# Should Australia be preparing civilians for war?

An episode of [7am](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1461999702), 16 Aug 2026, 16 min.

Audio: https://p.podderapp.com/2544644999/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/2fb3740d-3436-44af-8cc0-a91900716aa5/62723a1f-3e96-4fc4-882c-b25e0181da4d/017610a6-46d1-44a3-9c4a-b4a6004cbcc2/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=70f29d90-2a63-48aa-bf8f-b25e0181da70

For most of Australia’s recent history, preparing for war has meant preparing the military. Now, the government is turning its attention on the rest of us. A new parliamentary inquiry will examine Australia's civilian preparedness and whether we could keep fuel flowing, supply chains moving and essential services running through a major conflict. It comes as the government warns Australia is facing the most threatening strategic circumstances since the Second World War. Today, Sam Roggeveen, Director of the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program, on what major conflict would actually mean for Australians, and whether we’re preparing for the right threats. If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram Guest: Director of Lowy Institute’s International Security Program, Sam Roggeveen Photo: PR HANDOUT See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:01] Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. For
[0:10] Speaker 1: most of Australia's recent history, preparing for war has meant
[0:13] Speaker 1: preparing the military. Now the government is turning its attention
[0:16] Speaker 1: on the rest of us. A new parliamentary inquiry will
[0:19] Speaker 1: examine Australia's civilian preparedness and whether we could keep fuel flowing,
[0:23] Speaker 1: supply chains moving, and essential service is running through a
[0:27] Speaker 1: major conflict. It comes as the government warns Australia is
[0:31] Speaker 1: facing the most threatening strategic circumstances since the Second World War. Today,
[0:36] Speaker 1: director of the Loewey Institute's International Security Program, Sam Rogavi
[0:40] Speaker 1: on what major conflict would actually mean for Australians and
[0:43] Speaker 1: whether we're preparing for the right threats. It's Monday, August seventeenth, Sam.
[0:57] Speaker 1: For most of our lifetimes, preparing Australia for war has
[1:00] Speaker 1: meant preparing the military. Now the government is talking about
[1:03] Speaker 1: preparing the civilian population and the economy as well. So
[1:07] Speaker 1: why is that happening now?
[1:09] Speaker 2: Well, we should start with a threat, actually, Daniel. So
[1:13] Speaker 2: the reason this inquiry I think has even been launched
[1:16] Speaker 2: is because Australians feel a lot more unease about international
[1:22] Speaker 2: conditions than they have felt in the recent past. So
[1:25] Speaker 2: you're quite right. We haven't really talked so much as
[1:27] Speaker 2: a nation about mobilization or about the civilian aspects of defense,
[1:33] Speaker 2: and that's because we haven't had to. Frankly, I mean,
[1:35] Speaker 2: going back to the nineteen eighties, for instance, the most
[1:38] Speaker 2: plausible threat to Australia was if there was some minor
[1:41] Speaker 2: incursion into one of our offshore territories, or maybe to
[1:44] Speaker 2: the north of Australia from Indonesia, or if there was
[1:47] Speaker 2: some kind of civil strife in one of the Pacific
[1:50] Speaker 2: Islands regions, and so we kind of built our military
[1:54] Speaker 2: to deal with possibilities like that. That well's changed. Of course,
[1:59] Speaker 2: China is not just as big an economy as the
[2:03] Speaker 2: United States, but is building a really first class military
[2:06] Speaker 2: that is a genuine contender for becoming as good and
[2:11] Speaker 2: as big, if not even bigger than that of the
[2:13] Speaker 2: United States. And our political class understands that China is
[2:17] Speaker 2: just going to be a much more influential part of
[2:19] Speaker 2: our lives, much bigger and more influential, and so these
[2:23] Speaker 2: slightly uncomfortable conversations have to take place about what is
[2:27] Speaker 2: it that we actually need to do, not just as
[2:30] Speaker 2: a military, but as a nation.
[2:32] Speaker 1: So part of that is civilian preparedness. So what does
[2:36] Speaker 1: civilian preparedness look like.
