Today’s email is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.
A leading maritime security specialist has dismissed the government's claims that Australia spends 2.8 percent of GDP on defense as "dangerous semantics," arguing the actual figure is 2.04 percent while the nation faces significant capability gaps across multiple defense areas.
Jennifer Parker from the Australian National University's National Security College, speaking on Sky News AM Agenda Monday, said the government's inflated spending figures undermine efforts to address critical defense shortfalls as Australia prepares to sign a significant defense treaty with Papua New Guinea this week.
"I'm not clear on how the government makes the argument under the NATO definition that it's 2.8%," Parker said. "But either way, the question is, do we have the capabilities that we need for our current strategic circumstances? And you can look across defense, whether you're talking about space capability or integrated air and missile defense or maritime capability, and you can see that we have a wide range of gaps."
Parker's criticism directly contradicts Defense Minister Richard Marles' earlier claims that Australia has achieved the 2.8 percent threshold when including defense pensions under NATO accounting standards.
Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.
Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.
Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.
Capability Shortfalls Identified
The ANU academic acknowledged the current government has increased defense spending beyond previous administrations but argued current investment remains insufficient for Australia's strategic challenges.
"I think we do need to acknowledge that the current government has done more for defense spending and defense capability than governments in the last 10 years," Parker said. "However, our defense spending is not enough. It is 2.04% of GDP this financial year."
Parker warned that semantic debates over spending percentages distract from addressing fundamental capability requirements across Australia's defense portfolio.
"So I do think that this becomes a bit of a semantics conversation. We do need to lift defense spending further," she said. "And I think this argument that we're at 2.8% under NATO definitions is actually unhelpful to the conversation."
PNG Defense Treaty Significance
Parker described the expected Australia-PNG defense treaty signing this week as "really important" for Australia's Pacific strategy, despite uncertainty about specific treaty provisions.
"I do think one of the things that the current government has gotten right as part of our defense strategy is our partnerships in the Pacific and more broadly," she said. "This is something that we've seen bear fruit. And I think getting PNG to sign this defense treaty today, sorry, this week, is significant."
The PNG Defense Minister has characterized the agreement as a mutual defense treaty involving integrated force structures and consultation requirements, though Parker noted consultation mechanisms already exist under a 2023 agreement.
"The requirement for consultation between PNG and Australia in the event of a security incident actually already exists. There was an agreement signed in 2023 that does enshrine that," she said. "Now, this is a treaty, so it is a bit stronger, but that does exist."
Mutual Defense Questions
Parker expressed uncertainty about whether the treaty would establish genuine mutual defense obligations comparable to NATO's Article 5 or the ANZUS Treaty.
"In terms of mutual defense, that really depends on the wording of the treaty," she said. "When we think about mutual defense, that normally means that if a country is attacked, then both will respond."
The National Security College specialist noted that NATO's "attack on one is an attack on all" provision represents stronger language than Australia's existing ANZUS alliance with New Zealand and the United States.
"I'm not sure that this will necessarily get to the level of a mutual defense treaty. We'll have to see what's in the words," Parker said. "But certainly it does increase the status of the relationship."
China Competition Context
Parker emphasized the treaty's strategic importance in countering China's growing influence in Papua New Guinea, where Beijing has become the second-largest trading partner while seeking expanded security relationships.
"China has been pushing PNG for a strong economic relationship. They are PNG's second largest trading partner, but they've also been pushing for a security and policing relationship," she said. "And this treaty really shows that Australia is PNG's security partner of choice."
The ANU expert highlighted broader Pacific competition dynamics, referencing China's security agreement with Solomon Islands and ongoing rivalry for influence across the region.
"We know that China is putting a lot of money into the Pacific, a lot of aid money, so does Australia, but it struggles to match China's investment," Parker said when asked about future developments in Fiji and Vanuatu.
Strategic Rationale
Parker argued Australia's Pacific engagement reflects national security imperatives rather than purely altruistic motives, emphasizing the strategic risks of Chinese military presence in the region.
"The reason we need to do that is not because we are a Pacific family, but more broadly because of the fact that it would be absolutely adverse to Australia's strategic interests should China be able to achieve a military or security foothold in the Pacific," she said.
The expert suggested Australia should avoid competing with China purely on financial terms while demonstrating long-term security partnership commitments.
"I think we don't want to get into a position where we're trying to compete with China on money terms, but I think we want to demonstrate that Australia is a longstanding security partner of the Pacific and will be here to look after them," Parker said.
Military Assistance Approach
Parker outlined Australia's comprehensive approach to military assistance, contrasting it with China's methodology in providing defense capabilities without adequate support systems.
"We put governance requirements behind it. We also make sure that when we provide a capability, we also provide the training for the maintenance, update and spare parts of that capability," she said.
The specialist criticized alternative approaches that provide equipment without operational support.
"Often when countries provide military support, this is something that China has been critiqued on in the region, they'll provide a vehicle or a ship, but no training in how to operate that, no parts on how to sustain that, and no ongoing support," Parker said.
Existing Partnership Framework
Parker noted the PNG treaty builds upon established cooperation mechanisms, including Australia's investment in Lombrum Naval Base at Manus Island and the Defense Cooperation Program providing patrol boats and other capabilities.
"I think that's more of an evolution on things we've already done. We have invested in Lombrum Naval Base at Manus Island. PNG has been a long-standing partner of the Defense Cooperation Program, where we provide patrol boats and other capabilities," she said.
The National Security College researcher referenced successful agreements with other Pacific nations, including the recently signed Falepili Union with Tuvalu and various Pacific Maritime Partnership activities.
Risk Management
Addressing concerns about Australia subsidizing PNG's defense capabilities, Parker emphasized the importance of governance frameworks and capacity building rather than simple equipment transfers.
"So as long as we are designing our packages to make sure that we are actually uplifting skill sets, not just providing a capability that can't be used, I think that's a reasonable way to approach it," she said.
Parker argued this comprehensive approach distinguishes Australia's assistance from competitors and strengthens long-term partnerships.
"And that will actually hold us in good stead with our partners and be a point of differentiation to some of the other military security support provided by other countries such as China," she said.
The treaty signing represents a significant milestone in Australia's Pacific strategy as regional competition with China intensifies across multiple domains, from economic investment to security partnerships.
Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support
Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.
Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.
As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:
Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve
Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.
Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)
Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:
It only takes a minute to help us investigate fearlessly and expose lies and wrongdoing to hold power accountable. Thanks!