All News

eWise Blog

Australia has long maintained a peculiar approach to national defence and how we honour those who serve. On one hand, we spend generously on symbolic gestures — such as lavish upgrades to national monuments — while frequently failing to provide practical and timely support for veterans. This inconsistency points to a deeper issue: a national reluctance to fully engage with the serious, long-term responsibilities of defence planning and investment.

For decades, Australia rested on the assumption that major conflict was unlikely, and that our alliance with the United States would keep us safe. During this long period of peace and prosperity, questions of defence posture were left largely to defence experts and academic debate. Should we focus on defending the continent’s north, or project force abroad as part of broader international coalitions? Few outside the defence community paid close attention.

The world has changed. Strategic tensions in the Indo-Pacific have escalated. The war in Ukraine reminded us that conventional conflict is not a relic of the past. In this shifting environment, the AUKUS partnership emerged as a symbol of a renewed commitment to collective security. It offered access to cutting-edge military technology and tighter defence ties with the United Kingdom and the United States. However, while AUKUS presents significant long-term strategic benefits, it also comes with enormous costs — particularly in relation to nuclear-powered submarines.

Despite the cost, both major political parties signed up with minimal public debate. Critics have questioned the wisdom of committing so heavily to a single capability and the risk of narrowing our strategic options. Yet the broader issue remains: are we willing to fund our own defence, or will we continue to rely on others?

One side of politics has now proposed increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP within five years and 3 per cent within a decade. This contrasts with the current government’s slower increase to 2.3 per cent over the same period. While there is no magic number, 3 per cent is fast becoming the benchmark among serious defence nations. In the face of regional instability and a less reliable United States, the time for hesitation is over.

Spending more on defence, however, requires choices. Australia’s current defence budget is constrained, and the bulk of new spending is being funnelled into two key projects: nuclear submarines under AUKUS and the general-purpose frigate program. This narrow focus leaves little room for investment in other vital areas, such as cyber defence, unmanned systems, long-range strike capabilities, and personnel readiness. A better-funded, more balanced force is essential if Australia is to defend its interests and fulfil its international responsibilities.

To achieve this, structural reform of the national budget is unavoidable. Higher defence spending must be matched by either new revenue or significant savings elsewhere. While politically difficult, such a move is necessary. Defence should not be treated as a discretionary extra; it is a core function of government, fundamental to sovereignty and national security.

Part of the solution lies in revisiting Australia’s industrial priorities. For decades, successive governments have supported local defence manufacturing in the name of jobs and self-reliance. However, this approach has often led to cost blowouts, delivery delays, and underwhelming capability. It is time to move away from the illusion of full-spectrum domestic defence production. Australia must focus on areas where it can excel and leverage international supply chains for the rest. Strategic resilience does not require building everything at home — it requires access, speed, and adaptability.

This shift would allow more efficient use of defence funds and ensure that capability, not parochial politics, drives procurement decisions. It would also make room for investment in emerging domains, such as space and autonomous systems, where Australia has the potential to play a leading role.

None of this can happen without a clear, bipartisan strategy. Defence policy must rise above short-term politics and become a national priority, grounded in realism and shared responsibility. The stakes are simply too high to continue drifting.

Australia can no longer afford to sleepwalk through defence policy. Honouring those who serve means giving them the tools, support, and leadership they deserve. And it means accepting that serious defence requires serious commitment — and serious funding.

It’s massive. It’s isolated. And it’s full of things trying to kill you—even before you meet the military. So why has no one ever successfully invaded Australia? From vast deserts to deadly wildlife, and a military backed by global alliances, the Land Down Under is a fortress wrapped in sunshine and sarcasm. In this video, we break down exactly why invading Australia is one of the worst ideas in military history. From natural barriers to modern defence systems, and a population that simply won’t back down, we explore why this continent-country remains unconquered—and why any army that tries would regret it fast.

