s approach to AUSMIN is a welcome one, which recognises the importance of the US-Australia alliance, and which is based on undertaking practical steps that strengthen Australia’s ability to support the US in deterring a major power crisis. Key defence capabilities such as the nuclear powered but conventionally armed submarines, won’t appear until the mid-2030s, so its important for government to work with the US and other allies to strengthen defence capabilities now. In this uncertain environment, dialogues such as AUSMIN that generate practical steps towards enhanced defence co-operation are more important than ever.

Gender mainstreaming in United Nations peace operations: An unfulfilled promise?

The principle of gender equality is a cornerstone of the United Nations (UN). Centred on equal access to rights, opportunities, resources and decision-making powers irrespective of gender, it’s embedded within the UN Charter and championed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mechanisms such as the inaugural resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agreed to in 2000 by the UN Security Council (UNSC), and the adoption of an additional nine WPS resolutions, further represent the critical intent to achieve this goal. The purpose of such WPS mechanisms is to cultivate gender balance, foster diverse leadership and champion gender equality in a global effort to establish sustainable peace after conflict.

Yet, as we stand on the threshold of the 25th anniversary of UNSC resolution 1325, the UN’s stride towards gender equality for uniformed women in peace operations has been ‘exceedingly slow’. The lofty aspiration of ‘equal opportunity peacekeeping’ through gender mainstreaming policies and practices remains elusive, entangled in a web of misconceptions and entrenched systemic barriers and institutional challenges.
The purpose of this ASPI report is threefold.

First, it examines the blocks to implementation and the effects of gender mainstreaming strategies.
Second, it advances three strategic interventions for the UN system and its global peace and security community:

  • redefining peacekeeping benchmarks for an efficient and effective uniformed component
  • shifting the narrative on peacekeepers’ contributions regardless of gender
  • incorporating feminist voices and practices in the development of policies and practices for the deployment of peacekeepers.

These proposed interventions offer a unique prospect for the final section of this report: encouraging Australian Government departments and agencies that have responsibilities for and commitments to execute the Australian National Action Plan (NAP) on WPS. Those commitments extend to fostering gender equality in both domestic and international WPS endeavours, thereby strengthening Australia’s position as a proactive UN member state.

Full tilt: The UK’s defence role in the Pacific: Views from The Strategist

Britain has a new prime minister, Keir Starmer, leading its first Labour government in 14 years. Key questions for us now are how Britain under Labour will approach the security partnership with Australia and whether London will remain committed to investing defence resources in the Indo-Pacific.

This report provides vital context for addressing these questions. In this series of articles, originally published in ASPI’s The Strategist this year, ASPI authors review the historical underpinnings and future course of Britain’s strategic recoupling with Australia and this region, especially the Pacific Islands, from perspectives ranging from deterrence to climate resilience.

The report makes some recommendations for how to strengthen the Australia-UK defence partnership and shape Britain’s approach to our region.

Stop the World: Defence innovation and investment with Heather Richman and Linda Lourie

This week on Stop the World, we bring you a special episode from the sidelines of the ASPI Defence Conference ‘JoiningFORCES’. In this first episode of a short series, ASPI’s Director of Defence Strategy and National Security, Bec Shrimpton, speaks to defence innovation and investment experts Heather Richman and Linda Lourie.

They discuss defence innovation and opportunities for the government to work with the private sector to achieve national security outcomes. They also consider how the investment landscape has changed in the United States, including increased willingness from entrepreneurs to invest in national security.

About the guests:

Heather Richman is founder of the Defense Investor Network in the US, and has held a wide array of roles at the intersection of national security, technology, and investment—including at Stanford University and on Capitol Hill.

Linda Lourie is a Principal with WestExec Advisors. She is also a Principal with the Washington Circle Advisory Group, LLC, and a Member of the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s Advisory Subcommittee on Strategic Competition with the People’s Republic of China. Linda has previously held senior roles in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and in the Defense Innovation Unit.

Bec is Director Defence Strategy and National Security at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Bec has over 20 years experience in policy, operational and corporate roles in the Australian Department of Defence and DFAT. She has served as senior adviser Major Powers to Australia’s Foreign Minister, and led trade and investment in the defence and space sectors in Austrade.

