Contested Ground

As global security deteriorates, a major new UNSW Canberra survey reveals a startling paradox in the Australian psyche: unwavering trust in the Australian Defence Force, coupled with a deep misunderstanding of its operations, widespread apathy towards increased funding, and a shocking drop in support for traditional alliances.
Australia's relationship with the ADF is reaching a strange inflection point. Joining Steve Kuper on Contested Ground, UNSW Canberra's Dr Richard Dunley and Dr Nicole Townsend reveal how the latest public sentiment data exposes a dangerous disconnect between Canberra's strategic reality and the public's expectations.
At first glance, the report offers a comforting narrative for Defence leadership. Public trust in the ADF remains impressively high, holding steady from 2025. Nearly 70 per cent of Australians trust the ADF as an institution, and over 65 per cent trust it to act ethically.
However, as Dunley and Townsend reveal, this trust is built on a foundation of profound public ignorance.
Despite escalating global tensions, most respondents admitted they are uninformed about current ADF operations. This highlights a persistent and widening gap between the ADF's complex, widespread operational commitments and the Australian public's understanding of what their military actually does.
This lack of understanding is having tangible impacts on public policy appetite. The survey found that despite Australians reporting a deteriorating perception of global security, support for additional Defence funding has flatlined, remaining steady at roughly one-third of the population. More concerningly, the researchers noted a small but significant growth in the number of respondents actively favouring cuts to the Defence budget.
"Australians are feeling less secure, yet they aren't willing to pay more for security," Kuper says, driving to the heart of the paradox.
The public seems most comfortable viewing the ADF through the lens of a highly capable emergency management agency. There is overwhelming support – over 82 per cent – for the ADF's involvement in domestic disaster relief, and strong backing (68.4 per cent) for regional humanitarian assistance.
Yet, when it comes to hard power and traditional strategic posture, the survey reveals a dramatic shift. In a major departure from the 2025 data, support for the ADF operating closely with traditional allies – particularly the United States – has plummeted by nearly 20 per cent. While a slim majority (54.4 per cent) still support these alliances, outright opposition has spiked dramatically.
Conversely, the public shows a naive optimism towards regional security treaties. Australians broadly believe the recent mutual defence treaty with Papua New Guinea will enhance security, even though only 37 per cent of respondents actually knew the treaty existed.
A similar trend of "sentiment over substance" emerged regarding veterans. While the public strongly supports government initiatives for veterans, there is a distinct lack of awareness regarding actual veteran issues or policies.
Join Kuper, Dunley, and Townsend on Contested Ground as they dissect these findings and ask the critical question: Can the ADF rely on public trust if that trust is blind?
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team

As Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese moves to secure the Pacific and ensure continued alignment with Australia, China threw a wrench in the works by conducting a ballistic missile test, effectively firing the starter's gun on a countdown to war.

In a chilling diagnosis of the Australian political landscape, the latest Contested Ground podcast presents a blunt thesis: the nation has traded the rigorous, strategic statecraft of the past for a hyper-partisan focus on domestic "household" economics, leaving Australia dangerously unprepared for the brewing realities of global conflict.
Hosts Phil Tarrant and Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson sit down with former Department of Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo to unpack a harsh truth. The political class has become obsessed with the "household offer" – the immediate, transactional relief of cost-of-living policies at the expense of long-term strategic vision.
Pezzullo argues that modern politics has atrophied its ability to handle global affairs because, quite simply, politicians no longer view deep strategic expertise as a necessary tool in their belt.
The conversation takes a sharp turn when Pezzullo, leaning on his decades of experience, offers a sobering assessment of the Indo-Pacific. He posits a 10–15 per cent probability of a major Pacific conflict by 2028, a window tied to China's internal political calendar and the strategic positioning of US combat assets in Australia.
This isn't merely academic posturing; it is a call for an integrated national plan that currently does not exist. Pezzullo's warning is clear: while Australia has a "quiet" military culture and lacks the martial fervor of other nations, this complacency is a liability when facing a potential major power confrontation.
Perhaps the most provocative thread of the discussion is the challenge to our current leadership's capabilities.
When asked if the current political establishment is equipped to manage a national crisis of this magnitude, the consensus is grim. The conversation draws parallels to Yes, Prime Minister, suggesting that while current leaders might try to channel their inner Churchill when pressure mounts, they lack the foundational historical and strategic literacy that defined the era of leaders like Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans.
The podcast concludes on a pessimistic but realistic note: proactive leadership is unlikely. Pezzullo suggests that the system is so entrenched in domestic optics that it may take a significant crisis, an event more traumatic than a pandemic or supply chain shock, to force the necessary "overpressure" on government.
Until that catalyst arrives, the national security apparatus remains in a holding pattern, hoping for peace but arguably failing to prepare for the strategic storms on the horizon.
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team

While Australia's level of political atomisation is far from as bad as what is being experienced in the broader Western world, we're not far-off. How we engage with generations of Australians will have dramatic ramifications for our national security in the immediate and longer term.

