Progress Report Foreshadows Enhanced Defence Infrastructure

Wednesday, 08 February 2012

Background

In late January 2012, former defence secretaries Allan Hawke and Ric Smith released a progress report on the Force Posture Review (FPR).  Media commentary has suggested that it is a pessimistic appraisal of current defence positioning. On the contrary, the brief findings published so far suggest that an enhancement, rather than a large-scale realignment is necessary. Bounded by diplomatic and economic considerations, the FPR will likely mean an increase in existing defence infrastructure, and an increased presence in Northern Australia through visits and training.

Comment

The FPR will consider broad concepts of “force posture”, going beyond simply where defence assets are based, to include visits, training and exercises, and other engagement activities. Drawing on commentary from a range of stakeholders, the report suggests scope for an enhanced posture in Northern Australia. Long-term developments, such as strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific, a key element identified in submissions, may create the need for an increased presence of defence assets to deter potential security challenges.

The changing requirements of the services are also considered in the report. Mr Hawke and Mr Smith foreshadow challenges to the Navy in ‘accommodating the practical and conceptual changes’ required for the future force. In reality, this likely refers to projected expansion of areas of operation and length of operations in the northern littoral. Accompanying this, intensity of operations may grow with the expansion of regional naval capability and non-conventional security challenges. Over the coming decades, the Air Force will acquire a range of new platforms, including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Infrastructure upgrades will be required to operate these new air assets, and project the deterrence and dissuasion credibility of the JSF. Mr Hawke and Mr Smith suggest that the current Army posture is adequate; although they indicate that the final report will have conclusions that will have implications for the Army’s presence in Northern Australia. The recommendations will likely see increased visits to the region, training exercises and, perhaps, increases in the size of regional regiments, such as the Pilbara regiment.

Importantly, the progress report did not suggest that the FPR will result in a large-scale realignment of the ADF. A key theme of its observations was the weakness and vulnerability created by lack of capacity at bases, training sites and facilities. Over the last decade, ADF commitments overseas have led to a decline in activities in Northern Australia, particularly when compared to the 1980s “Defence of Australia” era. Within this context, the economic profile of Northern Australia, particularly the North-West and offshore regions, has risen, bringing with it an increased sense of vulnerability to existing, as well as emerging threats.

Information on policy recommendations and implications for ADF positioning remain sparse. Contrary to media reports, a permanent ADF presence in remote regions of Northern Australia is an unlikely outcome, due to cost and retention issues. A more likely scenario would be an increased presence through port visits, and potentially using a regional port as a strategic lift, logistics and forward operations centre. Congestion barriers are likely to prevent this becoming a reality in Western Australia. Port Hedland and Karratha in the Pilbara region are among the busiest ports in the world by tonnage; similarly, ports in the Kimberley region are projected to experience similar growth as projects advance. 

Some reports also suggest an increased role for Brisbane in naval considerations. This was an expected outcome, given the State’s army presence, a key consideration with the acquisition of the Helicopter Landing Ship. Increases to the Navy’s submarine fleet may see vessels based in Brisbane, in addition to their home base in Fleet Base West. 

Surprisingly, the progress report made little mention of Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories. In late 2011, Defence Minister Stephen Smith suggested the FPR would consider the role of the Cocos and Christmas Islands. The report, however, only features a brief mention of the Cocos Islands, in relation to potential co-operation with the United States. Given the strategic value of the islands, the lack of consideration represents something of a missed opportunity.

Mr Hawke and Mr Smith’s final report will be handed down in March.

Liam McHugh

Manager

Northern Australia & Energy Security Research Programmes

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

*****