Australia's Defence Complacency: A Remembrance Day Wake-Up Call, By James Reed
On November 11, 2025, as Australia paused to honour the 103,000 lives lost in its wars, the solemnity of Remembrance Day at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra was pierced by an uncharacteristically pointed critique. Retired Major General Greg Melick, the outgoing national president of the Returned & Services League (RSL), delivered a commemorative address that transcended traditional tributes to the fallen. Instead, he issued a stark warning to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the assembled dignitaries, including Defence Minister Richard Marles and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, about the nation's perilous underinvestment in defence. Melick's speech, drawing historical parallels to the appeasement era of Neville Chamberlain and the frenzied re-armament before World War II, underscored a profound complacency in the face of escalating threats in the Indo-Pacific. This blog piece explores the substance of Melick's intervention, its historical and strategic underpinnings, and the broader implications for Australia's security posture, arguing that without a "grand strategy" backed by adequate funding, the sacrifices of past generations risk being rendered meaningless.
Typically, the Remembrance Day address at the War Memorial is a space for quiet reflection, evoking the armistice of 1918, the 80th anniversary of World War II's end in 1945, and the enduring legacy of Anzac valor. Melick, a 76-year-old veteran with 52 years in the Army Reserve, rising from private to major-general and serving in special forces, shattered this decorum. Speaking directly to Albanese and Marles, he lamented Australia's "complacency" despite its history of near-constant involvement in conflicts since Federation in 1901. He evoked the desperate improvisation of World War II, when Australian troops trained with "broomsticks" against surging Japanese forces in Southeast Asia, a reminder that "courage, initiative, and resilience" alone cannot suffice in an era of hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, and vast ordnance ranges.
Melick's core demand was unequivocal: a "grand strategy" integrating all national power instruments, diplomatic, economic, and military, to address the "most dire" security environment since 1941, when invasion loomed. Quoting a 2024 study by former British defence chief David Richards and analyst Julian Lindley-French, he distinguished grand strategy from mere military planning: the former mobilises a nation's full resources for vital interests, with the military as but one "servant." Without it, Australia's defence risks devolving into "what we can afford, and not what we need." He spotlighted critical shortfalls in matériel reserves, particularly fuel and ammunition, essential for sustained operations in a peer-level conflict.
In a pointed aside, Melick praised Marles' awareness but challenged him to sway Cabinet: "Otherwise, in future Remembrance Day ceremonies, we may well regret the conflict we didn't deter and remember those who we demanded to protect us without the necessary wherewithal." This was no abstract plea; it was a direct rebuke, delivered without prior clearance from the Prime Minister's office, amplifying its impact amid an audience of top brass like Admiral David Johnston and former chiefs such as Sir Angus Houston. Melick also cited a recent poll revealing only 30% of Generation Z willing to defend the nation, a "cause for concern" that signals eroding societal resolve.
Melick's invocation of Neville Chamberlain was particularly incendiary, bracketing Albanese's Labor government with the archetype of pre-war denialism. Chamberlain, reviled for his 1938 Munich appeasement of Hitler, nonetheless initiated Britain's re-armament from 1935 onward, ramping defence spending to 55% of GDP by 1943, belatedly, but urgently, after Nazi annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Melick argued that heeding Winston Churchill's earlier warnings could have averted the Sudetenland crisis and perhaps World War II itself, preventing the Battle of Britain from becoming a desperate stand. This parallel is not mere hyperbole; it warns against fiscal timidity in the shadow of authoritarian expansionism.
He reinforced this with Australian history, quoting Prime Minister Alfred Deakin's 1907 admonition: attacks come "not with kid gloves or after convenient notice, but... with a remorseless fury." Deakin spoke amid post-Federation optimism, yet foresaw the uninvited violence of Gallipoli and beyond. The War Memorial's honour rolls, etching 103,000 names, stand as a "stark reminder" of that price, families shattered, futures forfeited. Melick's thesis is that remembrance must evolve into readiness: "Today should not only be a day of remembering past achievements; we must also remember the lessons... to ensure we are appropriately prepared for what the future may bring." In tying commemoration to contemporary peril, he transforms grief into imperative.
Australia's neighbourhood is no longer a serene moat but a cauldron of rivalry. China's assertive manoeuvres in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait gray-zone tactics, and military buildup, coupled with Russia's Ukraine invasion and North Korea's provocations, have rendered the Indo-Pacific the world's most volatile flashpoint. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review, co-authored by Houston, highlighted this shift, urging a pivot from Middle East distractions to home-water denial capabilities. Yet, implementation falters.
Current spending hovers at 2% of GDP, inching to 2.33% over the decade, a trajectory Melick deems insufficient for AUKUS commitments like acquiring eight nuclear-powered submarines at $368 billion over 30 years. These Virginia- and SSN-AUKUS-class vessels promise stealthy projection, but without commensurate reserves, they risk being high-tech white elephants in a prolonged war. Fuel stocks, for instance, cover mere weeks of operations, while ammunition shortages plagued recent exercises. Melick's call echoes global trends: Donald Trump's NATO pressure has spurred allies to exceed 2% targets, recognizing deterrence's economic logic, cheaper than reconstruction.
Peter Leahy, former Army chief and RSL committee colleague, deemed the venue "fitting," overlooking Parliament from Anzac Parade: a visual indictment of political inertia. Shadow Assistant Defence Minister Phillip Thompson, a veteran, later emphasised Remembrance Day's role in paving the way for future preparedness, aligning with Melick's urgency. Yet, the government's reticence, Albanese's office declined comment, suggests discomfort with the Chamberlain analogy, especially as fiscal hawks prioritise climate and social spending amid post-COVID recovery.
Melick's intervention, unencumbered by his recent RSL exit (after six years, including stints on the National Crime Authority and as Colonel Commandant of the 1st Commando Regiment), amplifies a chorus from think tanks like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. It pressures Albanese, whose AUKUS embrace signals resolve but whose budgets lag ambition. Boosting to 3% of GDP, $80-90 billion annually, could fund stockpiles, hypersonic countermeasures, and long-range strikes, deterring coercion without provocation.
Critics may decry politicisation of remembrance, but Melick reframes it as fidelity: ensuring "their sacrifices were not in vain" demands more than wreaths. For Gen Z, whose 30% enlistment willingness mirrors societal drift, education on stakes, economic interdependence with Asia, alliance fragility, must complement hardware. A grand strategy, per Richards and Lindley-French, coordinates trade sanctions, alliances like QUAD, and soft power with hard deterrence, avoiding military default.
In conclusion, Melick's Remembrance Day salvo is a clarion: Australia's island fortress illusion crumbles under modern scrutiny. As Deakin warned over a century ago, threats arrive unannounced. By heeding this ex-soldier's counsel, elevating need over affordability, Australia can honour its dead not with platitudes, but with prudence. The alternative? Future ceremonies mourning not just the brave, but the unprepared. The Indo-Pacific's gathering storm demands action now, lest history's echoes become epitaphs.
Comments