The LDP National Executive has approved for public comment a draft policy on defence. It is intended to provide Australia with robust defence within the context of an emphasis on liberty and limited expenditure. We think it’s pretty good but perhaps can still be improved. With that in mind, members and supporters are invited to offer comment.
LDP Defence Policy
National defence is a legitimate role of the Commonwealth government. However, unnecessary expenditure on defence contributes to excessive taxation.
History also shows that standing armies can be a threat to liberty. This is the reason for the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Third Amendment to the US Constitution. Freedom is best served by limiting the size of the permanent military while being able to quickly expand it if required.
In addition, imposing limits on the ability of the government to engage in war can reduce the risk of military conflict for political benefit.
The security of Australia and its citizens is heavily dependent on goodwill with other countries. This can be promoted by active engagement, particularly through trade. Indeed, the prosperity and mutual interdependence that occurs through free trade is a key contributor to peace.
Australia can never be entirely self-reliant in defence terms, lacking the technological resources, manpower and financial capacity to protect itself against attack by a major power. However, it can deter aggression through mutual defence alliances with countries that share its values, and by maintaining the ability to offer significant resistance and strike back.
The LDP recognises four types of threats to national security around which its national defence policy is based:
- Regional small-scale conflicts or failed states that pose a moderate threat to Australia or its allies or have major humanitarian consequences;
- Aggression by a medium or major power seeking to coerce the Australian government into modifying its policy on a specific issue – disputes over oil or fishing rights are possible examples;
- Invasion by a major power seeking to secure a permanent foothold in Australia; and
- Currently most significant, international terrorism by non-government forces.
LDP Policy
Use of The Military
1. The LDP does not believe Australia should involve itself militarily in another country unless authorised by the government of that country or by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.
2. The LDP recognises that international terrorist movements may have to be fought internationally, but believes the ADF should not be involved in the suppression of terrorist actions in other countries unless such actions are a direct threat to the security of Australia. Such involvement should be subject to authorization by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.
3. Australia may commit the ADF to UN operations including peacekeeping, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.
4. In rare cases Australia may commit the ADF to the relief of oppression, subject to authorisation by a prior vote comprising at least two-thirds majorities in both houses of federal parliament.
5. Domestically the LDP does not consider the enforcement of immigration laws or fishing zones, or intervention in aboriginal townships in the Northern Territory, to be appropriate tasks for the ADF except coincidentally to its principal activities.
6. Terrorist acts should be classified as crimes and, when occurring on Australian territory, would not involve the ADF unless they involve foreign state sponsorship or the magnitude of the threat exceeds the capability of civil security forces. Such involvement shall be authorised by cabinet and confirmed by a parliamentary resolution at the first available opportunity.
7. The LDP accepts that the ADF should be available to help to supply emergency aid in the event of natural or man-made disasters, within Australia or overseas, if required. However, authorisation should be by cabinet confirmed by a parliamentary resolution at the first available opportunity.
8. The recent trend to use military forces as security aids to civil authorities (now the primary role envisioned for the Army Reserve) is a dangerous trend evoking the spectre of authoritarianism and is opposed by the LDP.
9. The LDP opposes any use of the ADF in domestic political disputes including industrial action.
Promoting Peace
10. The LDP would seek to lessen the risk of conflict by promoting free trade (including unilateral removal of trade barriers) and diplomatic engagement. The LDP supports professional diplomatic engagement together with trade representation (funded on a user-pays basis) to foster bilateral trade.
11. The LDP supports the current alliance with the United States and recognises that it is integral to deterring major power aggression. However, it also recognises that the US has alliances with many countries and its assistance in the event of conflict cannot always be assured.
Military Service
12. The LDP is unequivocally opposed to compulsory military service including programs that prevent volunteers leaving the services when their term of enlistment has expired. The LDP believes that if the citizens of a state choose not to volunteer to defend it, the state does not deserve to be defended.
13. The LDP supports the establishment of military cadet units and similar arrangements in schools as a means of stimulating and normalising interest in voluntary military service, as long as no school is permitted to make such service either directly or indirectly compulsory.
Military Capability
14. The LDP believes Australia can achieve a far greater degree of defence preparedness than at present, at a significantly reduced cost to taxpayers.