Negotiating technical standards for artificial intelligence

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is delighted to share its latest report – the result of a multi-year project on Artificial Intelligence (AI), technical standards and diplomacy – that conducts a deep-dive into the important, yet often opaque and complicated world of technical standards.

At the heart of how AI technologies are developed, deployed and used in a responsible manner sit a suite of technical standards: rules, guidelines and characteristics that ensure the safety, security and interoperability of a product.

The report authors highlight that the Indo-Pacific, including Australia and India, are largely playing catch-up in AI standards initiatives. The United States and China are leading the pack, followed by European nations thanks to their size, scope and resources of their national standardisation communities as well as their domestic AI sectors.

Not being strongly represented in the world of AI governance and technical standards is a strategic risk for Indo-Pacific nations. For a region that’s banking on the opportunities of a digital and technology-enabled economy and has large swathes of its population in at-risk jobs, it’s a matter of national and economic security that Indo-Pacific stakeholders are active and have a big say in how AI technologies will operate and be used.

Being part of the conversations and negotiations is everything, and as such, governments in the Indo-Pacific – including Australia and India – should invest more in whole-of-nation techdiplomacy capabilities.

Authored by analysts at ASPI and India’s Centre for Internet and Society, this new report ‘Negotiating technical standards for artificial intelligence: A techdiplomacy playbook for policymakers and technologists in the Indo-Pacific’ – and accompanying website (https://www.techdiplomacy.aspi.org.au/) – explains the current state of play in global AI governance, looks at the role of technical standards, outlines how agreements on technical standards are negotiated and created, and describes who are the biggest ‘movers and shakers’.

The authors note that there are currently no representatives from Southeast Asia (except Singapore), Australia, NZ or the Pacific Islands on the UN Secretary-General Advisory Body on AI – a body that’s tasked to come up with suggestions on how to govern AI in a representative and inclusive manner with an eye to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The capacity of the Indo-Pacific to engage in critical technology standards has historically been lower in comparison to other regions. However, given the rapid and global impact of AI and the crucial role of technical standards, the report authors argue that dialogue and greater collaboration between policymakers, technologists and civil society has never been more important.

It is hoped this playbook will help key stakeholders – governments, industry, civil society and academia – step through the different aspects of negotiating technical standards for AI, while also encouraging the Indo-Pacific region to step up and get more involved.

The cost of Defence: ASPI Defence budget brief 2024-2025

Australia needs to spend more on defence—and it needs to do so immediately. The strategic imperative has been firmly established in the government’s own major defence documents.

The Albanese government and the Coalition opposition agree that we are in the gravest geopolitical period in generations and this is only going to intensify.

But as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s latest Cost of Defence report finds, the rhetorical urgency is not being matched by action in the form of defence investment. The May budget is the latest demonstration of this mismatch, lacking spending for swift increases in capabilities that the Australian Defence Force would need if our region were to deteriorate quickly.

In particular, this year’s budget priorities are not directed towards strengthening the Australian Defence Force’s ability to fight in the next decade.

This is not doom-mongering; the government has acknowledged that the warning time before any conflict, which had long been set at 10 years, has shrunk to effectively zero time.

We have war in Ukraine and the Middle East, aggression and increasingly dangerous and unprofessional behaviour from China causing instability and confrontation in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait, erosions of the rule of law and revisionist agendas from authoritarians. Instability is heightened by foreign interference, economic coercion and artificial intelligence-enabled dangers such as cyber attacks and disinformation.

If war were to break out at any time in the next 10 years, our military would essentially fight with the force it has today. Based on current resourcing, nothing significant will change over the decade.

Most of the major new capabilities in the government’s defence investment blueprint are two decades away from being fully fielded. That blueprint does contain some shorter-term enhancements, but these will not be fielded until the 2030s.

The welcome $5.7 billion in new defence spending over the four-year forward estimates period is devoted to just three priorities: the AUKUS submarines, the next fleet of surface warships and investment in long-range strike, targeting and autonomous systems. But two thirds of this funding doesn’t arrive until 2027-28. The relatively impressive longer term plan leaves us vulnerable in the immediate period ahead. More money immediately is not a silver bullet, and ambition must be balanced with how much Defence can actually spend each year. But the nation’s security requires a two-pronged strategy of enhancing our existing force to meet threats within the decade while investing in long term capabilities.