Following mounting political tensions across the Western world, with startling examples in the United Kingdom in recent weeks, Australia and Australians have been watching with bated breath as to how long it will take for those simmering tensions to boil over closer to home.
These undercurrents have served to combine with mounting intergenerational hostilities and competition over employment, housing and lifestyle opportunities, with younger Australians increasingly feeling like they were sold a bung deal.
Speaking with Ben Dullroy of Bravo Delta Advisory, host Steve Kuper unpacks the rising political isolation, tensions and, for the establishment parties of Australian politics, concern over the rise of populism on both the left and right of the political divide.
The pair detail the areas of comparison and contrast between Australia and other similar nations like the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, discussing emerging trends in the respective political discourse and agenda setting and what Australia can do to avoid the same pitfalls as some of our compatriot nations.
They also discuss the impact of immigration, declining employment prospects and one of the most overlooked aspects behind social cohesion – the dating scene and the intersections of social and cultural investment and national security.
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team

As Australia faces a populist political surge and the established political parties continue to lose ground, can Australia's "sensible" centre hold, or will decades of failed policies, broken promises and declining economic opportunities finally come home to roost?

In a departure from its usual international focus, Contested Ground turns to domestic tensions sparked by the federal budget. The hosts argue that this has become a sustained point of public frustration rather than a short-term political issue.
Hosts Phil Tarrant and Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson question whether Australia is moving away from its traditional "sensible centre" towards greater political polarisation.
A central theme of the discussion is the declining level of trust between Australians and the political class. Dr Thompson argues that governments increasingly risk creating division through policies and political strategies that focus on wedge issues rather than building consensus. The conversation references debates, including the Voice referendum and responses to international crises, as examples of issues that have contributed to heightened social tension.
The discussion also turns to housing, taxation and the economic pressures facing younger Australians. Tarrant raises concerns that government policy settings, including changes affecting self-managed super funds and capital gains tax arrangements, may have unintentionally reduced investment capacity and worsened housing supply pressures.
The hosts question whether Australia is continuing to promote an outdated version of the "Australian Dream" while younger generations face record debt levels, higher living costs and greater financial uncertainty.
Ultimately, the episode explores a bigger question: is Australia experiencing a fundamental shift in its national identity and political culture?
The hosts suggest the country may be moving away from the traditional "sensible centre" that has defined much of modern Australian politics towards a more divided environment, where competing extremes increasingly dominate public debate. They warn that maintaining social cohesion will become harder if political leadership continues to prioritise short-term political advantage over long-term national unity.
The episode concludes with a call for a renewed style of leadership – one focused less on political point-scoring and more on honesty, transparency and bringing Australians together to confront the economic and strategic challenges ahead.
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team

Host Steve Kuper is joined by former navy logistician Dave Grosvenor and chair of the Gravity Group Steve Hayes for a wide-ranging discussion on Australia's sovereign capability, industrial resilience and the growing gap between strategic risk and national preparedness in this episode of the Contested Ground podcast.
The conversation opens with a blunt assessment of Australia's strategic vulnerability, with the argument that it is no longer theoretical but "empirically established" through a growing body of evidence. The panel examines what concrete indicators – ranging from supply chain fragility to operational dependence on external partners – most clearly demonstrate this exposure, and why existing frameworks such as the Defence Strategic Review did not go far enough in diagnosing the scale of the challenge.
A key theme is urgency. The guests argue that incremental reform and repeated reviews are insufficient, making a comprehensive national audit of sovereign capability essential now rather than later. They explore how wargaming outcomes and scenario analysis increasingly point to Australia's limited resilience in the face of prolonged disruption, particularly across critical supply chains and industrial dependencies.
The discussion then turns to the structural limits of market-driven solutions. The panel outlines how market failures, foreign subsidies and competing international industrial strategies distort outcomes for Australian industry. They also unpack the "theory of the second best" in practical policy terms, arguing that partial reforms in a distorted global system can sometimes worsen outcomes rather than improve them. The debate extends to the real-world cost of inaction, framed not just in economic terms but in strategic and operational risk.
Attention shifts to what a national audit would need to deliver, including whole-of-government visibility, cross-sector integration and measurable outcomes rather than another cyclical report. The guests stress the importance of avoiding bureaucratic capture and ensuring the process translates into actionable reform rather than analysis paralysis.
The conversation then explores the policy tools available to government, including long-term procurement, sovereign industry funds, and strategic industrial zones. Particular focus is given to the most under-utilised levers in Australia's current policy toolkit and the skills gaps that continue to undermine sovereign capability ambitions.
International comparisons feature prominently, with the Republic of Korea highlighted as the most relevant model for Australia. The panel discusses Korea's long-term policy consistency, export-driven industrial strategy and state-enabled industrial scaling while questioning how much of that approach is realistically transferable to the Australian context.
Institutional reform is another focal point, with discussion of proposals for a dedicated Ministry of Sovereign Industry. The guests examine how such an institution might interact with Defence, Treasury and industry departments, and whether Australia can maintain continuity of strategy across electoral cycles without a dedicated anchor for sovereign capability policy.
The episode also addresses public trust and communication challenges, emphasising the need for transparency in how sovereign risk is communicated to avoid unnecessary alarm while strengthening social cohesion and democratic engagement.
Finally, the panel considers implementation realities – what can be achieved within a single parliamentary term, how bipartisan consensus might be built, and the respective roles of states, territories and private capital in delivering large-scale industrial transformation.
In closing, the discussion returns to first principles: what motivated the push for a national audit, how lived experience in procurement and logistics shapes the analysis, and what success would look like for Australia if it meaningfully closes its sovereign capability gap over the next decade.
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team