The Krakow Times

The United States has floated a controversial peace proposal aimed at halting the war in Ukraine by freezing the current frontlines. On the surface, it appears to offer a path out of a grinding and increasingly costly conflict. Yet beneath its pragmatic framing, the plan has ignited fierce debate, with critics branding it a capitulation to Russian aggression and supporters hailing it as a hard-nosed step toward peace.

At the heart of the proposal is a simple yet seismic idea: fix the frontlines roughly where they now stand. Senator JD Vance summed it up bluntly, saying, “The current lines, or somewhere close to them, is where you’re ultimately going to draw the new lines.” Such a stance effectively accepts a division of territory and acknowledges that neither side is likely to achieve total victory. Ukraine would have to give up claims to some eastern regions, while Russia might also scale back from areas it cannot securely hold.

The offer comes with a suite of incentives aimed at encouraging both sides to accept the freeze. Russia would gain formal US recognition of its control over Crimea—a move that many view as the most controversial aspect of the deal—and some relief from punishing energy sanctions. In return, Ukraine would be promised long-term security guarantees from European nations, along with significant international financial backing for post-war reconstruction.

Digging into the finer details, the plan outlines a few strategic adjustments. It calls for free navigation on the Dnipro River, easing logistical tensions and bolstering trade. There are suggested realignments near Kharkiv and proposals to place the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant under US oversight, aiming to ensure a steady power supply and minimise the risk of further military escalation around critical infrastructure.

The reactions to the plan have been polarised and impassioned. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy flatly rejected any deal that recognises Russian sovereignty over Crimea, declaring such a concession unconstitutional and a betrayal of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. On the other hand, US President Donald Trump accused Zelenskyy of obstructing the path to peace, suggesting that Ukraine’s rigid position threatens to prolong the war.

From Moscow, there have been murmurs of interest. Kremlin insiders have hinted at a readiness to negotiate, provided that European troops do not set foot on Ukrainian soil. Russia’s war fatigue and growing domestic pressures may be softening the hardline rhetoric, at least in diplomatic backchannels.

The stakes of this proposal go far beyond Ukraine. Accepting the new lines could signal a profound shift in post-war US foreign policy and the broader Western stance on territorial integrity and the use of force. Critics argue that such a move would embolden aggressors globally, validating the notion that borders can be redrawn by military might. To them, it is not just about Ukraine—it’s about the rules-based order itself.

Yet proponents see the situation through a different lens. They argue that the human cost of continuing the conflict is unsustainable. With no clear military resolution in sight, and with both armies dug in, the plan could offer a realistic off-ramp. Peace, they say, often comes not through ideal outcomes but through difficult compromises.

Whether history will remember this as a masterstroke of diplomacy or a short-sighted surrender remains to be seen. For now, the world watches as Ukraine, Russia, and the West weigh the cost of principle against the price of peace.

Defence

For a fuller picture of his immediate surroundings, Lieutenant Timothy Ollis, of 20th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, walks in a broad arc around a hilltop shrouded in early morning mist in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The 132 Battery, Charlie Troop Commander, is looking for a special piece of real estate as part of Exercise Chimera Walk, a two-week exercise within the vast central Queensland military range.

Preferably the ground will be elevated, but accessible, easy to defend, and offer good concealment.

His aim is to identify a site suitable for a dispersed flying position (DFP) for an uncrewed aerial system (UAS).

As Army’s most experienced unit in operating uncrewed aircraft, 20th Regiment was honing key skills with the new Integrator tactical UAS.

Some locations within the artillery movement area provided electronic line of sight in the direction of Integrator’s launcher (which can be hundreds of kilometres away), but offered minimal protection or difficult terrain.

The conflict in Ukraine, with its heavy emphasis on uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) engaged in a deadly contest of hide and seek, has put drone warfare front and centre for the unit’s officers and soldiers.

The technology and techniques required to meet the new battlefield reality is a steep learning curve.

