It beggars belief that the outgoing head of the RSL, Greg Melick, has abused the quiet solemnity of Remembrance Day to lecture and berate the Albanese government on its defence policy.

Worse, he carelessly flung around the tired epithet of ‘appeasement’ at the Prime Minister and his Ministers.

Yet this is a government that has consistently said it will ensure Australia has what it needs to provide for the defence of Australia. And is currently hosting major US military apparatus here. Indeed, the Government is currently preparing the next iteration of its Defence Strategic Review.

Even more reprehensible is Melick’s attempt to sow discord in Cabinet by suggesting that only the Defence Minister is sufficiently seized of the strategic situation. We can thank our lucky stars that the RSL does not have a seat at the Cabinet table.

Melick’s remarks, far from being some kind of clarion call to the battlefield, show only how craven he is to the assumption that China poses a direct military threat to Australia. He wants the public to believe that we have only minutes to midnight before we witness an attack on our shores. Notwithstanding that the Chinese have never, ever threatened us.

And what is his evidence for these reckless claims, whose purpose is to sow fear and alarm? Is this a rational way to advance any national discussion, let alone the current state of global affairs?

Fundamentally, Melick wants to drag us into a military exchange with the Chinese, a military superpower. Ignoring the fact that the Chinese have no intention of attacking Australia and never have had.

His utterances are simply the strategic jottings of a dope.

The RSL has once more sought to show itself as the repository of wisdom for how governments should speak about and act on defence policy. And the RSL has no such right.

Melick talked much in his address of ‘grand strategy’ but his main sources for doing so were British: a retired UK Chief of the Defence staff and a British analyst. Why is he not articulating a distinctively Australian case as to how we should run policy? One quote from Alfred Deakin simply will not do.

But this looking to Britain is entirely in keeping with an RSL instinct to prioritise the interests of the Whitehall brass instead of advancing the interests of Australia.

I have always maintained that paying tribute to the service and sacrifice of so many Australian men and women in wartime is a core duty of our national life.

But it ill behoves the RSL or anyone belonging to it to assume ownership of the Australian military conscience, dictating to the government of the day what needs to be done. And to have done it on the 11 November is as disrespectful to those who have died in Australia’s service as it is to the Prime Minister, who ultimately carries responsibility for the protection and defence of the nation.

12 November 2025