Other countries are furiously pursuing new capabilities that can be put into action quickly—such as creating masses of small drones and prototyping and developing new technologies.

We talk about technology and asymmetric advantage—playing to your strengths and finding effective means to exploit an opponent’s weaknesses–yet we lack a credible pathway to bring them into operation to bolster the force we have today.

Over the longer term, the picture starts gradually to improve. The $50 billion in additional spending over the next decade is an important commitment, even if far away. The plan for a complete recapitalisation of the surface combatant fleet will eventually give us the biggest and most capable navy Australia has had since World War Two.

But, so far, we are failing to grasp the opportunity to link our traditional large platforms such as submarines and warships to more modern developments in warfare—drones and various small uncrewed and smart capabilities. AI, robotics, electronic warfare and space capabilities remain aspirational, without any pathway for inclusion and integration into a truly focused force capable of meaningful deterrence and warfighting. That is why it is so important to realise AUKUS Pillar II, which is dealing with these capabilities.

It’s easy to criticise; harder to do. All governments are grappling with tight budgets amid competing demands and the unremitting expectations of voters and taxpayers. As a nation, we need to accept the need for higher defence spending. Hoping that conflict won’t come is not a viable strategy. If we are prepared for war, we have a better chance of deterring and hence averting it.

Europe is living that lesson now, having put all hope in the judgment that global trade and economic entanglement would bring security. Now it is clear that military investment is imperative to deter war or best prepare nations for it.

The government has a vital responsibility to speak plainly to the nation about the geopolitical risks and the possibility of conflict.

We need to grasp the challenge that is in front of us today, not in three or five years’ time. Otherwise, we risk delivering on Macarthur’s famous two word warning: “The history of failure in war can almost always be summed up in two words: “Too late.” Too late in comprehending the deadly enemy. Too late in realizing the mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance.”

Why take the risk of only acting after a crisis and saying better late than never? The world in turmoil demands we act in real time to both deter crises and be best prepared for them.

Nobody wins unless everybody wins: The Coles review into the sustainment of Australia’s Collins-class submarines

In 2003, Australia became the proud owner of the last of six new-build Collins-class submarines. Less than a decade later, the fleet was in a poor state of repair, and at times only one or two of the boats were available to the Royal Australian Navy. This account by Andrew Davies explains how the situation was remediated by bringing in a team of highly experienced naval professionals to take an uncompromising look at the arrangements in place to manage a vital national defence asset.

Despite a public perception that the submarines were inherently defective, the problems were in fact almost entirely due to dysfunctional and often rancorous organisational dynamics between the key players. In the space of just a few years, and with remarkably little required in the way of additional funding, the situation took a dramatic turn for the better.

As with earlier ASPI case studies on defence projects, Nobody wins unless everybody wins is designed to help those in Defence, industry and parliament and other interested observers to better understand the complexities of the business, all with the aim of improving how Australia equips and sustains its defence force.

Other monographs in this series:

Deterrence, escalation and strategic stability: Rebuilding Australia’s muscle memory

To build an effective deterrence strategy, Australia needs urgently to improve its skills and understanding of deterrence, and raise the topic’s profile in our public and policy discussions. Despite having previously been a global thought leader on nuclear weapons and deterrence half a century ago, Australia today doesn’t have a strong grasp of the basics of modern deterrence.

Knowledge of and literacy in deterrence are vital for adapting and applying such concepts to meet today’s extraordinarily complex, multidomain and multidimensional requirements. A lack of understanding of deterrence can critically undermine the ability to get strategy and policy right. The implications for Australia’s national interests are urgent and serious. The limited debate in Australia about what good deterrence strategy looks like and its key components can’t be advanced without better understanding of key terms and ideas that are fundamental to deterrence theory and practice.

There are, of course, obvious limits to what Australia can achieve alone. Our ability to integrate and combine our military capabilities with those of the US and other critical partners is fundamental to our ability to achieve our security objectives, but some of our partners are working more closely together on building deterrence strategies. We have some catching up to do.

This report explains what deterrence is and why it matters. It looks at Australian deterrence policy in practice and at deterrence efforts by some of our partners and allies and it highlights a number of gaps in Australia’s strategic and deterrence planning.

The report makes a series of policy recommendations for government, and especially for the Department of Defence, to rebuild Australia’s position as a thought leader on deterrence.