[2:38] Speaker 2: Well, I mean one model is something like you see
[2:41] Speaker 2: maybe in Finland or in Israel, where effectively it means
[2:44] Speaker 2: you are to a degree militarizing the entire society. So
[2:48] Speaker 2: you have conscription, universal conscription.
[2:51] Speaker 3: And the Russian border conscripts are trained for the wide
[2:55] Speaker 3: gamut of roles in the army, including sniper or marksman.
[2:58] Speaker 2: Yes, I've never held a rifle, so first time shooting
[3:02] Speaker 2: was in the army. You start off with the basic
[3:04] Speaker 2: assault right for and I found out in the army
[3:07] Speaker 2: of the North Korea is another example of that, perhaps
[3:09] Speaker 2: a slightly more iminious example where when you take it
[3:12] Speaker 2: to an extreme it ends up impoverishing really the entire society.
[3:16] Speaker 3: This year, Pyongyang said it was earmarking sixteen percent of
[3:19] Speaker 3: all states spending for defense. All men between the ages
[3:23] Speaker 3: of seventeen and thirty have to enlist in the military,
[3:25] Speaker 3: and they have to serve anything from three to twelve
[3:28] Speaker 3: years in uniform the Korean People's Army.
[3:31] Speaker 2: That's one end of the spectrum. I think for Australia
[3:33] Speaker 2: will never reach those levels. I know there are some
[3:36] Speaker 2: people who are calling for a reintroduction of conscription, but really,
[3:39] Speaker 2: in the short to medium term, probably what it looks
[3:43] Speaker 2: like is a national capability to withstand a pressure campaign
[3:48] Speaker 2: against Australia.
[3:50] Speaker 1: Right, So, when officials say Australia needs to be ready
[3:53] Speaker 1: for a major conflict, what kind of conflict are they
[3:56] Speaker 1: actually imagining.
[3:58] Speaker 2: It's a great question, and of course nobody really knows.
[4:01] Speaker 2: I think most experts would agree that the most likely
[4:05] Speaker 2: contingency for Australia actually being attacked in a military sense
[4:09] Speaker 2: in a wartime scenario would be if we're part of
[4:12] Speaker 2: a wider war involving the United States and China. So
[4:15] Speaker 2: the idea that China would ever attack Australia without that
[4:19] Speaker 2: broader context is still pretty hard to believe. You really
[4:23] Speaker 2: have to squint your eyes to imagine circumstances in which
[4:27] Speaker 2: that would happen. That's not to say we shouldn't guard
[4:29] Speaker 2: against it even and prepare for it, because defense policy
[4:34] Speaker 2: is a kind of insurance. In insurance against extreme scenarios,
[4:38] Speaker 2: I mean, we all ensure our home, our property, and
[4:41] Speaker 2: our lives and our health in that way against extreme
[4:45] Speaker 2: scenarios and defense policies is a way of doing that
[4:48] Speaker 2: as well for the nation. Now at a certain extreme,
[4:51] Speaker 2: that becomes not just a defense effort but a national effort.
[4:54] Speaker 2: And the real fear that I think is driving that
[4:57] Speaker 2: this here is that Australia could somehow be cut off
[4:59] Speaker 2: from the wor world economically cut off from the world,
[5:02] Speaker 2: and that that would impede, first of all, our efforts
[5:04] Speaker 2: to fight, but secondly would be a major economic burden
[5:08] Speaker 2: on Australians.
[5:10] Speaker 1: What would an adversary actually gain from trying to isolate
[5:14] Speaker 1: Australia that way and how difficult would it be to do?
