WEBVTT - Is the Coalition’s defence cash splash too late to the party? 0:00:03.680 --> 0:00:07.080 From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm christinaming it. 0:00:07.080 --> 0:00:12.840 It's Thursday, April twenty four, twenty twenty five. The social 0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:16.000 media feeds of young Australian men are brimming with posts 0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:20.440 by masculinity influencers and its wreaking havoc on their opinions 0:00:20.480 --> 0:00:24.160 of women. A new study shows the content also negatively 0:00:24.200 --> 0:00:34.080 influences young men's health choices on substances like steroids. The 0:00:34.159 --> 0:00:37.760 Climate two hundred political funding group has pumped another fifty 0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:41.680 thousand dollars into the campaign of teal Zoe Daniel, a 0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:44.760 move suggesting the election race in the Victorian seat of 0:00:44.840 --> 0:00:48.519 Goldstein is tightening. You can read all the latest from 0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:51.160 the campaign trail right now at the Australian dot com 0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:58.080 dot au. Peter Dutton has unveiled the coalition's defense policy 0:00:58.120 --> 0:01:01.040 with just over a week to go in the election campaign. 0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:05.320 The opposition leader has promised to spend twenty billion dollars 0:01:05.360 --> 0:01:09.440 on new defense capabilities, but he's been vague on the details. 0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:14.160 So will a national security cash splash help his prospects 0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:23.160 at the polling booth. That's today's episode in march Elbridge, 0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:26.560 Colby Sat down for a very public job interview. 0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:29.680 The hearing will come to order. Thank you all for 0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:31.360 being here this morning. The committee meet. 0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:34.040 Colby was Donald Trump's pick for a top job at 0:01:34.040 --> 0:01:37.920 the US Department of Defense, and for hours he was 0:01:38.040 --> 0:01:41.600 quizzed by members of a United States Senate committee about 0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:45.000 his views on a range of issues from foreign policy 0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:46.240 to defense spending. 0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:51.720 If confirmed, mister Colby would oversee the developments of policy 0:01:51.760 --> 0:01:54.120 and strategy for the Department of Defense. He would assume 0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:58.320 these responsibilities during the most dangerous security environment since World 0:01:58.360 --> 0:01:58.960 War Two. 0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:03.840 Elbridge Colby got the job, and his laser focus on 0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:09.560 Beijing means Australia's defense strategy hasn't escaped his scrutiny. He 0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:12.640 wants Australia to ratchet up defense spending in a big 0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:16.880 way to three percent of GDP, given the inherent threat 0:02:16.919 --> 0:02:19.040 posed by our proximity to China. 0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.959 You know, the idea of empowering our Australian in some sense, 0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:27.400 perhaps our closest ally in the world. They've been with us, 0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:29.760 even in our less advisable wars. As the way I 0:02:29.800 --> 0:02:32.400 put it, it's a great idea for them to have 0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:32.880 a taxa. 0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:35.840 The labor government has so far resisted pressure from the 0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:40.440 United States to boost defense spending, but on Wednesday the 0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:43.360 Coalition went some of the way to answering the call. 0:02:44.080 --> 0:02:47.560 Australia has an important role to play on the global 0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:50.760 stage and in our own region, and today we make 0:02:50.880 --> 0:02:54.000 a very significant announcement of over twenty billion dollars to 0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:56.959 defense over the course of the next five years, which 0:02:57.000 --> 0:03:01.200 will bring spending up to two point five percent of GDP. 0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:09.080 CAM Opposition leader Peter Dunton unveiled the coalition's long away 0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:12.960 to defense policy in Western Australia on Wednesday. So what 0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:16.000 does twenty billion dollars bias well Christen. 0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:22.079 It helps bias nuclear submarines, It helps buy Australia long 0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:24.960 range missiles that can be fired from the shore here. 0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:28.240 It helps pay for a lot more people to join 0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:31.560 the forces because they're not meeting their retention targets. So 0:03:31.840 --> 0:03:34.320 really there's a whole scope of things that this money 0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.400 could be put towards where it's very much needed. So 0:03:37.720 --> 0:03:40.440 this is a long term pledged by the Coalition to 0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.920 lift defense spending from two percent of GDP to two 0:03:42.960 --> 0:03:45.480 point five and five years and the big one to 0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:48.480 lift it to three percent of GDP in ten years now, 0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:51.840 that is a quality of difference. That's a lot more money. 