15. The LDP supports a military based on a core of full-time professionals complemented by an extensive voluntary reserve, with men and women viewing part time military service as beneficial to both themselves and the country.
16. Consistent with similar provisions of the 2009 White Paper, the LDP would concentrate resources into key areas in support of a maritime defence strategy.
17. The LDP believes the focus of our full-time military should be on the three strategic capabilities able to achieve long distance force projection. These comprise a strategic bomber capability, an effective submarine fleet, and a rapid reaction, air-mobile expeditionary force including Special Forces.
18. Concurrently, the LDP believes that primary responsibility for the defence of Australia’s landmass should be transferred to a part-time force.
19. To achieve this the LDP supports proceeding with the F35 fighter purchase but would also replace the F-111 fleet with a squadron of B-1B strategic bombers, paid for in part by a reduction in our order of F-35s.
20. The LDP would also replace the current six boat Collins Class submarine fleet with a greater number of new submarines. Preferably this would be twelve small nuclear submarines (similar to the French Rubis design), but if these are not procurable or affordable then eighteen submarines with air independent conventional propulsion equipped with land attack cruise missiles.
This would be paid for in part by selling off most of the surface fleet (which, without a carrier, would be sunk at the beginning of any major war anyway) and retaining only a coastguard, including current Armidale Class patrol boats and three of the ANZAC Class frigates.
21. The LDP would move away from reliance on a professional standing army towards a reserve that cycles in and out of active service. Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded, retaining only Special Forces (SASR, 1 CDO, 2 CDO), Intelligence units, a reduced Training Command and essential staff needed for the part-time forces.
22. The part-time Citizens Military Force would be re-created as the principal pillar of our national land defence organization, based on the core of the current Active Army Reserve.
Service in the CMF would be promoted with major incentives including generous tax credits for days served and for employers who allow CMF members to take time off to train.
23. Service in the CMF would involve short periods of full time training rather than weekend involvement, with most units sufficiently well organised and trained to require only limited preparation for active service.
24. The CMF would be organized around communities with the aim of making voluntary CMF service to defend your local area a natural part of everyday community life. In this respect the Swiss model is very relevant.
26. A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers with Australian Officers along the lines of the French Foreign Legion would be created for use as an expeditionary army against international conventional and asymmetric military threats. (Proposed to comprise of three mechanized infantry battalions, one armoured regiment, one self-propelled artillery regiment and one aviation regiment of attack helicopters, tactical ground attack aircraft and transport helicopters, all with the latest equipment and fully air transportable with its own fleet of C-17 Globemaster transports and C-130s).
27. This Australian International Brigade would be fully self-funded by hiring its services to friendly countries and the UN for military duties in accord with Australian foreign policy.
28. The LDP does not support the necessity of a government supported domestic defence industry. Defence procurement should be based on buying the items best suited to the defence tasks required, from the most competitive suppliers in Australia or overseas. However the LDP does recognise the need for strategic stockpiling of war materiel to insure against hostilities disrupting foreign supplies.
29. The LDP supports the maintenance of a nuclear reactor, nuclear expertise and other capabilities needed to enable the development of an independent nuclear weapons capability within an appropriate time frame if warranted by regional security developments.
Discussion
Recent years have seen the role for the ADF envisioned by successive Liberal and Labor governments drastically change. As the surrogate conflicts of the Cold War and the threat of major conventional and nuclear conflict has receded, the void has been filled by an exponential increase in military operations other than conventional war (MOOCW Ops).
As a result, both at home and abroad, the traditional role of the ADF to prepare to fight the armies of hostile states has given way to preparing primarily for a paramilitary transnational policing role.
The LDP is concerned at the effects of this shift in the use of the ADF, which at best raises the prospect of endless increases in defence costs requiring higher and higher taxes and at worst raises the spectre of a police state.
The LDP’s Defence Policy has been framed in response to these concerns, and seeks to balance the need for a capable ADF with limited military expenditure by re-focussing our defence priorities back to military concerns and by re-aligning our defence assets towards achieving significant strategic capabilities.
In this way, alone amongst other Australian political parties, the LDP’s Defence Policy is a plan to allow the ADF to punch well above its weight at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer.
