The threat of war close to home loomed large as Defence Minister Peter Dutton and Shadow Defence Minister Brendan O'Connor faced off in a debate at the National Press Club.
Echoing comments he made on Anzac Day, Mr Dutton gave a dark warning that the country must be ready for war.
"If history has taught us anything, it is that when dictators are on the march, you can only preserve peace by preparing for war," Mr Dutton said.
Mr Dutton's sentiment was unchallenged by Labor's Shadow Defence Minister, who agreed that China today was a different country than it was a decade ago.
"We've agreed with the government … it is not the Australian government or Australia that's changed its behaviour. It is China," Mr O'Connor said.
But there was plenty Mr Dutton and Mr O'Connor did not agree on.
Here is what parties' defence representatives had to say on some of the key security issues facing the country.
China, of course, dominated the debate
Labor and the Coalition have both already made commitments to grow Australia's military forces, in the shadow of a more "aggressive" and "coercive" China.
Mr Dutton repeated on Thursday that a re-elected Coalition government would grow army forces by 30 per cent, to more than 85,000 personnel, and increase defence spending to more than 2 per cent of GDP.
Mr O'Connor said Labor supported lifting spending to a minimum of 2 per cent of GDP, and the government's overall defence budget
But Mr Dutton repeated his controversial claim that the Beijing government would prefer to have Labor in power.
"There's no doubt in my mind that the Chinese Communist Party would like to see a change of government at the May 21 election. No question at all," he said.
"And I think that there's evidence of that on the WeChat activity — which is a Communist-Party-dominated and influenced platform — the interference with the Prime Minister's own WeChat page there, the way in which editors of Chinese-language newspapers in our country have been lent on, I think is further evidence. And other elements, obviously, that I can't go into publicly."
Intelligence officials have previously warned that claim could undermine national security.
Mr O'Connor responded that it was a "conspiracy".
"The reality is, yes, you will see China involve itself in our matters from time to time improperly, but that doesn't mean that it wants one over the other, and of course, it suits Peter's purposes to suggest otherwise," he said.
But it seemed a moot point between the pair that, as Mr Dutton said, "On every prediction, the circumstances will deteriorate in our region."
Dutton denies government 'dropped the ball' on Solomon Islands
The recent security pact between China and Solomon Islands has dominated headlines throughout the election campaign, with the government facing accusations it handled the issue poorly.
Mr O'Connor said the government had "dropped the ball" and failed to maintain a relationship with Solomons Islands that could have prevented China gaining influence in the region.
"We have failed there … I'm not suggesting it was easy to stop, but more should have been done," Mr O'Connor said.
"The Foreign Minister should have been there. Scott Morrison should have got on the phone to the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands and actually, you know, pleaded with him not to go down this path."
He said Labor's plan to re-establish Australian broadcasting in the region was part of a soft power plan that would counter China's diplomacy tactics in the Indo-Pacific.
Mr Dutton responded that the government's relationship with Solomon Islands remained strong, and that Australian security forces were invited there and remained there still.
He also dismissed the suggestion the Prime Minister had not taken the relationship seriously.
"I know that there's a trendy pile on of Scott Morrison in different parts of the media and around the country at the moment but Scott has gone out of his way to form those personal relationships at different fora through bilateral discussions, and he genuinely believes in the family of the Pacific," Mr Dutton said.
Mr O'Connor said he was "stating the obvious" that the relationship had deteriorated under Mr Morrison's watch.
Submarines spat fails to launch
The government's decision to cancel a $90 billion contract with France for a dozen conventional submarines in favour of a new nuclear-powered agreement with the United States and United Kingdom triggered months of criticism from foreign leaders, former prime ministers and defence officials.
French President Emmanuel Macron accused Mr Morrison of being a liar and betraying the relationship between the two nations, and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said the decision had damaged the nation's security.
But there was little criticism of the decision from Mr O'Connor on Thursday, who said multiple times that he was in agreement with Mr Dutton on what might be required to build new nuclear-powered submarines and the time it would take to get there.
Mr Dutton hinted that a partner for the submarines might be found sooner than the scheduled 18-month time line, which Mr O'Connor welcomed, but both downplayed concerns that Australia faced a capability gap between the current Collins class submarine fleet ageing out and the new submarines coming online late next decade.
"I would agree with Peter that the Collins class submarines are very, very capable boats … however if we could bring forward the delivery of nuclear-propelled submarines, and Peter seems confident, that would be a good thing," Mr O'Connor said.
And both men said there was little prospect of a third class of submarines being adopted as a short-term answer.
"It is not in our national interest to pretend we can have a third class of submarine [and that] somehow we can buy it off the shelf. I want someone to explain to me where this shelf is because I don't know," Mr Dutton joked.