[5:17] Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that's an excellent question, and it would be
[5:19] Speaker 2: extremely difficult. So the effects I've described in that previous
[5:23] Speaker 2: answer really relate to how a war are between the
[5:26] Speaker 2: US and China would affect not just US but the
[5:29] Speaker 2: entire world. There is a more specific fear that I
[5:32] Speaker 2: think is driving the inquiry and other concerns in our
[5:36] Speaker 2: defense commentariat that China would have an interest in effectively
[5:40] Speaker 2: isolating Australia in some sense to stop a fuel supplies
[5:44] Speaker 2: from getting to US, for instance, so that our forces
[5:46] Speaker 2: and American forces that we are hosting couldn't conduct say
[5:50] Speaker 2: air operations, that we couldn't defend ourselves from aerial threats,
[5:54] Speaker 2: or we couldn't refuel our ships. I'm actually a bit
[5:57] Speaker 2: skeptical about how easy it would be to isolate Australia
[6:01] Speaker 2: in that sense. I mean, our geography helps us enormously
[6:04] Speaker 2: in that regard, because there are so many different ways
[6:07] Speaker 2: to approach Australia that isolating us would be extremely expensive
[6:11] Speaker 2: and difficult proposition. And the Australian continent itself is so large,
[6:15] Speaker 2: so that even if an opponent succeeded in isolating one
[6:18] Speaker 2: or two ports, say Sydney and Melbourne, they're still Adelaide,
[6:21] Speaker 2: there's still Perth, there's still dull and et cetera, et cetera.
[6:24] Speaker 2: So our geography helps us a great deal and makes
[6:28] Speaker 2: us very difficult to pressure in any sustained sense.
[6:31] Speaker 1: You've touched upon this sand But would Australia be preparing
[6:34] Speaker 1: for a war that comes to us or a war
[6:36] Speaker 1: that we decide to join?
[6:37] Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean this is a really critical question
[6:41] Speaker 2: in the context of the Orchest Agreement and the associated
[6:46] Speaker 2: deals for the United States to have effectively a permanent
[6:51] Speaker 2: military presence on Australian soil. So ORCAT is generally discussed
[6:56] Speaker 2: as Australia buying submarines by nuclear powered submarines, but certainly
[7:01] Speaker 2: in the short term and maybe even over the medium
[7:03] Speaker 2: to long term, the more important element of it will
[7:06] Speaker 2: be the fact that we're going to have a permanent
[7:08] Speaker 2: American military presence on the West Coast with their nuclear
[7:13] Speaker 2: powered submarines and sitting somewhat outside orcast but nevertheless continuous
[7:19] Speaker 2: with it. We're also going to have a permanent American
[7:21] Speaker 2: military presence at an airbase in the north of Australia
[7:24] Speaker 2: called WF Tindall, and America is going to be able
[7:27] Speaker 2: to conduct bomber missions, strategic bomber missions from that base. Now,
[7:33] Speaker 2: to my mind, that makes Australia a huge target. If
[7:35] Speaker 2: you're China, if you're involved in all with the United States,
[7:38] Speaker 2: you have a clear and direct incentive to strike those targets.
[7:43] Speaker 2: So my concern has been that actually we are bringing
[7:48] Speaker 2: the threat closer to us, we are making ourselves unnecessarily vulnerable.
[7:51] Speaker 2: There are ways for Australia to protect itself and there
[7:54] Speaker 2: are ways for us to preserve our lives with the
[7:56] Speaker 2: United States that don't involve these kind of commitments. Which
[7:59] Speaker 2: actually may small vulnerable.
[8:03] Speaker 1: Still to come, while conscription is still being floated by
[8:06] Speaker 1: at least one former General Sam. One of the people
[8:16] Speaker 1: pushing hardest for Australia to take this seriously is former
[8:19] Speaker 1: Home Affairs Boss Mirk Bizullo, who has argued for a
[8:24] Speaker 1: modern Australian war book. What would preparing the civilian population
[8:29] Speaker 1: on that scale actually involve?
