Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm christinaming it.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, April twenty four, twenty twenty five. The social
Speaker 1: media feeds of young Australian men are brimming with posts
Speaker 1: by masculinity influencers and its wreaking havoc on their opinions
Speaker 1: of women. A new study shows the content also negatively
Speaker 1: influences young men's health choices on substances like steroids. The
Speaker 1: Climate two hundred political funding group has pumped another fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars into the campaign of teal Zoe Daniel, a
Speaker 1: move suggesting the election race in the Victorian seat of
Speaker 1: Goldstein is tightening. You can read all the latest from
Speaker 1: the campaign trail right now at the Australian dot com
Speaker 1: dot au. Peter Dutton has unveiled the coalition's defense policy
Speaker 1: with just over a week to go in the election campaign.
Speaker 1: The opposition leader has promised to spend twenty billion dollars
Speaker 1: on new defense capabilities, but he's been vague on the details.
Speaker 1: So will a national security cash splash help his prospects
Speaker 1: at the polling booth. That's today's episode in march Elbridge,
Speaker 1: Colby Sat down for a very public job interview.
Speaker 2: The hearing will come to order. Thank you all for
Speaker 2: being here this morning. The committee meet.
Speaker 1: Colby was Donald Trump's pick for a top job at
Speaker 1: the US Department of Defense, and for hours he was
Speaker 1: quizzed by members of a United States Senate committee about
Speaker 1: his views on a range of issues from foreign policy
Speaker 1: to defense spending.
Speaker 2: If confirmed, mister Colby would oversee the developments of policy
Speaker 2: and strategy for the Department of Defense. He would assume
Speaker 2: these responsibilities during the most dangerous security environment since World
Speaker 2: War Two.
Speaker 1: Elbridge Colby got the job, and his laser focus on
Speaker 1: Beijing means Australia's defense strategy hasn't escaped his scrutiny. He
Speaker 1: wants Australia to ratchet up defense spending in a big
Speaker 1: way to three percent of GDP, given the inherent threat
Speaker 1: posed by our proximity to China.
Speaker 3: You know, the idea of empowering our Australian in some sense,
Speaker 3: perhaps our closest ally in the world. They've been with us,
Speaker 3: even in our less advisable wars. As the way I
Speaker 3: put it, it's a great idea for them to have
Speaker 3: a taxa.
Speaker 1: The labor government has so far resisted pressure from the
Speaker 1: United States to boost defense spending, but on Wednesday the
Speaker 1: Coalition went some of the way to answering the call.
Speaker 4: Australia has an important role to play on the global
Speaker 4: stage and in our own region, and today we make
Speaker 4: a very significant announcement of over twenty billion dollars to
Speaker 4: defense over the course of the next five years, which
Speaker 4: will bring spending up to two point five percent of GDP.
Speaker 1: CAM Opposition leader Peter Dunton unveiled the coalition's long away
Speaker 1: to defense policy in Western Australia on Wednesday. So what
Speaker 1: does twenty billion dollars bias well Christen.
Speaker 5: It helps bias nuclear submarines, It helps buy Australia long
Speaker 5: range missiles that can be fired from the shore here.
Speaker 5: It helps pay for a lot more people to join
Speaker 5: the forces because they're not meeting their retention targets. So
Speaker 5: really there's a whole scope of things that this money
Speaker 5: could be put towards where it's very much needed. So
Speaker 5: this is a long term pledged by the Coalition to
Speaker 5: lift defense spending from two percent of GDP to two
Speaker 5: point five and five years and the big one to
Speaker 5: lift it to three percent of GDP in ten years now,
Speaker 5: that is a quality of difference. That's a lot more money.
Speaker 1: Cameron Stewart is the Australian's chief international correspondent.
Speaker 5: But you're going to need this sort of money to
Speaker 5: pay for this equipment because you're nuclear submarines for example,
Speaker 5: are going to cost an eye watering amount of money.
Speaker 5: And so without actually having an increase in defense spending
Speaker 5: a substantial one, the ADF would actually go backwards in
Speaker 5: its capability rather than forward. So this is really, I
Speaker 5: think something that is fairly essential in the longer term.
Speaker 1: Of course, Cam this benchmark of three percent of GDP
Speaker 1: is advocated by NATO and endorsed by the United States,
Speaker 1: but neither of the major parties have plans to fund
Speaker 1: defense at that level in the near or medium term.
Speaker 1: Is it actually necessary?
Speaker 5: It's a debate which has changed a lot in recent
Speaker 5: years because of China's hegemonic activity in the South China Sea.
