If you knew more about the capabilities of armour you wouldn't be insinuating I'm advocating a massed tank assault.
Well done on baseless assumptions. I am well aware of the capabilities of armour outside of tank battles (in fact a relatively uncommon role).
My question is why does the Australian Army need to massively expand tank forces especially when we have serious gaps in both sea coverage and air defence?
You can have Chinese nuclear submarines launch cruise or ballistic missiles from eastern or south western seaboards without a problem. This is where all the cities are.
There's no OTH radar coverage on either of those coasts (Jindalee points northward – it was built with Indonesia in mind). There are no fighter squadrons based in west and no surface-to-air defences on either of those coasts (well no surface to air defences anywhere).
And note the existing M1 Abrams are relatively new.
Of course it wouldn't be me making the decision- that's just another emotive red-herring statement- but I know what the provisions are (or were, now).In certain situations the ADF may be employed against Australians and could include air, naval or armoured units- if the situation was seen by the government and governor-general as warranting that use of force. The situations would have to be extreme but the provisions are there in the constitution.
Oh yes I am well aware. And not just the constitution but the Defence Act.
It's scary how much flexibility the Commonwealth has in terms of being able to act against its citizens (and especially worrying when Australia doesn't have a bill of rights or indeed anything that guarantees individual rights).
Indeed the Australian military has already been used strangely in strictly civilian matters:
1. Intervention to stop sexual abuse and alcoholism in indigenous communities.
2. Aerial reconnaissance over a disputed dam in Tasmania in 1983.
3. Provision of aerial transport to break a pilot's strikes in 1971 and 1989.
4. Quarantine enforcement during COVID.
5. Use of military to load ships during a waterfront dispute in 1950s (basically troops used as strike breakers)
"Luckily" for Australia, supposedly pro-worker PM Bob Hawke destroyed the union movement in the 1980s and Australians have happily accepted the new neo-liberal order whereby their salaries and living conditions stay stagnant or deteriorate so no need to use military as strike breakers anymore.
The ADF can't be called out to deal with police matters (ie the rioting to which you allude), as you probably well know.
As far as I am aware, the only exemption was for intervening against riots due to industrial disputes (but nothing to stop using military as strike breakers as previously mentioned) (sec 51 of Defence Act).
Other than that the constitution's section 119 is interpreted as meaning the Commonwealth can deploy the army to protect itself :
"The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence"
Definition of violence is never ever defined.
And with Australia has been working hard on rolling back "rights" and becoming more authoritarian ( link ), the Constitution's blank check on using the military against the population is a scary concept (and one that I know is supported by some of the more fringe elements of the right who not only form a chunk of current government's supporters but who would love nothing more than to deploy tanks against BLM or women's rights or environmental protestors).