“This is very different to anything we’ve ever done before. It’s an amalgamation of artillery, intelligence and aviation,” Lieutenant Ollis said.

“But there is an eagerness to learn the new systems and that’s present from the most junior soldier to the top ranks.

“It’s early days, but the groundwork is there.”

Adding complexity to the exercise, the regiment took delivery of new Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles (PMVs) late last year. Some are used as ground control stations for Integrators, the rest are used as troop carriers.

As a result, the unit transitioned to a mounted call sign and many of the training activities and serials involved familiarising soldiers with the PMVs.

Commander 132 Battery Major Chris Wishart said they were looking increasingly at dispersed troop movements.

“Mobility, agility and concealment is critical,” he said.

“The threat picture has changed. UAS has changed things in an acute way. If you include satellites, they’ve essentially made the battlefield transparent.”

Major Wishart said the exercise provided the first steps for the regiment.

“Every journey starts somewhere,” he said.

“This is our first training exercise with the troops using these vehicles.”

Integrator is launched from a trailer-mounted catapult and flown towards its mission area by a UAS operator. Control can then be transferred to another operator in a DFP close to the target.

“In an ideal world, the launch site for our UAVs will be hundreds of kilometres from the battle, before we take control of the aircraft near the target, and then launch and recovery get another one for us,” Major Wishart said.

With the regiment expected to receive all its Integrator UAS by the year’s end, learning how to hide, fly and move without being detected will become an integral part of training.

As Australians prepare to head to the polls in 2025, one question lingers across kitchen tables, work sites, and pension queues: who is better off today than they were three years ago? For most, the answer is clear—nobody.

The cost of living has exploded into the number one issue for voters, displacing climate change, social justice, and even national security in the minds of the electorate. From surging grocery prices to eye-watering rent increases, everyday Australians are being squeezed harder than ever before—and there’s one factor driving it more than any other: mass immigration.

Australia’s housing market is now in full-blown crisis mode. Whether you’re buying or renting, the story is the same—there’s not enough to go around, and what is available is unaffordable.

At the heart of this crisis is a simple equation: immigration-fuelled population growth has dramatically outpaced the construction of new homes. In the past three years alone, over 900,000 new migrants have arrived in Australia, yet housing construction has failed to keep up. Local councils are swamped, infrastructure is lagging, and developers are facing spiralling costs due to labour shortages and inflation.

It’s basic supply and demand. More people, same number of houses—rents go up, house prices go up, and those at the bottom get pushed further out or onto the streets.

It’s not just housing. Australians are being smashed by rising costs across the board. Electricity bills are climbing. Fuel is expensive. Groceries are up nearly 10% over the past year alone, with essentials like bread, milk, and vegetables becoming luxury items for families doing it tough.

Pensioners are dipping into savings just to keep the lights on. Young people are stuck at home, unable to afford a place of their own. Families are making choices between paying rent and putting food on the table.

And yet, the national conversation continues to ignore the immigration elephant in the room.

Successive governments have relied on high immigration to prop up economic growth, cover workforce shortages, and support the ageing population. But this quick fix has come at a cost—one that’s now being paid by ordinary Australians in the form of higher rents, longer hospital wait times, crowded schools, and wages that can’t keep up with inflation.

The public know it. They see it every day when they struggle to find a GP, get stuck in traffic for hours, or are outbid on a rental by someone offering six months’ rent upfront. But few politicians have the courage to say what many are thinking: Australia’s migration intake is too high, too fast, and out of sync with the country’s ability to absorb new arrivals.

As the 2025 federal election campaign kicks into gear, voters are looking for more than slogans and photo ops. They’re looking for real answers. Cutting the red tape for home building won’t be enough. Subsidising electricity bills might buy temporary relief, but it’s no long-term solution.

Australians want a national housing plan that starts with reducing demand, not just increasing supply. That means taking a hard look at immigration numbers and aligning them with what communities can actually support.

