We should certainly be armed...no country does anyone favours if it is a sitting duck for invasion.
We should also certainly be neutral and declare that violence is *only* acceptable for defence.
Warfare changed when the V2 was invented and Australia is quite capable of becoming capable of self defence. What is taboo at the moment is that our "defence" is nothing of the sort: It is strategic diplomacy for national interest...an extension of politics. This is why many folks feel sick when politicians rant on about "lest we forget" while killing folks overseas year after year for resources and the "great game".
What a shame both flavours of political party are 100% in the US sycophant club.

We owe a blood debt to the USA that arguably can never ever be repaid? The sacrifice of thousands of young American lives, in the battle of the Coral sea, won for us the continuing freedom and the democratic rights we enjoy today!
Moreover, our ongoing alliance probably prevented other more populous nations from annexing Australia.
One understands, there was during Suhartos's reign, war maps showing the northern half of Australia as Indonesian territory. Moreover, we could have hardly been instrumental in the freedom of East Timor, but for the fact, we have the unequivocal backing of the world's most powerful Military?
It's all very well for recent arrivals to Australia, with a vastly different perspective, to wax eloquent, about our junior partner relationship with our American cousins?
But the Anzus treaty has served us and our defence posture, very well thus far.
To be sure and all the lessons learned from actions in places like Vietnam, inform us, the at the end of the day, we must ultimately be completely self reliant!
We have to understand and accept, our relationship and alliance is not a signed in blood, blank cheque, ours or theirs?
Genuine self reliance means building and or acquiring more and more of our defence material from Australian based manufacture!
Even if that means major public investment in arms, missile, smart bombs, torpedo, submarines, ships, OTHR, VTO aircraft, drones and other launch platforms, in Govt owned and operated manufacture.
Local arms manufacture was and ought to remain standard wartime practise, that logically ought also apply to any genuinely capable forward defence posture?
Given missile, torpedoes, submarines, and smart bombs; dropped by sacrificial drones/remotely operated mini subs, will feature very heavily in any forward defence posture?
Stealth and manoeuvring, plus carrying capacity, will likely outweigh sheer speed in the sky. And we already know how to do/make all that! Rhrosty.

Rhrosty: As for us being protected by the US alliance...I have an elephant repellent t-shirt that has protected me all my life...not once have I had elephant problems which *proves* it works.
I agree with the rest of the post though...I think.
Keep in mind that the gear needed for *defence* is much cheaper than OS acts of offence...provided we stop buying from the inefficient US war machine.
My brother works for a company that is paid by our military to maintain capacity to build bullets and shells for weapons that we no longer use. Under Howard's US trade agreement we now have to buy most of our small arms ammunition from the US (due to commercial license agreements we cannot make them here) So we pay muppets to make weapons we don't need, and we pay US profiteers to make the bullets we do need...only because we rolled over to US in the name of "free trade". Our military "leadership": cannot even manage packing pallets...they have no clue in a modern world and are a huge money pit.
Replacing patrol boats with drones, and infantry with destruction from above and far away (The best way to transport explosives it to do it quickly via rocket...no need for most of the logistics needed for political police action OS)
In short we could be properly defended, gain moral ground, employ more people and even develop an export industry that isn't dirt (!). First, of course we must clear the decks of US sycophants and "strategists" that see the US as our only saviour.

Yeah,

Neutral Switzerland?

During the cold war it was surrounded by NATO countries that had undertaken to deter and, if necessary, beat off, the Soviet armies before they could reach Switzerland. Each of them spent far more on defence in relation to GDP than Switzerland. Switzerland itself never spent much more than 1% of GDP on defence.

Does that make Switzerland "neutral." Or does it make Switzerland a freeloader?

By an accident of geography Switzerland was shielded by NATO – ie mainly American – might without having to lift a finger in its own defence. Australia is not in such a fortunate position. To have a credible defensive capability Australia would need to spend far more than Switzerland's 1% of GDP or this country's current 1.5% of GDP on defence. Somewhere in the range 3-4% might be realistic.

We would also probably have to adopt conscription in order to be able to provide defence in depth.

And, finally, we would still need the help of the US in intelligence gathering.

Perhaps armed neutrality is a good idea but the Swiss are not a realistic model. A more realistic model might be Israel which has developed a high tech weapons industry of its own.

Under Labor Australia would probably have unarmed neutrality anyway.

Hear Hear.
I suggest all governments with standing armies should be sued be sued for false advertising (with the exception of Switzerland, of course).
We could save considerable amounts by designing a genuine, home grown defence force, instead of a fully imported attack force.
It could start with something as simple as a change of names. Replace “Navy” for “Coastguard”, for instance.
The essential problem with having a treaty with a country that reveres Corporate Capitalism above all else, is that you KNOW, their main (or only) interest is profiting from the deal.

When we discovered the UK defense umbrella we thought we were sheltering under turned out to be too small to reach out to us, we were pretty damn quick to scuttle under the big one offered by the US.

That umbrella may not be quite as big as it was, & may be a little threadbare in spots, but it is the only one on offer. Climb out from under that, & you'll find a big nasty world, where little Oz would look much like a lamb, waiting to be slaughtered. There's a few out there who would find our minerals a worthy target.

Even before our idiot government ripped over a billion a year out of our defence budget, we could not find a single ship capable of going up to Cardwell after the cyclone. A couple of years back we had an amphibious force capable of landing 800 men, & all their equipment anywhere on earth. Now we couldn't get even a few of them from Townsville to Cardwell.

Dr Peter suggests it "may" cost a bit more to go independent. MAY, hell it would cost about double just to be a really worth while ally. To go it alone would cost about 1000% more, just for equipment, & that's before we started paying miners wage rates to get some men to join, or stay in the forces.

Still, I suppose we could close some questionably useful museums, some universities, half the hospitals, & cut the welfare budget, to find a few quid, but we would have to close Canberra completely to start to find what would be needed.

Currently we augment our defense budget, with a few defense force peoples lives, to avoid spending our money. Much cheaper & easier to send some troupers where ever, rather than sack public servants, don't you know.

So do be careful what you wish for Peter, you just might get some unintended consequences you won't like