July 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
First let me preface the following comments by saying that I spent 19 years in the RAAF as a Navigator, flew on both the C-130 and P-3C and worked in the areas of capability and intelligence.
The force structure proposed under this policy appears to be very much focused towards the pointy end, which I assume is intended to provide more bang for the taxpayers buck. I see some issues with this structure.
– Firstly, the proposed force structure, while requiring less personnel than the current structure, would likely be no less expensive because of the technical sophistication.
– Secondly, the personnel required to operate these capabilities require considerable training and expertise. Under the current ADF force structure, these people normally develop their basic skills within the more generic areas of the three services before going on to serve in the more elite areas of the ADF such as the SASR or submarines. Proposing to do away with the lesser capabilities will create issues with recruitment and training such that any savings made through cutting capabilities may be lost to personnel wastage and greater training requirements.
– There appears to be no discussion on Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), which is a significant force multiplier capability. This is especially important when considering the proposed force structure, as these strike capabilities are relatively impotent without the necessary support structures to ensure they hit the right target at the right time.
July 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
Thanks Michael. You opinions, based on actual experience, is really appreciated. It would seem that each of your three points would come back to the fact that increased levels of military technology of necessity demands much higher levels of training. Perhaps the Universities would play a part in this higher level training. Maybe the manufactureres of such military equipment (firepower, delivery systems and surveillance) should share the cost of such a training program. Suggestions?
July 15, 2009 at 8:02 pm |
I agree this is definitely the way we should be looking. Points for consideration:
- limited use of Private Military Companies for appropriate tasks, perhaps as part of the Australian International Brigade.
- a cyber defence capability, perhaps predominantly reserve?
- I’m personally not for the foreign legion on the French model. Maybe Gurkhas? Seriously, the idea has been promoted in the past.
- I think the key points to promote the policy are cost savings (for same or greater security) and return to checks and balances against the martial state (removed under Howard government).
July 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm |
Peter,
I don’t want to go too far down into the weeds on a discussion on training, as I don’t think it is necessary for the policy, but the point of cost versus complexity is an important one if lowering the taxation burden is a main goal.
For information, there is already a strong trend for ADF training to be “contracted out” in order to lower costs, but there is a limit to how far that can go. This is because while manufacturers are experts on their own systems, they aren’t experts in operating them in a war-time environment.
All in all, I think that the policy is on the right track and if anything is too detailed. For example, instead of detailing types of units and weapon systems, a discussion of roles and capabilities would be sufficient.
July 16, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
Michael,
The reason the Executive decided to get into some detail is that we didn’t want our critics to accuse us of being “light on detail” or “all generalisations”. These things start out as a general position statement, centering on the broad principles of the LDP. Then they get expanded using expert input from real military advisors, including yourself. We all agree there is massive waste in the current military administration; my brother-in-law was a Major with ADF in Canberra and he had plenty of stories like the $1,000.00 screwdriver. The sooner we start saving taxpayer’s money the better.
July 17, 2009 at 1:00 am |
I don’t think the policy addresses the $1000 screwdriver. You could do all the things in the policy and still have wasteful spending. If you want to reduce wasteful spending (as opposed to changing strategic direction) then you would be better off with a procurement policy of some sort.
Neither Australian nor the USA existed in 1689. So it might be worth pointing out that the Bill of Rights being references relates to the English parliament.
~
I don’t know enough about defence to say whether this policy is good or bad. It would be nice to know which third parties in the way of military experts share our position.
I agree with Mick Sutcliffe that reducing the risk of a martial state should be a core consideration.
I agree with the opposition to conscription.
Arguably we could go further and say that if citizens won’t voluntarily fund a state it shouldn’t be funded. After all asking people to die for their country is a much bigger ask than asking them to put some dollars in the kitty.
July 18, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
[...] Government parties that run this country. But with their pro-interventionist and pro-UN Taiwan and defence policies, they have now gone over to the conservative side of politics. So much for a libertarian [...]
July 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
This policy says that Australia won’t invade another country unless 2/3rds of the parliament agrees. I think that gives too much power to the government.
How about, Australia will never initiate a conflict with another country and will only fight to defend ourselves.