[8:31] Speaker 2: Well, I think when we think about civilian preparedness for war,
[8:35] Speaker 2: there is perhaps a tendency to go back to World
[8:39] Speaker 2: War two and even before that, so you know, the
[8:43] Speaker 2: army really has a and ground warfare really has an
[8:46] Speaker 2: outsized place in Australia's historical imagination. When it comes to
[8:50] Speaker 2: military conflict. The antac legend is really centered around land
[8:55] Speaker 2: campaigns and land warfare. But in the kind of future
[8:59] Speaker 2: we're imagining in the United States and China might get
[9:01] Speaker 2: involved in a war and in which Australia needs to
[9:04] Speaker 2: defend itself that would be overwhelmingly an air and a
[9:07] Speaker 2: maritime campaign, and so we shouldn't be thinking about civilian
[9:12] Speaker 2: resilience as supporting a ground warfare over many years like
[9:18] Speaker 2: in World War two or even World War One. We
[9:22] Speaker 2: should be thinking of much more rapid maritime war that
[9:28] Speaker 2: is high technology and importantly that is not so much
[9:32] Speaker 2: labor intensive. It is capital intensive. That needs to say,
[9:36] Speaker 2: it costs an awful lot of money, but there aren't
[9:38] Speaker 2: as quite as many lives at stake, So you know,
[9:41] Speaker 2: ships and submarines and aircraft. Of course they take a
[9:44] Speaker 2: lot of people to operate them efficiently, but it's not
[9:48] Speaker 2: like the campaigns of those wars you know that really
[9:52] Speaker 2: formed the key part of our historical imagination. And so
[9:56] Speaker 2: that changes also the way we think about you know,
[9:59] Speaker 2: Seville resilience and the civilian participation in the war. It
[10:05] Speaker 2: really pushes us towards thinking more in terms of how
[10:09] Speaker 2: good our national infrastructure is, how good we are at
[10:13] Speaker 2: preserving our fuel supplies, the kind of stockpiles we have
[10:18] Speaker 2: on shore in Australia that can allow us to continue
[10:21] Speaker 2: to survive as a nation and to keep our economy
[10:25] Speaker 2: moving and to continue to fight if we have to.
[10:28] Speaker 2: So it's much less towards extended ground campaigns.
[10:32] Speaker 1: We've also heard from retired Major General mcran who argues
[10:37] Speaker 1: that Australia may long to be able to rely entirely
[10:39] Speaker 1: on a voluntary military. How seriously should we take this
[10:43] Speaker 1: growing discussion about national service.
[10:46] Speaker 2: Well, I think partly the answer to that question is
[10:49] Speaker 2: in the comments I just made about modern warfare, particularly
[10:52] Speaker 2: for Australia, being capital intensive rather than labor intensive. It
[10:56] Speaker 2: doesn't rely on a huge military in terms of the
[10:59] Speaker 2: number of people, but it does rely on a very
[11:03] Speaker 2: expensive suite of military capabilities. So conscription, to me, is
[11:10] Speaker 2: not the right answer to that question. The people that
[11:13] Speaker 2: we need are not going to be huge in number,
[11:16] Speaker 2: but they are going to have to be highly trained
[11:18] Speaker 2: and very very well educated. So to me, it's more
[11:22] Speaker 2: a question of investing more in the quality of the
[11:27] Speaker 2: people that we recruit and that we train and that
[11:29] Speaker 2: we educate, rather than increasing the sheer number for Australia.
[11:34] Speaker 1: So, Sam, if Australia is right to start preparing for
[11:38] Speaker 1: war more seriously, what's the biggest thing we're currently getting
[11:41] Speaker 1: wrong about our preparedness?
[11:43] Speaker 2: Well, for me, at the heart of this is aucus.
[11:45] Speaker 2: So this is the biggest bet, the biggest national investment
[11:48] Speaker 2: we've made in defense capability in a generation, and arguably
[11:53] Speaker 2: the biggest bet we've made in the US Alliance in
[11:57] Speaker 2: the history of the Alliance since Angers was signed in
[11:59] Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties. So China now presents this huge challenge
[12:04] Speaker 2: to the region and its way to becoming the dominant power.
[12:09] Speaker 2: And what Orcus assumes is that the Americans have a clear,
[12:12] Speaker 2: vital national interest in stopping China from achieving those ambitions.
[12:16] Speaker 2: I think the last thirty years of history suggests that's
[12:19] Speaker 2: probably not true. So if you look at, for instance,
[12:22] Speaker 2: the amount, the sheer amount, the sheer number of military
[12:24] Speaker 2: personnel that the US had in Asia thirty five years
[12:28] Speaker 2: ago and what it has today, it's roughly the same.