While the media churns out daily polls and talking heads debate distractions, the real conversations are happening in homes across the country. Parents worrying about whether their kids will ever own a house. Workers wondering how they’ll survive another rent increase. Retirees watching their savings vanish.

In the end, this election comes down to a single question: Are you better off than you were three years ago? For the vast majority of Australians, the answer is a resounding no. And until we address the root causes—starting with unsustainable immigration—nothing will change.

It’s time for policymakers to stop ignoring the obvious and start putting Australians first.

ED: Five of our grandchildren are currently trying to buy their first home. We live in a regional area, not a major city. Back in the second quarter of 2022, the median house price in Tweed was $1,100,000, with units averaging $678,000. By the fourth quarter of 2024, the median house price had soared to $1,800,000, and the median unit price to $875,000. That’s a staggering $700,000 increase in just two years. Young people in their late twenties simply can’t save fast enough to keep up with the deposit requirements.

I note that the east coast weather forecast suggests we may experience rain tomorrow during our ANZAC commemorations. Personally, I believe a little rain is a small inconvenience when measured against the importance of maintaining the solemn remembrance we have promised our mates and forefathers.

As we witness the changes sweeping through our society, it is disheartening to see that some of our newer citizens are calling for ANZAC Day to be removed from our national commemorations. While these voices are in the minority, they should be gently but firmly reminded that their right to express such opinions exists solely because of the sacrifices made by the servicemen and women they now seek to disregard. Freedom of speech, like so many of our liberties, was hard-won by those who served in the defence of our nation.

For me, ANZAC Day is much more than a date on the calendar. It is the day when I publicly honour the sacred promise of remembrance I made long ago. It is a day of deep respect and reflection, where I dress accordingly, proudly pin on my medals, attach my name tag, and march alongside fellow servicemen and women — a band of brothers and sisters bound by shared service and sacrifice.

Over the years, ANZAC Day has also grown into a treasured family tradition. After the march, my family and I gather at our local pub, joining my mates and their families. Our children and fourteen grandchildren mingle with the veterans, listening to their stories and catching up on the happenings of the past year. It is heartening to see the younger generation engaging with those who have walked paths of service and sacrifice, ensuring that the legacy of the ANZAC spirit lives on.

Rain or shine, we will stand tall, united in remembrance, honouring the courage, mateship, and sacrifice that shaped our nation.

Lest we forget.

Ray Payne OAM

Photo: A Damen built tug boat under construction was shown at the company’s Changde shipyard in China last year. (Damen)

A new fleet of tug boats commissioned for use by the Royal Australian Navy has been secretly built at a Chinese shipyard under a $28 million contract awarded last year to a Dutch company. The revelation has prompted serious concerns over national security, sovereign capability, and lost opportunities for Australian industry.

The contract involves the construction of Damen’s Azimuth Stern Drive (ASD) 2111 tug boats, with the first vessels scheduled to arrive in Australia this year. Despite assurances that nearly half of the contract value would be spent in Australia, the primary build was carried out in China, with the fit-out work conducted in Vietnam.

While the vessels are technically designated as civilian-operated support craft and not commissioned Navy warships, their close association with defence operations raises critical questions. These tug boats will provide harbour support and can be crewed by Defence personnel in emergency situations.

The decision to construct these vessels overseas, particularly in a strategic competitor’s shipyard, has triggered widespread concern about potential security vulnerabilities. It has also reignited debate over the lack of transparency in defence procurement and the underutilisation of Australia’s own shipbuilding sector.

No public explanation has been given as to whether Australian shipbuilders were offered a genuine opportunity to bid for the project. This is despite Australia having world-class capabilities and a growing defence industrial base that has proven itself in building naval assets, including the Landing Craft Heavy fleet currently being constructed in Western Australia.

The reliance on foreign supply chains, especially those tied to nations with competing strategic interests, poses long-term risks. It also undermines the development of sovereign defence industry capability, an area of increasing importance amid rising regional tensions and global supply chain disruptions.