July 28, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
Your phrasing is too open to abuse. Didn’t we invade Iraq ostensibly to defend ourselves? Aren’t we in our defence treaties which we act on some adventerous campaigns to honour our agreements as a quid pro quo?
If you were against Iraq and adventurism, you’d run away from such a rule.
A 2/3 majority on the other hand is clear cut.
If you bring up the Tonkin Gulf resolution as an example of “abuse”, all this really means was the Vietnam War was a real war declared but called another name.
July 28, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
Your point was anticipated, John.
The decision was made to adopt a libertarian defence policy rather than a pacifist one.
Thus is would be quite inappropriate to completely rule out the possibility of initiating conflict with another country.
Let’s assume, for example, that Fiji decided to enslave and progressively execute its ethnic Indian population after yet another coup. It would clearly be quite contrary to libertarian values to sit by and watch if there was an opportunity to intervene. Ideally you would like any intervention to be privately undertaken, but that’s not going to happen in reality.
Authorisation by two-thirds of parliament is not giving power to the government, as it would require Opposition support as well.
August 12, 2009 at 9:53 am |
The unfortunate danger with that thinking is that your policy may well lead to the same adventurism we see today.
Today we declare war and invade foreign countries on a range of pretexts, such as democracy, human rights, and largely ficticious threats to our national security. Changing the pretext by which we declare war to the international enforcement of libertarian philosophy is equally dangerous. Those who wish to push us to war will always find a means, pretexts abound.
Take Iraq as an example. The original pretext given by our leaders was that the regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, and we had a responsibility under a UN resolution to remove these weapons. Slowly, this morphed into a range of other issues. Clearly, at least to my mind, these pretexts for war had little to do with our involvement in the conflict: we first committed ourselves to war, and then sought ways to justify it. This strategy would have been equally possible using libertarian pretexts, after all, Iraq was hardly a libertarian paradise.
Liberty is personal, not collective. Ideally, we choose to develop systems to protect our liberty, both from other individuals within our society, and from foreign aggression. We call this system government. Government is national, not transnational. Despite even the best intentions, I cannot see how a state grounded in libertarian philosophy can hope to inflict liberty on a foreign nation.
July 29, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
2/3rds is a good position in my book. However it adds to the long list of policies that require constitutional amendment. Perhaps we should be the “constitutional reform party”.
July 29, 2009 at 6:53 pm |
P.S. Short of a constitutional amendment does this mean an LDP MP would vote against any war that lacked such super majority (effective bi-partisan) support? Not that the declaration of war requires a vote in parliament but just pondering.
August 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
Here’s your enemy for this week, the government says. And some gullible “libertarians” click their heels and salute – often without knowing who or even where the enemy of the week is.
August 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
The policy provides for two-thirds approval by parliament, not simply “the government”. It would be difficult to nominate an enemy a week in that situation.
There is nothing libertarian about pacifism.
August 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
“There is nothing libertarian about pacifism.”
Nor is there anything libertarian about military adventurism using taxpayers’ money against their will for spurious reasons and special-interest gain. Which, I humbly suggest, is the norm rather than the exception.
But despite that, overall this is a good policy, saying the right things and striking a good balance between realpolitik and pure libertarian ideology. I would make only one substantive change at the moment – the use of “or” in policy #1. It should be “and”. The consent of the two-thirds must be the primary hurdle, not an optional extra.
“Ideally you would like any intervention to be privately undertaken, but that’s not going to happen in reality.”
True, but I hope you are aware of the irony – this is PRECISELY the same argument used by leftwingers for the welfare state!
August 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
“as long as no school is permitted to make such service either directly or indirectly compulsory.”
This rather surprised me. Are we libertarian or what? Maybe for state schools, but shouldn’t private schools be allowed to set their own agenda. What’s wrong with having, for those who want it, a Sir John Monash Boys Military Academy on the lines of the Robert E Lee Military Academy of Savannah, Georgia.
Also, I think the Australian Foreign Legion is brilliant idea. Perhaps with possibly a tighter screening process than what the French counterpart is alleged to be. The bigger the recruitment pool the higher the acceptance bar one can set. Besides the best soldiers are always those attracted by the romance of being in combat rather than the jingle of the gold coins.
