Australia’s defence budget is set to nearly double over the next decade, while peace research, diplomacy and conflict prevention remain underfunded despite being essential to reducing the risk of war.
Australia’s annual military budget is set to nearly double in the next decade. The National Defence Strategy, released in April, said annual Defence spending would rise from the 2026-27 figure of $63.4 billion to $112.1 billion for the year 2035-36, bringing the total for the decade to $887 billion.
The defence strategy paper states that one of the key goals in a challenging strategic environment is to maintain regional peace and prevent conflict. It outlines the vast array of measures designed to boost our military might and, we’re told, “deter” armed conflict.
However, the unstated assumption – the greater our capacity to inflict damage, the safer we’ll be – is long overdue for serious examination. By placing our faith in “deterrence”, which can and does fail, the Australian government is failing to support conflict prevention and peacebuilding measures which – in combination with a less bloated military capacity – would be less provocative to others, more effective at maintaining peace, and vastly cheaper.
The key tools for peacebuilding include dialogue and diplomacy, negotiation and conflict resolution skills, and confidence-building measures both regionally and globally. These things all require commitment, training and funding. Yet they remain neglected when compared to the overwhelming focus on military capacity.
As in other fields, research is essential. If we want healthy populations, we do health research to guide programs. If we want well-educated populations, we do education research to guide those doing the teaching. Where then is the peace research when we want peace?
The answer is that peace research scholars are being marginalised and defunded when we need them most. As “defence and security” studies proliferate at our universities, very few dedicated peace research centres remain.
Dr Tania Miletic, Co-Director at one of the few such centres, Melbourne University’s Initiative for Peacebuilding, says that “peace” seems to be a problematic label for some academic and policy audiences. Her research with ANU’s Associate Professor Anouk Ride examines the decline and closure of Peace Research Centres in Australia over the past 50 years. Both academics are on precarious contracts and their work relies on scarce funding. This is despite its contributions across critical areas including understanding drivers of violent conflict, regional case studies in peacebuilding, and dialogue and relationship-building in our region.
At Sydney University, the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies was closed in 2016, and its postgraduate program in this field five years later. The number of Sydney University staff specialising in peace and conflict studies stands at just 1.5 full-time equivalent. Meanwhile, the university’s US Studies Centre, which vigorously promotes an ever-greater military buildup against China (including the problem-ridden AUKUS agreement) has a staff of dozens.
At the University of New England (UNE), the number of Peace Studies units taught, and staff to teach them, have been whittled away, despite the production of world-class publications and many former students now working to build peace in conflict zones and elsewhere.
UNE’s Associate Professor Marty Branagan says it is an ongoing battle against the tide. “Peace Studies is solutions-oriented and has answers for many of the world’s worst problems, but it needs to be supported adequately.”
The problem, as our rapidly escalating defence budget shows, is not shortage of funds for research, but distorted priorities that give overwhelming support to fighting wars rather than preventing them.
The list of Defence Department programs for education and research in military-related STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) is long. It includes the Defence STEM Cadetship Program, the Defence STEM Work Experience Program, the Defence Industry Internship Program, the School Pathways Program, the Defence Industry Pathways Program, the Shipbuilding Employment Pathways Initiative, and the Defence Industry Development Grants program. Federal and state government-funded programs aim to get school students, even at primary level, excited about building missiles and nuclear submarines.
Australia’s premier organisation to support our best young STEM students, the National Youth Science Forum, has as its major sponsor Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest weapons company.
The May 2026 federal budget, in line with the National Defence Strategy, delivered for the defence portfolio what the Canberra Times described as “a massive workforce expansion that dwarfed all other sectors”. Compared to the over $60 billion for Defence, data from the Development Intelligence Lab indicate that diplomacy will receive just under $4 billion, despite official recognition that “diplomacy is always our first line of defence”.
As at 30 June 2024, the Defence Department had a permanent workforce of nearly 77,000 personnel, comprising approximately 57,000 permanent ADF members and nearly 20,000 public service employees. By comparison, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, whose tasks include “to “tackle global challenges…protect international rules…keep our region stable”, employs fewer than 10 per cent of this number, with under 7,000 staff in Australia and globally.
Funding for Australia’s Official Development Assistance (overseas aid), which also helps build positive relationships with other nations, is just $5.2 billion, less than one tenth of our military budget.
We are becoming a nation that knows a lot about fighting but not much about the more difficult task of peacebuilding and all the skills and commitment it needs.
This matters very much. Australia is inextricably linked militarily with a nation that is rarely at peace and is currently preparing for war against China, the consequences of which would be catastrophic. Preventing it, not aiding and abetting it, must be a priority for Australia.
For this, we need all the peacebuilding tools we can muster. Peace research must be resurrected and given the support and status it deserves. We must invest far less in the business of killing and far more in the skills of resolving rather than feeding conflicts. Peace requires more than the payment of lip service.
Dr Sue Wareham OAM has spoken and written widely on peace and disarmament issues, and is President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia). She is a former Canberra GP. FB: @MAPWAustralia, T: @MAPW_Australia