Think on the side: The government’s air and shipping services can strengthen Australian defense

The unconventional methods of US President Donald Trump to draw up international relationships will force the next federal government to rethink whether the presence of the United States in the region and its security tests form a reliable basis for the national defense strategy. There is reason to doubt that Trump’s USA would clearly help defend Australia in a war.

Australia must become more independent in defense and increasingly show that it is a valuable ally for the US obligation for his security. A dilemma is the strengthening of the defense at the same time and minimizes the costs.

Imaginative thinking is required. Conventional boundaries between civil and military areas should be removed.

The Federal Government recently said that it was ready to acquire Regional Express to avoid the financial collapse of the airline. But the government could nationalize the airline as a defense company. The airline staff – including pilots, engineers as well as air and floor teams – can mainly be reserved. It could offer passenger and freight services for all important distant and regional Australian communities and improve their access to essential services and markets. The airline could also provide transport for defense employees and shops as well as for their families at remote bases. The resource and other sectors could also stimulate incentives to use the airline.

After all, the airline could take over the national responsibility for flight operations, search and rescue, border security, maritime surveillance, air powers and other special national aviation tasks. It would benefit from an expansion of the Federal Government’s Remote Airrex upgrade program. The airline, its institutions and staff would also be available for civil defense such as national emergencies and in times of war.

Such a airline would effectively be an auxiliary air weapon. It would offer new options for the government and an increased ability for defense planners if the aircraft types that were operated also had useful military variants. The cost of operating the airline would be covered by income and other parts of the federal budget.

The federal government announced a pilot program in September to create a “maritime strategic fleet” to ensure the supply of essential resources in national emergencies. If this strategic fleet were a defense company, the ships could be directed by constant and reserve defense staff and mainly occupied, whereby a closer focus focuses on supporting our naval operations as well as those of the USA and other allies.

The concept of a strategic fleet could be converted into an auxiliary fleet that still uses defense staff who carried out commercial activities that support Australia’s commitment and geostrategic interests in our local transport regions. This could also reduce part of the pressure on the Navy.

The icebreaker, operated by the government of the government, could become one of several that are used to increase the presence and activities of Australia in the Antarctic. The United States and other allies could contribute to the costs of operating ice breakers because these ships would support their own antarctic programs. And Australia could have cruise and cargo ships that support our programs for the development and commitment of the Pacific. The ships could also partially be occupied by the Pacific islanders to maximize the regional economic advantages. You should also support humanitarian, coastal and supply processes. Such commercial activities would cover some of the operating costs of these ships.

Our defense must be based on a new type of service in which our staff is neither permanently nor organized by the current model. A new service model would attract people because it offers a mixture of civil and military possibilities, more career opportunities and durability and does not areolate the person from wider civilian or professions. The defense force would increase its size and expand their skills and experiences and at the same time contribute to the economy.

National mobilization cannot meet the sudden needs of national defense. And compulsory military service or requirement is not accepted if the basics for civil defense are not yet available. Mixed purposes can promote a bourgeois culture of the service. They would also ensure broader skills and training in defense employees and wider society.

We have to change our thinking about defense expenditure as a further demand for tense budgets, how defense and economy support and strengthen each other. Our national activities should act as triple levers and contribute our means of defense, national resistance and thus to strategic deterrence.

Australia must be more independent for our national defense and at the same time contribute more to collective security. This requires that we become more imaginative if we react to our strategic risks and take advantage of our strategic advantages in order to further avoid the single exposure to the economy. Australia must bring their civilian and military areas together. Only then can we remain a free, wealthy and safe nation.