Defence Strategic Review (Australia)

Defence Strategic Review (Australia)
Name	Defence Strategic Review
Caption	Cover of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review
Country	Australia
Commissioner	Secretary of Defence
Minister	Minister for Defence
Date	2023
Outcome	Strategic reorientation and capability recommendations

Defence Strategic Review (Australia)

The Defence Strategic Review was a comprehensive assessment commissioned in 2023 to evaluate Australia’s defence posture, force structure, and capability acquisition priorities in response to changing security dynamics in the Indo‑Pacific. The review engaged a wide range of actors including the Department of Defence, the Australian Defence Force, allied partners, and academic institutions to align strategic guidance with emerging threats and technological trends.

Background and Rationale

The review was initiated amid shifts in regional stability involving the People's Republic of China, the United States, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, and tensions in the South China Sea, prompting comparisons with historical analyses such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Domestic considerations included references to prior inquiries like the 2009 Defence White Paper and the 2016 Defence White Paper, and to institutions such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Grattan Institute, and the Lowy Institute. Political context invoked leaders including Anthony Albanese, Scott Morrison, and ministers from earlier governments, while strategic thinkers like Hugh White, Paul Dibb, and Michael Wesley influenced debate. Security incidents such as the Jakarta–Australian security relationship strains and concerns about Maritime security in the Strait of Malacca framed urgency.

Review Process and Methodology

The methodology combined classified threat assessments from the Office of National Intelligence, force design modelling from the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, and wargaming conducted with the United States Indo-Pacific Command and partners including Japan Self-Defense Forces and the Republic of Korea Armed Forces. Inputs included submissions from defense contractors like BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon Technologies and commentary from academics at Australian National University, University of Sydney, and Monash University. Analytical frameworks referenced works from RAND Corporation, modelling approaches used by Office of Net Assessment, and scenarios reflecting crises similar to the Taiwan Strait Crisis and the East Timor intervention. Independent reviewers included former officials from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and judges from commissions such as the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal.

Key Findings and Strategic Assessments

The review assessed risks associated with capabilities fielded by actors like the People's Liberation Army Navy, the Russian Armed Forces, and non‑state maritime actors in the Indian Ocean. It identified shortfalls in areas including air and maritime surveillance, long‑range strike, and integrated air and missile defence, drawing comparisons with capability trajectories of the United States Navy and Royal Australian Air Force. The strategic assessment highlighted the importance of alliances (for example ANZUS Treaty partnerships), resilient defense industrial bases including firms such as Thales Australia and ASC Pty Ltd, and investments in emerging domains exemplified by institutions like the Defence Science and Technology Group and programs linked to cybersecurity assets used by the Australian Signals Directorate. It emphasized interoperability with forces from United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand and resilience against supply‑chain vulnerabilities evident in past procurements like the Collins-class submarine program.

Recommendations and Policy Changes

Recommendations included accelerated acquisition of platforms such as advanced variants of the F-35 Lightning II, additional Hobart-class destroyer‑equivalents, and investments in long‑range strike systems similar to concepts pursued by the United States Air Force. The review proposed increased funding for shipbuilding yards like the Osborne Naval Shipyard and support for sovereign industry initiatives comparable to the Australian nuclear power debate models. It recommended doctrinal shifts toward distributed lethality, enhanced joint command structures paralleling reforms in the United States Marine Corps, and expansion of intelligence exchange arrangements with partners such as Five Eyes members. Organizational reforms echoed practices from the Joint Chiefs of Staff model and called for legislative updates to existing frameworks like the Defence Act 1903.

Implementation and Defence Capability Impacts

Implementation plans set phased timelines that affected programs including submarine force regeneration, frigate production, and aerial refuelling projects previously involving Airbus Defence and Space and Boeing. Impacts included reallocation of budgets within the Defence Strategic Policy and Investment Committee process, adjustments to procurement agreements with suppliers like MBDA and Navantia, and workforce initiatives tied to vocational institutions such as TAFE and universities to expand STEM pipelines. Capability outcomes aimed to enhance surveillance across corridors like the Lombok Strait and to improve expeditionary logistics modeled on lessons from the International Force East Timor (INTERFET) deployment.

Political and Public Reception

The review generated debate across parliamentarians in the House of Representatives and the Senate, with commentary from opposition figures and defense critics including think tanks such as the Centre for Independent Studies and media outlets like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Australian Financial Review. Labor, Liberal, and National party stakeholders assessed electoral implications, while state leaders from New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia weighed industrial benefits. Public discourse referenced veterans’ groups linked to the Returned and Services League of Australia and unions in shipbuilding sectors.

Subsequent Reviews and Long‑term Legacy

Follow‑on studies involved academic audits at Griffith University, parliamentary inquiries by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and coordination with allies through forums like the Australia–United States Ministerial Consultations. Longer‑term legacy considerations compare the review’s influence to earlier strategic shifts after the Defence of Australia Policy era and to alliances shaped by the ANZUS Treaty, with implications for future reviews and reforms in capability planning, industrial policy, and regional engagement strategy.

Category:Australian defence policy