Speaker 5: It's sort of buying off of Pacific island nations and
Speaker 5: its general aggression in the region. Frankly, and then of
Speaker 5: course you put on top of that the Ukraine War
Speaker 5: and the increasing alliance between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Speaker 5: And on top of all of that, you've got a
Speaker 5: very uncertain US administration now with Donald Trump, where alliances
Speaker 5: have become much more transactional. And so you put it
Speaker 5: all together and there's a real argument now in a way,
Speaker 5: I think there wasn't five years ago to lift this
Speaker 5: fence spending to a very high level, like three percent
Speaker 5: of GDP. But I think really there has to be
Speaker 5: a qualitative change in the debate about defense spending now
Speaker 5: simply because of global events. And that is a view
Speaker 5: shared by an enormous amount of very respective experts, from
Speaker 5: Kim Beasley to Dennis Richardson to Peter Dean. Almost every
Speaker 5: senior defense analyst thinks this is necessary. And you know
Speaker 5: they're not making this stuff up, and there really are
Speaker 5: genuine threats out there. But as you say, this requires
Speaker 5: sacrifice on the part of governments to make choices that
Speaker 5: will hurt other portfolios.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Peter Dutton was quite vague on what defense capability is.
Speaker 1: This twenty billion dollars will buy.
Speaker 4: I don't think there's a government in our history that's
Speaker 4: been elected outlining what contracts they'll sign in relation to defense.
Speaker 4: The decisions about who we purchase from is not something
Speaker 4: that we've made from our position.
Speaker 1: And he hasn't provided any clarity on where that money
Speaker 1: will come from. That's attracted criticism from the Prime Minister,
Speaker 1: who says Labor has been transparent about defense and other costs.
Speaker 1: Is this the kind of detailed voters should be hearing
Speaker 1: ten days before they go to the polls?
Speaker 5: Well, I think certainly Peter Dutton should have released his
Speaker 5: defense policy weeks if not months ago. Frankly, I mean
Speaker 5: it's a defense policy that really marks the coalition has
Speaker 5: been more serious about national security than the Abenese government,
Speaker 5: so you think that would be a selling point, especially
Speaker 5: the time when we've had Chinese navorships encircling Australia, We've
Speaker 5: had questions about Rassia seeking access to Indonesian bases for warplanes.
Speaker 5: We've had a lot of stuff happening in the national
Speaker 5: security space, and I would have thought that this would
Speaker 5: really help Dart until have put the policy out far earlier.
Speaker 5: Surprised that A it's been put out so late, but
Speaker 5: b as you mentioned, he was very vague about the
Speaker 5: costings on it, saying that non recurrent spending could be
Speaker 5: used towards funding that increase in defense spending. But the
Speaker 5: fact is that's not going to be nelly enough by itself,
Speaker 5: because you certainly don't get to three percent of GDP
Speaker 5: for defense without cutting other portfolios at some point. Now,
Speaker 5: Peter Dutton, obviously political reasons, does not want to go
Speaker 5: down that path. He doesn't want to be criticized for
Speaker 5: cutting other programs just ahead of an election. But what
Speaker 5: it meant in the end was it all sounded fairly vague.
Speaker 5: It almost sounded aspirational from the Coalition rather than something
Speaker 5: that has been thought out carefully with dollars and cents.
Speaker 5: And that is the political weakness for Dunden of the
Speaker 5: way that he's put this program together and the way
Speaker 5: he's sold it.
Speaker 1: The campaign so far has been fought on cost of
Speaker 1: living relief. Will this talk of defense capability and percentages
Speaker 1: of GDP cut through for voters on May three camp?
Speaker 5: Traditionally, the defense and foreign affairs and national security don't
Speaker 5: tip the scales in an election unless a major conflict
Speaker 5: is actually been fought, and I don't think it will
Speaker 5: tip the scales in this situation, and not least because
Speaker 5: the Coalition has put out the policy so late as well,
Speaker 5: so it's not going to reverberate very much. Look, I
Speaker 5: think in the end cost of living pressures will be
Speaker 5: more influential with voters. But look, there will be at
Speaker 5: the margins some benefit, I think to the coalition, because
Speaker 5: I think there is a cohortive voters out there who
Speaker 5: are uncomfortable with global events and the way that they've
Speaker 5: turned around in recent times, and who are uncomfortable with
Speaker 5: the clear lack of preparedness of the Australian Defense Force
Speaker 5: and the fact that also a lot of light minded
Speaker 5: countries around the world are actually increasing their defense spending
Speaker 5: far faster than the Labor government has promised it will increase.
Speaker 5: A whole bunch of countries in Europe are really lifting
Speaker 5: their defense spending now. So Australia looks like a lagged
Speaker 5: at the moment, and given global events, I think that's
Speaker 5: a bad look.