0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:55.600 Cameron Stewart is the Australian's chief international correspondent. 0:03:56.360 --> 0:03:58.040 But you're going to need this sort of money to 0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:01.920 pay for this equipment because you're nuclear submarines for example, 0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:04.760 are going to cost an eye watering amount of money. 0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:08.360 And so without actually having an increase in defense spending 0:04:08.400 --> 0:04:11.520 a substantial one, the ADF would actually go backwards in 0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:14.160 its capability rather than forward. So this is really, I 0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:20.440 think something that is fairly essential in the longer term. 0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:23.479 Of course, Cam this benchmark of three percent of GDP 0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:26.960 is advocated by NATO and endorsed by the United States, 0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:29.960 but neither of the major parties have plans to fund 0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:33.520 defense at that level in the near or medium term. 0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:35.640 Is it actually necessary? 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:39.640 It's a debate which has changed a lot in recent 0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:43.840 years because of China's hegemonic activity in the South China Sea. 0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:47.360 It's sort of buying off of Pacific island nations and 0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:50.680 its general aggression in the region. Frankly, and then of 0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:53.240 course you put on top of that the Ukraine War 0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:58.200 and the increasing alliance between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. 0:04:58.279 --> 0:05:00.479 And on top of all of that, you've got a 0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:05.480 very uncertain US administration now with Donald Trump, where alliances 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.520 have become much more transactional. And so you put it 0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:11.640 all together and there's a real argument now in a way, 0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:14.520 I think there wasn't five years ago to lift this 0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:18.160 fence spending to a very high level, like three percent 0:05:18.240 --> 0:05:21.479 of GDP. But I think really there has to be 0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:25.440 a qualitative change in the debate about defense spending now 0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:28.120 simply because of global events. And that is a view 0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:31.920 shared by an enormous amount of very respective experts, from 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:36.920 Kim Beasley to Dennis Richardson to Peter Dean. Almost every 0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:40.520 senior defense analyst thinks this is necessary. And you know 0:05:40.560 --> 0:05:42.440 they're not making this stuff up, and there really are 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.720 genuine threats out there. But as you say, this requires 0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:50.760 sacrifice on the part of governments to make choices that 0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:52.120 will hurt other portfolios. 0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:56.400 Yeah, Peter Dutton was quite vague on what defense capability is. 0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:58.279 This twenty billion dollars will buy. 0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:01.440 I don't think there's a government in our history that's 0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:05.360 been elected outlining what contracts they'll sign in relation to defense. 0:06:05.440 --> 0:06:07.960 The decisions about who we purchase from is not something 0:06:07.960 --> 0:06:09.320 that we've made from our position. 0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:13.080 And he hasn't provided any clarity on where that money 0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:16.040 will come from. That's attracted criticism from the Prime Minister, 0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:20.000 who says Labor has been transparent about defense and other costs. 0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:24.000 Is this the kind of detailed voters should be hearing 0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:25.839 ten days before they go to the polls? 0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.480 Well, I think certainly Peter Dutton should have released his 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:31.720 defense policy weeks if not months ago. Frankly, I mean 0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:35.680 it's a defense policy that really marks the coalition has 0:06:35.720 --> 0:06:39.080 been more serious about national security than the Abenese government, 0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:42.599 so you think that would be a selling point, especially 0:06:42.640 --> 0:06:46.240 the time when we've had Chinese navorships encircling Australia, We've 0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:51.720 had questions about Rassia seeking access to Indonesian bases for warplanes. 0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:54.120 We've had a lot of stuff happening in the national 0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:56.719 security space, and I would have thought that this would 0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:59.560 really help Dart until have put the policy out far earlier. 