Why both Labor and the Coalition are missing the bigger picture in Australia’s defence of the future.

The 2025–26 Federal Budget has given Australians a rare glimpse into two starkly different visions of national security.

One, delivered by the Albanese Government, is layered, technocratic, and focused on resilience, capability-building, and international cooperation.

The other, delivered by Peter Dutton and the Coalition, is urgent, muscular, and unapologetically nationalist — built around deterrence, domestic control, and sovereign power.

But here’s the truth neither side has quite said out loud:

We are underprepared — not in terms of funding, but in terms of understanding.

🛡️ National Security Theatre vs. National Security Reality

Between submarines, cybercrime units, foreign diplomacy, and energy security, Australia is throwing close to $70 billion at national security this year alone.

But as someone who operates daily at the coalface of risk, defence, and digital resilience, we can tell you: the budget doesn’t scare our adversaries. Our complacency does.

We’re still approaching national security as a siloed, reactive discipline — when in fact, it has become a pervasive, psychological, and systemic force. A force shaped by:

• State-sponsored cyber attacks
• Algorithmic propaganda
• Infrastructure fragility
• Economic interference
• And an erosion of public trust, accelerated by misinformation

This isn’t traditional warfare. It’s warfare without uniforms. Without borders. And without warning. And remember… our adversaries do not care how many certifications and audits we pass to say we have security and risk taken care of.

And that demands a security doctrine that neither side has fully articulated.

⚖️ Labor’s Approach: Capable, Cooperative… and Complacent?

The Albanese Government’s budget strengthens institutional layers:

• More funding for AFP cybercrime and scam disruption
• Greater coordination through the National Cyber Security Coordinator
• Continued investment in Defence, AUKUS, and digital diplomacy through DFAT

It’s a competent, steady strategy.

But it’s not bold.

It doesn’t address the public literacy gap in cyber awareness.

It doesn’t embed resilience into the operating culture of organisations, boards, or communities.

And it doesn’t confront the hybrid warfare realities that are already targeting Australia — in schools, in hospitals, in public discourse.

The truth is, you can’t fund your way to security.

You have to build it — culturally, systematically, and strategically.

🧨 The Coalition’s Response: Strong Words, Strategic Gaps

Peter Dutton’s counter-budget is fiery and unapologetic.

He wants:

• Asymmetric capability development
• Restored border controls
• Reduced migration
• Deregulation for industry revival
• Energy sovereignty through gas and nuclear
• A renewed domestic defence sector with cyber, AI, and emerging tech at its core

It sounds decisive. But it also raises questions:

• What kind of cyber strategy sits behind these ambitions?
• Who’s educating the public, businesses, and critical sectors?
• Where is the governance that ensures this doctrine doesn’t overreach or underdeliver?

If Labor’s problem is complacency, the Coalition’s risk is rhetoric outpacing strategy.

🔍 What’s Missing From Both

Here’s what neither side has meaningfully addressed:

1. A National Cyber Doctrine

• We need more than programs and patchwork funding.
• We need a unifying cyber narrative that spans government, industry, infrastructure, and citizens.

2. Resilience as a Civic Imperative

• Australia still sees resilience as a “nice-to-have” rather than a national value.
• We need campaigns that treat cyber and security awareness like we once treated water conservation.

3. Energy Policy as Security Strategy

• One side wants rewiring, the other wants gas terminals.
• Neither is treating energy as a strategic asset vulnerable to disruption, surveillance, and foreign pressure.

4. Geopolitical Influence in the Digital Era

• DFAT has a $6.4B budget — but digital statecraft, disinformation counter-ops, and regional tech diplomacy remain underdeveloped.
• In the Indo-Pacific, we’re not just competing for territory. We’re competing for trust, connectivity, and sovereignty — and that war is being fought in cables, code, and culture.

🧠 Our Take?

This is not a fight between left and right.

It’s a fight between the present and the future.

We’re facing a convergence of threats unlike anything in modern history: digital, economic, ideological, infrastructural, and informational — all accelerating at once.

Neither budget answers the question: what does true security look like in a post-truth, AI-accelerated, cyber-normalised world?

But at Shimazaki Sentinel, we’re building answers that go beyond politics.

Because securing the future isn’t about slogans or spreadsheets.

It’s about systems that think ahead.

It is about thinking like the adversary in all parts of our work.

It is about not caring about compliance and auditing. These things have their place but adversaries don’t care about these things. It is not even 1% deterrent for them.

It’s about people who aren’t afraid to ask the hard questions.

And it’s about leadership that knows the difference between being safe and feeling safe.

About Dr Thomas Jreige

With over 25 years in risk management, geopolitical intelligence, digital security and counterterrorism, Dr Thomas Jreige has advised governments, and critical industries on the threats that shape our future. He’s not a commentator — he’s a practitioner. Known for cutting through complexity with clarity and conviction, Thomas brings a unique mix of operational insight and big-picture thinking. If you’re looking for someone who sees what others miss — he’s worth following.