"The Strategist" blog appears to expand its tolerance for B.S., or maybe there's more to it?
The US is indeed Australia’s natural ally and we’re lucky to have it. But there’s a price to be paid to be a US ally, part of which is participation in wars led by the US. The other part is for allies to provide adequately for their own defence in their own region.
At first this appears to be nonsensical: What again is the benefit of being allied with them if it's a requirement to "provide adequately for [your] own defence in [your] own region"? There's not much they're doing for you according to this quote; protection of maritime trade lanes may be left.
I doubt that the USN can actually protect maritime trade on oceans, though. The greatest maritime trade security boost from being allied with the U.S. is probably from them not attacking your maritime trade themselves.
Which leads to my other point; the biggest benefit of being allied with the U.S. is to European countries, Aussies and Kiwis that this way they're not hostiles. You don't need to work against them (much) and you don't need to prepare for your defence against them if you're allied with them (or if you bankroll enough of their think tanks and have some control of their mainstream news media).
The provision of auxiliary troops for stupid wars looks like an outrageously high price for this; peaceful co-existence should be normalcy according to Western civilisation norms, after all.
Maybe the pupils befriend a big bully not because he protects them, but because this way he doesn't bully them?
Then again, I doubt that Mr. Molan has useful insights. His blog text was horrible and primitive. It's typical establishment talk, uninspired, features inaccuracies, primitive thinking and is apparently incoherent. The only good thing about it is the highlighting of operations and maintenance costs, and this will have a very bad aftertaste after tomorrow's Defence and Freedom blog post (which has been scheduled for days already).