Anthony Albanese - how is Australia going under a Labor Government?

[Xeno.of.athens]

In May 2022 Australia's federal election returned a Labor Party led government. The previous nine years were led by a coalition of the National Party and the Liberal Party - both being rather conservative political parties while the Labor party is somewhat progressive. Now that Australia has had about 11 months of the new left leaning government what has happened to the country?

• There's a completely review of elder care in nursing homes
• funding for extra nurses and increases in pay for existing nurses in the elder care industry have been arranged
• unemployment payments have been increased a little
• A review of the Reserve Bank of Australia has been completed
• Some cost of living payments have been given
• the rate of inflation is beginning to fall
• and a bunch of other things have been done

But the country faces many challenges, and there is a debate underway regarding a constitutional change to give formal recognition to the first-nations of Australia.

The question is, what do you think will be the outcome of the Labor Party government at the end this parliament's cycle in 2025?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The debate that's underway regarding a constitutional change to give formal recognition to the first-nations of Australia. Is a response to the following document called "Uluru Statement from the Heart"

https://ulurustatement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

 

[Gene2memE]

As a left(ish) leaning Australian, the answer is ... meh.

Albanese & Labor haven't really done major to anger or annoy me - a few hits here and there, but nothing significant - but they've also not distinguished themselves massively in terms of actual policy that represents a departure from the previous Liberal government.

The biggest positives for me have been putting the anti-corruption commission legislation through parliament - although it doesn't quite have the teeth I would have liked (I wanted a body that had powers at least on the level of the state corruption commissions) - and the passage of new environmental targets and legislation.

I've not been particularly enamoured of the approach on China - while it's smoothed tensions and got trade back, it's sort of a return to the 'grit your teeth behind a rictus smile' routine of the early 2000s. I feel like a lot of the energy spent on diplomacy and commerce talks with China could have been more profitably diverted elsewhere.

I'm also not sold on the nuclear submarine deal, in terms of cost or feasibility. However, this may be because a friend lost his job in the debacle with the French and his opinion is bleeding into my viewpoint.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, seems to be doing his level best to be absolutely unlikable to anyone barring very small segments of the population. At the moment, he seems to be popular with the entrenched authoritarian & contrarian right and tolerated by lifelong Liberal voters, and that's about it.

 

[mindlight]

From the sound of things, this Labor administration has not wrecked the economy while presenting a slightly more compassionate face toward the needy in the country. The nuclear submarine/Tomahawk deal with the US and GB is a positive as the rise of China is the major issue in the region and Australia is a key part of the moderating forces. This whole thing about First Nations seems to be counterproductive to Aussie national self-interest to me. Compensation is fine but not sabotaging the fundamental integrity of the country. It is not as though Aborigines ever built anything meaningful while modern Australia is on the whole a success story.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, now the PM and defence minister have released a new paper about the direction Australia ought to go for arms purchases and arms manufacturing. It seems Missiles will receive greater emphasis and land vehicles will receive less emphasis. Of course, the opposition is upset by this.

 

[mindlight]

Well, now the PM and defence minister have released a new paper about the direction Australia ought to go for arms purchases and arms manufacturing. It seems Missiles will receive greater emphasis and land vehicles will receive less emphasis. Of course, the opposition is upset by this.

The war in Ukraine, a new government and the development of China-US competition in the Indo-Pacific meant that a Defence Review was inevitable. There is investment in Northern bases in Australia but land vehicles have proven quite vulnerable in recent conflicts. Not sure why the opposition is opposing this. Perhaps you could clarify what they are objecting to.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-04-24/release-defence-strategic-review

• Acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS to improve our deterrence capabilities;
• Developing the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) ability to precisely strike targets at longer-range and manufacture munitions in Australia;
• Improving the ADF’s ability to operate from Australia’s northern bases;
• Initiatives to improve the growth and retention of a highly skilled Defence workforce;
• Lifting our capacity to rapidly translate disruptive new technologies into ADF capability, in close partnership with Australian industry; and
• Deepening of our diplomatic and defence partnerships with key partners in the Indo-Pacific.