Australia must prioritise building such vessels domestically. By investing in local shipyards, the nation can ensure greater control over quality and security, create high-skilled jobs, and foster industrial resilience. The construction of naval support vessels, regardless of whether they are crewed by military or civilian operators, should be part of a broader strategic policy to develop and sustain a sovereign defence manufacturing capability.

As Australia seeks to modernise its maritime assets and assert its strategic autonomy, future procurement decisions must be guided not solely by cost, but by security, capability, and national interest. Tug boats might not carry weapons, but their role in supporting the Navy means they should be built in Australia…by Australians.

eWise Blog

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the Indo-Pacific’s maritime security landscape. It offers real-time awareness, faster decision-making, and operational agility. Yet without clear norms and legal frameworks, AI may heighten tensions, especially in already contested waters.

Major regional powers are investing heavily in AI-enabled systems. These include tools to analyse satellite imagery, sonar, and ship data to detect illicit activities or strategic deception. Enhanced capabilities support law enforcement and monitoring of chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca and South China Sea. China leads in AI integration, using it to coordinate unmanned vessels, automate surveillance, and assert maritime claims. This raises concerns about Beijing’s ability to outpace others in decision-making during maritime incidents.

In response, countries like the US, Australia, Japan, South Korea and India are advancing their own AI-driven programmes, such as Project Overmatch and Ghost Shark. AI-powered swarming drones and data fusion centres are central to these efforts.

However, these advancements are not without danger. In areas where multiple navies operate in close quarters, autonomous systems could misread intent or escalate conflict due to flawed algorithms or data bias. The opaque nature of AI decision-making complicates accountability and crisis management.

Smaller Southeast Asian states risk falling behind, lacking the resources to match these technologies. This growing gap may create a tiered security environment, undermining regional stability.

To prevent escalation, Indo-Pacific nations must establish common standards and confidence-building measures. This includes pre-notifying AI vessel deployments, conducting joint system tests, and setting minimum levels of human oversight. Forums like the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus and the Quad offer platforms for collaboration.

The region’s maritime future will be shaped not just by fleets, but by the code and logic behind the machines guiding them.

The Krakow Time

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signalled a willingness to engage in peace negotiations with Russia, but only if hostilities cease first. His firm stance underscores a desire to prioritise the safety and stability of Ukraine’s population before entering into any dialogue with Moscow. Zelenskyy stated he is open to talks “in any format”, provided a ceasefire is officially in place. A Ukrainian delegation is scheduled to attend discussions in London this week to explore the feasibility of a full or partial ceasefire agreement.

On the Russian side, President Vladimir Putin appears to be edging away from the sweeping objectives that have defined Moscow’s position since the outset of the war. According to the Financial Times, Putin may now be prepared to freeze the conflict along the current front lines and withdraw his demands for complete control over the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions. This development is seen by many observers as the first concrete indication of a potential Russian retreat from its earlier maximalist ambitions.

The United States is heavily involved in mediating the emerging peace efforts, though its proposals have generated controversy. Washington has reportedly floated the idea of recognising Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and establishing a freeze along the current lines of conflict. However, President Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected any such territorial concessions, deeming them incompatible with Ukraine’s constitution and sovereignty.

Several significant obstacles remain that could derail progress. Russia continues to demand that Ukraine maintain a position of neutrality and forego any aspirations to join NATO. Ukraine, meanwhile, insists on the presence of an international force to oversee and enforce any future peace arrangement—a stipulation strongly opposed by the Kremlin.

With negotiations underway in London and US envoy Steve Witkoff heading to Moscow, the coming days may prove crucial. Former President Donald Trump, who remains a key figure in US foreign policy discussions, has cautioned that Washington may step back from its diplomatic efforts if tangible progress is not achieved soon. Notably, a private meeting is also planned between Zelenskyy and Trump during their attendance at Pope Francis’ funeral later this week, potentially adding a new dimension to the evolving peace dialogue.