David Elson discusses the latest battle between Julia Gillard and the mining industry through a national security prism:
With the results of an upcoming Australian Defence Force posture review likely to recommend that more defence assets are held in the resource rich north of Australia, it’s important that the Australia Federal Government balances the laudable yet differing goals of national security and continued growth in the resource sector. There is potential for conflict between their need for but diverge use of infrastructure in the region i.e.; ports, rail, and airfields.
Clearly there is a need from a national security perceptive for defence assets to be relocated from the populous and relatively well defended Port of Sydney to the more sparsely populated and resource rich north; particularly with the advent of the Chinese Century and corresponding rise and rise of other Asian powers who benefit from and trade with the People’s Republic of China. Countries within the Asia pacific are using their newfound economic prosperity to fuel the growth of their military power projection capabilities. While no single country presents a clear danger to Australia’s nation security and most regional powers are large trade partners of Australia, it is understandably prudent for Australia to show that we are serious about defending our borders.
However it is important that the expansion of defence force operations into areas either unattended entirely by the ADF or attended only by a bare base force take into consideration other users of land, sea and airspace, in particular in terms of the use of existing state and privately owned commercial infrastructure. It is important that proposed ADF future use of rail lines or commercial ports not disrupt or supplant existing private uses. Some of the statements of the Australia Federal Government would seem to imply that they would be prepared to nationalise or legislate that ADF use of mining infrastructure take priority over other users.
There is a real risk here that the government might mismanage and fail to balance divergent interests in the region (merely look at the impact of their policies on live cattle trade). The irony here is that military assets are proposed to be relocated to protect the resource rich north, but that they will be leveraging of existing infrastructure rather than investing in military specific infrastructure. In effect the ADF “posture change” has the potential to hamper and disrupt the growth of resource sector they are obstinately moving to protect.
Continued economic growth through a free and unfettered market is essential to ensuring Australia’s prosperity and like our Asian neighbours is the key to funding any future improvements in our ADF’s force projection capabilities. Decisions likely to have a negative impact on this core objective should be avoided. Else we learn the lesson currently being experienced by USA, where a large military and large military spending is starting to be cut back due to a decline in economic growth.
David Elson is a senior public servant who has long taken an interest in the economic impact of Federal policies particularly those pertaining to environmental or social issues and in the cultures of Australia's Asian neighbours. He lives in Brisbane, Queensland with his Taiwanese wife and is an avid squash player.
Recent Comments