Contested Ground

Phil Tarrant is joined by Space Industry Association of Australia CEO Dan Lloyd and chairman Darin Lovett to examine Australia's growing dependence on space and the strategic implications of an increasingly contested space domain.

They unpack the critical role space plays across Australia's economy and national security, from positioning, navigation and timing, and communications to defence, transport, energy, agriculture, and emergency services.
Does Australia have the strategy, investment, and risk appetite needed to turn its space ambitions into a practical national capability?

Phil Tarrant and Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson examine the growing debate over Australia's economic direction, drawing on Chris Uhlmann's recent article in The Australian on the "Argentinisation" of Australia.

They unpack the risks posed by weak productivity, rising regulation, higher costs, and falling investment – and ask what sustained economic underperformance could mean for housing, business confidence, and the nation's broader strategic strength.

Because if Australia enters an increasingly contested world from a position of economic weakness, its ability to fund defence, build sovereign capability, and protect its national interests becomes a much bigger question.

A dramatic political shift in Western Australia has put the major parties on notice and raised a much bigger question: what happens to Australia's national resilience when voters stop trusting the institutions that govern them?

Hosts Phillip Tarrant and Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson examine the rise of populism in Australia and why growing political polarisation, cost-of-living pressures and economic frustration should be viewed through a national security lens.

They unpack the erosion of trust in government and institutions, the weakening of Australia's traditional political centre and the risk that social division creates opportunities for foreign interference, information warfare and malign influence.

Finally, the pair look north to the Pacific Islands Forum, currently underway, and Australia's increasingly contested strategic environment. With China seeking greater influence across the region, Taiwan remaining a flashpoint and several Pacific leaders absent from the forum, they discuss why Australia can no longer take its relationships in the Pacific for granted.
Enjoy the podcast,
The Contested Ground team

Dr Ross Babbage warns that without urgent economic reform and industrial recalibration, Australia risks becoming a client state of Beijing.
Returning to the Defence Connect Podcast, strategic analyst Dr Ross Babbage delivers an unsparing diagnosis: Australia is drifting towards a future of strategic weakness, economic vulnerability and de facto dependence on Beijing – unless the nation urgently reverses course on industrial policy, governance efficiency and the information asymmetry crippling public debate.
In a wide-ranging conversation with host Steve Kuper, Babbage articulates an emerging geopolitical fracture: the world is crystallising into distinct economic camps. The first, led by the United States and including Western democracies, is erecting selective tariffs and deepened trade ties. Camp two is China and its authoritarian satellites. A third comprises developing nations watching carefully before committing.
Australia's position, Babbage argues, remains fatefully ambiguous. While virtually every Western ally has taken protective measures against Chinese manufacturing dumping and industrial subsidy – a regime he quantifies at eight to 18 times the support other nations provide – Australia has remained conspicuously reticent. China's leverage remains decisive: our iron ore and coal exports are non-negotiable parts of Beijing's strategic calculus.
The deeper problem, he stresses, runs through economic governance itself. Australia has deindustrialised deliberately over three decades, shed critical capabilities in steel and advanced manufacturing, surrendered energy cost advantage and starved investment in domestic capability. Without deliberate recalibration – smaller government, redirection of trade partnerships, strategic investment incentives – Australia defaults towards clientelism.
Equally critical is the communication void. Defence industry leaders, board chairs of major firms and even policymakers routinely tell Babbage they were unaware of the scale of Chinese subversion, intellectual property theft and coordinated disintegration operations aimed at fracturing Western cohesion.
The path forward, he argues, demands frank public briefings, ruthless priority setting and abandonment of exhausted economic orthodoxies. Without it, Australia becomes the strategic backwater Beijing expects.
Enjoy the podcast, 
The Contested Ground team

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