One key phrase here was something the German government could definitely learn from:

Defence must move away from processes based around project management risk rather than strategic risk management. It must be based on minimum viable capability in the shortest possible time.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

perhaps you could clarify

No, I can't offer sound reasons for their upset but I can offer a political explanation; opposition is best served by opposing. It gives a point of difference and offers an opportunity to be seen on the media. So oppose whenever possible is the motto.

 

[mindlight]

No, I can't offer sound reasons for their upset but I can offer a political explanation; opposition is best served by opposing. It gives a point of difference and offers an opportunity to be seen on the media. So oppose whenever possible is the motto.

The opposition is saying it is rushed and missing detail. They do not like the cutting of Army contracts for APC contracts in favor of other options. There is also a threat to the Australian Surface fleet given the new focus on subs. This review is aimed at shaking up people and removing complacency but its timelines are still quite extended e.g. for follow-up strategy review etc. We are missing a lot of key decisions and thinking here. The major incentive here is the end of US dominance in the Indo-Pacific and the rise of China.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The major incentive here is the end of US dominance in the Indo-Pacific and the rise of China.

It is inevitable that China will grow in influence in the Eastern Pacific, it is after all, the largest and richest economy in the world (on a buying capacity basis) and it is on the East Coast of Asia. The USA will remain a super-power and likely dominate the Atlantic and Western Pacific. Russia is also a power with a huge nuclear arsenal so it will have influence in the North East Pacific, the Artic ocean, and some influence in the Atlantic. And the EU will slowly and steadily increase its military influence, somewhat independent of the USA eventually. So, Australia is best served by a maintaining alliances and independent foreign policy with a military that can thwart invasion by sea and air and repel a landing if a landing were ever made. But Australia's need for land vehicles is not so great because Australia has no land borders. All approaches must be by sea or air.

 

[mindlight]

It is inevitable that China will grow in influence in the Eastern Pacific, it is after all, the largest and richest economy in the world (on a buying capacity basis) and it is on the East Coast of Asia. The USA will remain a super-power and likely dominate the Atlantic and Western Pacific. Russia is also a power with a huge nuclear arsenal so it will have influence in the North East Pacific, the Artic ocean, and some influence in the Atlantic. And the EU will slowly and steadily increase its military influence, somewhat independent of the USA eventually. So, Australia is best served by a maintaining alliances and independent foreign policy with a military that can thwart invasion by sea and air and repel a landing if a landing were ever made. But Australia's need for land vehicles is not so great because Australia has no land borders. All approaches must be by sea or air.

The rise of China like that of Japan in the seventies and eighties looks like being toward world dominance right now but there is nothing inevitable about that. There are signs that Xi Jinping's oppression and interventions are starting to stifle economic growth and there are major structural issues with the Chinese economy. Three decades of continuous growth have restored China's weight in the region but there will inevitably be a recession and that may prove a serious problem for the ruling communist party. People see only China's momentum right now but I wonder in a society where transparency is no longer the name of the game how much of that is a bluff and how much is real. China has yet to prove itself effective in any kind of military action. It increasingly has the equipment but its command and control and its training and experience are decades behind the West.

Russia's influence may well be weakened by the costs of its current war and the loss of its most profitable European markets.

Europe is waking up to the need for a proper military defense and its economy remains the size of China or the USA. But aside from the British and the French who can project power into the region that may well be irrelevant to Australia.

Competition in the Pacific is best met with a commitment to a rules-based global order and respect for national sovereignty and also with friends and allies working together. Australia seems to get this.

The vulnerability of army vehicles in the wide open spaces of the Australian outback to drones, missiles and airpower seems clear. There needs to be a proper balance and long-term commitment to the resourcing of the military. As you say air and sea power may be the future. Nuclear submarines seem to be the future of sea power more than the more vulnerable surface ships.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nuclear submarines seem to be the future of sea power more than the more vulnerable surface ships.

I do not know if it is possible to make nuclear submarines of 4,000 tonnes but if it is then that is more likely to be the size from which Australia will get the best use. If nuclear submarines are too expensive then modern diesel submarines may be sufficient for Australia's needs; Sweden has some diesel subs that run very silent indeed, perhaps something like those will be best for Australia. But if smaller and hopefully cheaper nuclear submarines can be made then they may be good for Australia. The French have nuclear submarine designs that use low enrichment uranium for fuel, Australia ought to look at those, and see what delivery dates can be achieved. The AUKUS arrangement does not seem to be cost effective for Australia.