0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:03.000 Surprised that A it's been put out so late, but 0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:05.960 b as you mentioned, he was very vague about the 0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:09.400 costings on it, saying that non recurrent spending could be 0:07:09.520 --> 0:07:12.920 used towards funding that increase in defense spending. But the 0:07:12.960 --> 0:07:15.600 fact is that's not going to be nelly enough by itself, 0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:18.440 because you certainly don't get to three percent of GDP 0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:22.640 for defense without cutting other portfolios at some point. Now, 0:07:22.640 --> 0:07:25.520 Peter Dutton, obviously political reasons, does not want to go 0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:27.800 down that path. He doesn't want to be criticized for 0:07:27.880 --> 0:07:30.760 cutting other programs just ahead of an election. But what 0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:33.960 it meant in the end was it all sounded fairly vague. 0:07:34.040 --> 0:07:38.280 It almost sounded aspirational from the Coalition rather than something 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:41.080 that has been thought out carefully with dollars and cents. 0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:43.640 And that is the political weakness for Dunden of the 0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.040 way that he's put this program together and the way 0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:46.680 he's sold it. 0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:51.640 The campaign so far has been fought on cost of 0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:55.880 living relief. Will this talk of defense capability and percentages 0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:59.000 of GDP cut through for voters on May three camp? 0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:03.600 Traditionally, the defense and foreign affairs and national security don't 0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:06.760 tip the scales in an election unless a major conflict 0:08:06.840 --> 0:08:09.760 is actually been fought, and I don't think it will 0:08:09.760 --> 0:08:12.200 tip the scales in this situation, and not least because 0:08:12.240 --> 0:08:14.520 the Coalition has put out the policy so late as well, 0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:17.000 so it's not going to reverberate very much. Look, I 0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:19.920 think in the end cost of living pressures will be 0:08:19.960 --> 0:08:22.680 more influential with voters. But look, there will be at 0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:25.120 the margins some benefit, I think to the coalition, because 0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:27.640 I think there is a cohortive voters out there who 0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:30.320 are uncomfortable with global events and the way that they've 0:08:30.320 --> 0:08:33.560 turned around in recent times, and who are uncomfortable with 0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:37.439 the clear lack of preparedness of the Australian Defense Force 0:08:37.679 --> 0:08:39.640 and the fact that also a lot of light minded 0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:43.120 countries around the world are actually increasing their defense spending 0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:46.720 far faster than the Labor government has promised it will increase. 0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:49.520 A whole bunch of countries in Europe are really lifting 0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:52.520 their defense spending now. So Australia looks like a lagged 0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:55.280 at the moment, and given global events, I think that's 0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:56.199 a bad look. 0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:03.439 Coming up. Why the aspiring Defense Minister was on the defensive. 0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:22.040 On Wednesday. On Friday, Anzac Day, Australians will gather to 0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.440 commemorate the lives lost during the First World War and 0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:28.679 pay their respects to servicemen and women who've served in 0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:33.720 other conflicts and peacekeeping missions. At the Defending Australia conference 0:09:33.760 --> 0:09:38.120 in Adelaide last month, Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hasty, himself 0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:41.920 a former troop commander, invoked this spirit to explain how 0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:45.280 the ADFS recruitment crisis might be solved. 0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:49.000 We are having a recruiting crisis and we're slipping behind 0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:51.760 each year that goes by. I think we need to 0:09:52.360 --> 0:09:57.959 challenge this generation of Australians to service fairy old school 0:09:58.000 --> 0:10:01.800 values of serving your country, defending your country, being part 0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:04.520 of this great Anzac tradition which has been handed down 0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:05.880 to it. So I think that's really important. 