Speaker 1: Coming up. Why the aspiring Defense Minister was on the defensive.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday. On Friday, Anzac Day, Australians will gather to
Speaker 1: commemorate the lives lost during the First World War and
Speaker 1: pay their respects to servicemen and women who've served in
Speaker 1: other conflicts and peacekeeping missions. At the Defending Australia conference
Speaker 1: in Adelaide last month, Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hasty, himself
Speaker 1: a former troop commander, invoked this spirit to explain how
Speaker 1: the ADFS recruitment crisis might be solved.
Speaker 6: We are having a recruiting crisis and we're slipping behind
Speaker 6: each year that goes by. I think we need to
Speaker 6: challenge this generation of Australians to service fairy old school
Speaker 6: values of serving your country, defending your country, being part
Speaker 6: of this great Anzac tradition which has been handed down
Speaker 6: to it. So I think that's really important.
Speaker 1: But in twenty eighteen, Andrew Hasty was singing a different song.
Speaker 6: And my personal view is that the fighting DNA of
Speaker 6: a close combat unit is best preserved when it's exclusively male.
Speaker 6: Now that's not a popular view, but you ask my
Speaker 6: personal view there it is.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, at the highly anticipated launch of the Liberal
Speaker 1: Party's Defense policy, those comments came back to haunt the
Speaker 1: aspiring Defense minister. Do you think women should serve in
Speaker 1: combat roles in the ADF? Are you saying that women
Speaker 1: have lower stands? Is that what you're saying is that right,
Speaker 1: that women aren't strong enough to deal with that sort
Speaker 1: of combat you described. Hasty has walked those comments back
Speaker 1: somewhat to align with the Liberal Party's official position, but
Speaker 1: he won't say if his personal views have changed.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the coalition policy is that all combat roles are
Speaker 6: open to women. It's been a long standing position. The
Speaker 6: one thing that we will insist on his high standards
Speaker 6: because in combat, there's no points for second place, so
Speaker 6: we need to be able to win every fight that
Speaker 6: we go into. That's why we'll uphold high standards.
Speaker 1: Thank you, cam Andrew. Hasty has been noticeably absent from
Speaker 1: the Coalition's election campaign so far, with some people speculating
Speaker 1: that's because of these resurfaced comments about women in combat roles.
Speaker 1: This question about personal views took up a decent chunk
Speaker 1: of that long press conference, and he didn't exactly stick
Speaker 1: the landing. Is that damaging for the coalition ten days
Speaker 1: out from the election end at a time when Newspolt
Speaker 1: data shows women voters are abandoning the opposition?
Speaker 5: Look, it doesn't help. It was a fairly awkward press conference.
Speaker 5: I thought. I'm not sure Hasty handled it in the
Speaker 5: best possible way. He's been fairly straightforward about his changed
Speaker 5: views on that and The bottom line with this, of course,
Speaker 5: is that many women do serve in frontline combat roles already.
Speaker 5: They're fighter pilots, they fly Air force hercules in war zones,
Speaker 5: they press buttons that fire torpedoes on submarines and on warships.
Speaker 5: You know, he's talking about hand to hand combat in units,
Speaker 5: and that's always been a big debate within Defense Force itself.
Speaker 5: But look, Hasty has said, look, this is very clear
Speaker 5: in our women in frontline and combat roles is absolutely
Speaker 5: what we support. So yes, it's a bit awkward for
Speaker 5: him because he didn't say that seven years ago. But
Speaker 5: I don't think it's a deal breaker for a lot
Speaker 5: of people. I think he's clarified it to a reasonable extent.
Speaker 5: But it certainly was an awkward moment for him.
Speaker 1: Can beggars really be choosers when our Defense Force is
Speaker 1: in the grips of a very real recruitment crisis.
Speaker 5: This goes back to money. Really. It's always been a
Speaker 5: cyclical problem in Australia because the moment you get a
Speaker 5: mining boom, for example, all of the technical experts within
Speaker 5: the ADF tend to run off to better paid mining jobs.
Speaker 5: They've got to actually throw a lot of money at recruitment,
Speaker 5: and that's simply something they're going to have to do
Speaker 5: because not only is there a retention crisis right now,
Speaker 5: but this is going to get way worse because they
Speaker 5: need to recruit many thousands more to actually complete the
Speaker 5: August nuclear submarine project of actually building nuclear submarines eventually
Speaker 5: in Australia. I mean that is a massive national enterprise.
Speaker 5: It will require tons more people to join the force
Speaker 5: and their miles of that at the moment. So unless
Speaker 5: they throw a lot of money and a lot of
Speaker 5: effort at everyone, men, women, anyone, especially technically skilled workers,
Speaker 5: we are going to be in real trouble.
Speaker 1: Cameron Stewart is The Australian's chief international correspondent. You can
Speaker 1: read all our experts, reporting and analysis on defense anytime
Speaker 1: at the Australian dot com dot au