 

[mindlight]

I do not know if it is possible to make nuclear submarines of 4,000 tonnes but if it is then that is more likely to be the size from which Australia will get the best use. If nuclear submarines are too expensive then modern diesel submarines may be sufficient for Australia's needs; Sweden has some diesel subs that run very silent indeed, perhaps something like those will be best for Australia. But if smaller and hopefully cheaper nuclear submarines can be made then they may be good for Australia. The French have nuclear submarine designs that use low enrichment uranium for fuel, Australia ought to look at those, and see what delivery dates can be achieved. The AUKUS arrangement does not seem to be cost effective for Australia.

I disagree, the AUKUS deal is for much more advanced weaponry including cruise missiles and provides for much more powerful attack and defense possibilities for all three countries. It is a deal made with the US and the UK with whom Australia shares much closer military, cultural, historical and linguistic ties and with whom the sharing of infrastructure and intelligence is already automatic and set to grow. The large sums mentioned in the media are pooled between the three countries and include the entire lifetime of the project. They come with the benefit of UK and US submarines actually based in Australia as part of a shared defense concept.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I disagree, the AUKUS deal is for much more advanced weaponry including cruise missiles and provides for much more powerful attack and defense possibilities for all three countries. It is a deal made with the US and the UK with whom Australia shares much closer military, cultural, historical and linguistic ties and with whom the sharing of infrastructure and intelligence is already automatic and set to grow. The large sums mentioned in the media are pooled between the three countries and include the entire lifetime of the project. They come with the benefit of UK and US submarines actually based in Australia as part of a shared defense concept.

Australia's PM said the plan - which will cost Canberra up to A$368bn (£201bn) over 30 years - marked the "biggest single investment in Australia's defence capability in all of its history".

That is more than four times the cost of the French Attack Class submarines and will deliver fewer submarines that the French deal would, and the French offered the nuclear powered version which uses fuel that Australia could produce - though as at 2023 Australia does not have a nuclear industry that could make the needed fuel - and fuel for the Attack Class lasts 10 years (USA submarines using weapons grade fuel have fuel that lasts 33 years).

AUD 368 billion is quite expensive for 3 to 5 submarines.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It is inevitable that China will grow in influence in the Eastern Pacific, it is after all, the largest and richest economy in the world (on a buying capacity basis) and it is on the East Coast of Asia. The USA will remain a super-power and likely dominate the Atlantic and Western Pacific. Russia is also a power with a huge nuclear arsenal so it will have influence in the North East Pacific, the Artic ocean, and some influence in the Atlantic. And the EU will slowly and steadily increase its military influence, somewhat independent of the USA eventually. So, Australia is best served by a maintaining alliances and independent foreign policy with a military that can thwart invasion by sea and air and repel a landing if a landing were ever made. But Australia's need for land vehicles is not so great because Australia has no land borders. All approaches must be by sea or air.

If an enemy lands on Australian soil we will need land vehicles. Granted that missiles have become rather potent of late as have drones. We're rapidly moving into Dr. Strangelove territory.

I remember Peter Sellers playing the part and complaining about the brawling in the war room - “Gentlemen, this is the War Room! We’ll have no fighting in here!”

As for the nuclear submarines I think we'll be put to the test long before we receive them. I recently read a book by an expert on Australian defence and in many respects we seem to have been barking up the wrong trees.

I also think we should be building much stronger defence ties with Japan. World War II finished 78 years ago and there are very few WWII vets left. The following link incidated there were 24,000 left in 2020, but that was three years ago. I'd imagine a fair number of those 24,000 have since died, out of a total of 1 million Australians who served in WWII.

https://www.dva.gov.au/newsroom/latest-news-veterans/australians-remember-our-second-world-war-veterans#:~:text=Almost%20one%20million%20Australians%20served,are%20still%20with%20us%20today.

Jack, 98, one of ‘the few’ from WWII on Anzac Day march

New research shows half of Australians are concerned about losing touch with their family’s military history.

www.smh.com.au

The number of living Australian Second World War veterans has halved since 2019. According to a study by family search website Ancestry and YouGov, 7800 remain.