Gurkas, because of their history, also a good idea.
August 11, 2009 at 3:05 am |
This policy so far lacks any mention of intelligence related activities of the AFP, ASIO, or ADF. On top of the existing parts of the policy about restoring or promoting freedom abroad there should also be emphasis on intelligence operations that allow preemptive information on such events and support in conquering them.
ASIO plays a role in many civilian related things such as ASETS. ASETS is basically a testing facility of civilian security systems. There are lots of areas like it that can be diminished and replaced entirely with the private sector, where there is no conflict. The private sector would have every incentive to evaluate security systems accurately.
There are probably a million areas of ASIO that could change hands in a similar fashion, saving a lot of money.
August 19, 2009 at 8:18 am |
Speaking as someone with no expertise in defence policy, but with an armchair interest in the area, I like the policy.
Challenging the rationale for our surface fleet, our use of home based defence contractors and our standing regular army can only be a good thing.
One issue I have is the fact that at the moment the Australian navy is struggling to field even two of the Collins class boats. Mostly due to personnel issues.
It is quite a leap to suggest that we could man up to 18 submarines without a significant rethink of the current staffing methods.
One of the problems is sumariners after they have finished their training being poached (both locally and abroad) into higher paying jobs that dont involve spending months under the sea. This would be even more of an issue if we were to buy nuclear submarines as people with training and experience working with nuclear reactors are understandably under high demand internationally due to greater use of nuclear power.
Perhaps the policy needs a section suggesting that we need to pay our specialist, highly trained soldiers and sailors competitive market rates commensurate with their potential earnings in other lines of work, in order to ensure reasonable rates of retention.
Otherwise though… good work with the policy!
October 13, 2009 at 12:57 pm |
The major criticism is that the Defence policy is in no way shape or form “libertarian”. If it were libertarian, a much more prominent place would have been accorded to a discussion of non-interventionism, which smarter minds than me have discovered is the quintessential libertarian policy (e.g. at the Cato, Independent and Mises Institutes). This can be easily ascertained by reading the American Libertarian party’s foreign policy statements alongside the LDP policy.
The fact that the LDP is considering a separate “Taiwan” policy is evidence of a hyper-interventionist mindset. Will the LDP now be releasing a policy on each and every hot zone or country in the world – India/Pakistan, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea, etc.? At last count, there were about 200 countries in the world. That’s a lot of policies. Instead of doing that it would be better to release one principled statement that offers a consistent approach to all conflicts. Adhering to a policy of non-interventionism would mean what happens in overseas conflicts is none of Australia’s business unless it threatens our territorial integrity.
This would mean:
1. The complete elimination of foreign aid programs
2. Strategic independence/neutrality with regards to foreign policy. Like NZ or Switzerland, we do not automatically support whatever war the Anglo-Saxon powers happen to start. Each is assessed on its own merits. Given our advantageous geographic location, I doubt we will need to be involved in very many wars. We would also would eject American bases and troops from Australian soil to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
3. In the short-term, immediate withdrawal of Australian troops from all overseas engagements (including Afghanistan and Iraq). The “failed state” thesis that is used to support our involvement in neighbouring islands in our region has been debunked by Cato scholars. Our involvement in the Middle East increases the terrorist threat against us because it stirs up hatred.
4. A stronger focus on Australia’s border security and spending whatever is necessary and acquiring whatever weapons are necessary to provide a sufficient deterrence. Independence and self-reliance should be the goal, not depending on allies. This doesn’t mean that defence spending would need to go up – we live in a peaceful nuclear-free region and are surrounded by water.
5. A discussion about how richer countries are better able to defend themselves, and the importance of free-market capitalism in generating such wealth.
6. Withdrawal from all international organizations (UN, WTO, etc) because they undermine sovereignty and place power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
October 14, 2009 at 10:53 am |
There are very sound reasons for the distinct Taiwan and Tibet policies. They are not for discussion here.
The libertarian philosophy is all about individuals, but tells us nothing about relations between countries.
There is absolutely nothing libertarian about your version of non-interventionism. The Defence policy makes it clear that non-intervention is strongly preferred, but that individual liberty may override that on rare occasions.
Best of luck finding a political party that conforms to your definition of libertarian.