[12:31] Speaker 2: So that alone, to me, is a signal that their
[12:34] Speaker 2: hearts may not be in it. And so if their
[12:37] Speaker 2: hearts are not really in it, if they don't want
[12:39] Speaker 2: to defend their position in Asia, then for Australia the
[12:42] Speaker 2: conclusion has to be, well, we have to do more
[12:44] Speaker 2: for ourselves. And yet that's not the direction we're moving in.
[12:47] Speaker 2: We're moving into doubling down on the alliance under.
[12:50] Speaker 1: Orcus Sam some of the more cynical amongst us might
[12:53] Speaker 1: suggest that all this talk about whole nation preparedness and
[12:56] Speaker 1: civilian preparedness might be a way of raising the anxiety
[12:59] Speaker 1: amongst the population to justify Orcus. What would you say
[13:04] Speaker 1: to that before we let you go.
[13:05] Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's unduly cynical. It's important for Australians
[13:09] Speaker 2: to use the old Howard formula alert but not alarmed.
[13:13] Speaker 2: We live in a much more contested regional neighborhood than
[13:18] Speaker 2: we used to for all the reasons I just talked about.
[13:22] Speaker 1: You know, China is.
[13:23] Speaker 2: Going to become a much bigger power and much more
[13:26] Speaker 2: important power, and naturally a country of China's scale is
[13:31] Speaker 2: going to want to lead. It would be crazy, actually
[13:33] Speaker 2: to think that a country that is, if not the
[13:37] Speaker 2: biggest economy in the world already then certainly the second biggest,
[13:40] Speaker 2: that would indefinitely be content to remain a kind of subordinate,
[13:44] Speaker 2: a strategic supportinate in its own region. No, that's not
[13:47] Speaker 2: going to happen. It's going to want to lead. And
[13:49] Speaker 2: that has repercussions for Australia. So even if we keep
[13:52] Speaker 2: our heads down and keep quiet, that won't save us
[13:55] Speaker 2: from trouble. So we're going to have to have the capabilities,
[13:59] Speaker 2: not just military but national capabilities to withstand the kind
[14:03] Speaker 2: of pressure that we will inevitably come under from China
[14:06] Speaker 2: in the future. And so I think there's something to
[14:08] Speaker 2: be said for alerting the public and educating the public
[14:12] Speaker 2: to those kind of risks. I would also say that
[14:15] Speaker 2: we need to inject a level of self confidence here.
[14:19] Speaker 2: To me, what Orchest represents is a lack of self confidence.
[14:22] Speaker 2: It represents when danger, when risks arises, we run home
[14:27] Speaker 2: to a great and powerful friend. But to me, that
[14:31] Speaker 2: era is over. Australia needs to learn how to stand
[14:34] Speaker 2: alone and stand confidently alone. But we only do that
[14:37] Speaker 2: when we project and we communicate national strength.
[14:43] Speaker 1: SAM is a fascinating conversation and thank you for your
[14:45] Speaker 1: contribution to it.
[14:47] Speaker 2: Thanks so much.
[14:58] Speaker 1: Also in the news, Minister Anthony Albernezi and New South
[15:01] Speaker 1: Wales Premier Chris Mins have formerly announced a gun buyback
[15:05] Speaker 1: scheme they say is bigger than the Howard Eras scheme
[15:08] Speaker 1: in the wake of the Bondai terror attack. Who's hoped
[15:10] Speaker 1: other states will follow suits in the scheme, which is
[15:13] Speaker 1: expected to take two hundred and seventy four thousand guns
[15:16] Speaker 1: off the streets from November two, gun owners in breach
[15:19] Speaker 1: of possession limits can return their weapons for up to
[15:22] Speaker 1: one thousand dollars. And Aaron Patterson's appeal against her life
[15:27] Speaker 1: sentence for killing three relatives with the poisoned beef Wellington
[15:31] Speaker 1: will be heard in a Victoria court this week. Patterson
[15:34] Speaker 1: has always maintained her innocence. The prosecution is also appealing,
[15:38] Speaker 1: arguing that she should never receive parole. I'm Daniel James.
[15:42] Speaker 1: You've been listening to seven AM. We'll be back tomorrow

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.