0:10:06.800 --> 0:10:11.280 But in twenty eighteen, Andrew Hasty was singing a different song. 0:10:11.880 --> 0:10:15.400 And my personal view is that the fighting DNA of 0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:20.200 a close combat unit is best preserved when it's exclusively male. 0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:22.600 Now that's not a popular view, but you ask my 0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:23.719 personal view there it is. 0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:27.800 On Wednesday, at the highly anticipated launch of the Liberal 0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:31.280 Party's Defense policy, those comments came back to haunt the 0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:34.679 aspiring Defense minister. Do you think women should serve in 0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:37.120 combat roles in the ADF? Are you saying that women 0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:40.199 have lower stands? Is that what you're saying is that right, 0:10:40.200 --> 0:10:42.120 that women aren't strong enough to deal with that sort 0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:45.920 of combat you described. Hasty has walked those comments back 0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:50.080 somewhat to align with the Liberal Party's official position, but 0:10:50.200 --> 0:10:53.120 he won't say if his personal views have changed. 0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:56.840 Yeah, the coalition policy is that all combat roles are 0:10:56.880 --> 0:10:59.480 open to women. It's been a long standing position. The 0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:01.600 one thing that we will insist on his high standards 0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:04.800 because in combat, there's no points for second place, so 0:11:04.840 --> 0:11:06.240 we need to be able to win every fight that 0:11:06.280 --> 0:11:09.080 we go into. That's why we'll uphold high standards. 0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:13.719 Thank you, cam Andrew. Hasty has been noticeably absent from 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:18.000 the Coalition's election campaign so far, with some people speculating 0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.440 that's because of these resurfaced comments about women in combat roles. 0:11:22.080 --> 0:11:25.080 This question about personal views took up a decent chunk 0:11:25.120 --> 0:11:28.319 of that long press conference, and he didn't exactly stick 0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:32.040 the landing. Is that damaging for the coalition ten days 0:11:32.040 --> 0:11:34.720 out from the election end at a time when Newspolt 0:11:34.840 --> 0:11:37.720 data shows women voters are abandoning the opposition? 0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:40.800 Look, it doesn't help. It was a fairly awkward press conference. 0:11:40.920 --> 0:11:43.320 I thought. I'm not sure Hasty handled it in the 0:11:43.360 --> 0:11:47.440 best possible way. He's been fairly straightforward about his changed 0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:50.520 views on that and The bottom line with this, of course, 0:11:50.600 --> 0:11:55.079 is that many women do serve in frontline combat roles already. 0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:59.120 They're fighter pilots, they fly Air force hercules in war zones, 0:11:59.160 --> 0:12:04.199 they press buttons that fire torpedoes on submarines and on warships. 0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:07.160 You know, he's talking about hand to hand combat in units, 0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:11.120 and that's always been a big debate within Defense Force itself. 0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:14.760 But look, Hasty has said, look, this is very clear 0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:17.880 in our women in frontline and combat roles is absolutely 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:20.400 what we support. So yes, it's a bit awkward for 0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:23.160 him because he didn't say that seven years ago. But 0:12:23.320 --> 0:12:25.400 I don't think it's a deal breaker for a lot 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:28.280 of people. I think he's clarified it to a reasonable extent. 0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:30.200 But it certainly was an awkward moment for him. 0:12:30.880 --> 0:12:33.480 Can beggars really be choosers when our Defense Force is 0:12:33.480 --> 0:12:36.240 in the grips of a very real recruitment crisis. 0:12:36.960 --> 0:12:39.640 This goes back to money. Really. It's always been a 0:12:39.640 --> 0:12:42.200 cyclical problem in Australia because the moment you get a 0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:45.320 mining boom, for example, all of the technical experts within 0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:48.160 the ADF tend to run off to better paid mining jobs. 0:12:49.000 --> 0:12:52.319 They've got to actually throw a lot of money at recruitment, 0:12:52.679 --> 0:12:54.480 and that's simply something they're going to have to do 0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:57.720 because not only is there a retention crisis right now, 0:12:57.800 --> 0:13:00.440 but this is going to get way worse because they 0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:04.880 need to recruit many thousands more to actually complete the 0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:10.599 August nuclear submarine project of actually building nuclear submarines eventually 0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:13.640 in Australia. I mean that is a massive national enterprise. 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:17.120 It will require tons more people to join the force 0:13:17.200 --> 0:13:19.160 and their miles of that at the moment. So unless 0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:21.360 they throw a lot of money and a lot of 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:27.120 effort at everyone, men, women, anyone, especially technically skilled workers, 0:13:27.240 --> 0:13:28.560 we are going to be in real trouble. 0:13:39.200 --> 0:13:43.320 Cameron Stewart is The Australian's chief international correspondent. You can 0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:46.720 read all our experts, reporting and analysis on defense anytime 0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:48.679 at the Australian dot com dot au