J
Jason Jarvis
Guest
I came across this at The Age, an Aussie daily. It‘s an interesting mix of left- and right-wing commentary, and maybe a taste of the discussions the Martin government will be holding over the next little while as it tries to prioritize spending.
--------------------------------------------------
When it comes to defence, we‘ve got all we can afford
If we can‘t afford bulk-billing or proper funding of unis, we can‘t afford more for defence, writes Ross Gittins.
December 17, 2003 - Peter Costello has made it clear there‘s another increase in defence spending coming in next year‘s budget, and his long-promised tax cut will come out of whatever money‘s left.
But how much spending on defence is enough? We have unending debates about spending on Medicare and education, but when it comes to defence, it‘s all a black box. We‘re expected to pay up and shut up.
Until now. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has just issued a report intended to put us punters in the picture. It tells us how much we‘re paying and what we‘re getting for our money. Called Pay Your Money & Take Your Pick, it‘s by Dr Mark Thomson and it outlines what we‘d gain by paying more or lose by paying less.
This year we‘re paying $15.4 billion for the Australian Defence Force. This is up by a quarter since Howard came to power, accounting for almost 9 per cent of the federal budget.
The first thing it buys us is a navy of 13,000 personnel. At its heart is a fleet of 11 frigates and six submarines.
The frigates are moderately capable small warships, superior to the ships in South-East Asian navies, but inferior to the best ships in the navies of the major Asia-Pacific powers, China and India. But the six Collins class subs, despite their problems, are clearly among the most capable in the Asia-Pacific region.
Our army of 26,000 personnel consists of six infantry battalions, plus armoured, cavalry, artillery and SAS regiments. It‘s probably the best-trained army in the Asia-Pacific region, and among the best equipped.
But it‘s also the smallest serious army in the region and this, plus its lack of heavy tanks and self-propelled artillery, limits the size and duration of its operations.
Our air force of 13,000 personnel is built around our 71 F-18 fighters and 28 F-111 strike reconnaissance aircraft.
All this says we remain the most capable air and naval power in South-East Asia, and our forces are significant even compared with the major Asia-Pacific powers.
Today‘s ADF can defend Australia and protect our immediate neighbourhood from major attack through air and naval operations. It can undertake medium-sized peacekeeping in our neighbourhood.
We can offer a wide range of niche contributions to US-led global coalitions for conventional wars or peacekeeping.
However, we have limited capacity to make substantial contributions to such global coalitions and our small and lightly equipped army has little capacity for substantial land force operations against capable adversaries in our neighbourhood (it starts with "I" and ends with "nesia").
The Howard Government has embarked on a program to upgrade and replace much of the defence force over the next 15 years. This will cause its spending to rise from $15.4 billion a year to $16.7 billion a year by the end of this decade.
It includes phasing out the F-111s and replacing the F-18s with 100 Joint Strike fighters and acquiring four airborne early warning and control aircraft. The navy will acquire three air-warfare destroyers, while the army gets (heavier) replacement tanks and more helicopters.
Total defence force numbers will grow by 2000 to 54,000.
These changes will ensure we remain a substantial maritime power in the Asia-Pacific region, able to defend our maritime approaches and respond effectively to intrusion of hostile forces into our nearer region.
We‘ll have the capacity to offer substantial air, special or naval forces to global or regional coalitions in shooting wars. We‘ll also have the capacity to lead modest land operations in our immediate neighbourhood.
OK, that‘s what we‘ve got for our defence dollar and are committed to getting. Now let‘s look at the report‘s shopping list of what more we could buy and what it would cost.
If we were willing to raise our spending by a further $3.6 billion to $20.3 billion a year by the end of this decade, we could double the planned purchase of air-warfare destroyers, buy more air-to-air refuellers and early-warning aircraft and add three battalions to the army. This would greatly expand our ability to contribute to global coalition operations and launch independent operations in our near neighbourhood against any credible conventional adversary.
Or, if we were really thinking big and willing to lift our spending by an extra $8.2 billion to $24.9 billion a year, we could add another mechanised brigade, six transport aircraft and two small aircraft carriers with aircraft. This would transform us into a major military power, able to "kick arse" in the region. We could make substantial contributions to global coalitions and launch major land campaigns against capable neighbourhood adversaries.
ASPI is careful to express no opinion about these options. But my conclusion is that, while it may be too risky to think of spending less on defence, the extra capability we‘d get by spending more than the Government intends isn‘t vital enough to justify the expense.
Don‘t forget this is a Government that, while being the highest-taxing in our history, is desperately trying to keep the lid on health-care spending, can no longer afford bulk-billing, is spending far less than it should on unis and palming more and more of the cost on to students.
That being so, we‘ve got all the defence we can afford, thanks.
--------------------------------------------------
When it comes to defence, we‘ve got all we can afford
If we can‘t afford bulk-billing or proper funding of unis, we can‘t afford more for defence, writes Ross Gittins.
December 17, 2003 - Peter Costello has made it clear there‘s another increase in defence spending coming in next year‘s budget, and his long-promised tax cut will come out of whatever money‘s left.
But how much spending on defence is enough? We have unending debates about spending on Medicare and education, but when it comes to defence, it‘s all a black box. We‘re expected to pay up and shut up.
Until now. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has just issued a report intended to put us punters in the picture. It tells us how much we‘re paying and what we‘re getting for our money. Called Pay Your Money & Take Your Pick, it‘s by Dr Mark Thomson and it outlines what we‘d gain by paying more or lose by paying less.
This year we‘re paying $15.4 billion for the Australian Defence Force. This is up by a quarter since Howard came to power, accounting for almost 9 per cent of the federal budget.
The first thing it buys us is a navy of 13,000 personnel. At its heart is a fleet of 11 frigates and six submarines.
The frigates are moderately capable small warships, superior to the ships in South-East Asian navies, but inferior to the best ships in the navies of the major Asia-Pacific powers, China and India. But the six Collins class subs, despite their problems, are clearly among the most capable in the Asia-Pacific region.
Our army of 26,000 personnel consists of six infantry battalions, plus armoured, cavalry, artillery and SAS regiments. It‘s probably the best-trained army in the Asia-Pacific region, and among the best equipped.
But it‘s also the smallest serious army in the region and this, plus its lack of heavy tanks and self-propelled artillery, limits the size and duration of its operations.
Our air force of 13,000 personnel is built around our 71 F-18 fighters and 28 F-111 strike reconnaissance aircraft.
All this says we remain the most capable air and naval power in South-East Asia, and our forces are significant even compared with the major Asia-Pacific powers.
Today‘s ADF can defend Australia and protect our immediate neighbourhood from major attack through air and naval operations. It can undertake medium-sized peacekeeping in our neighbourhood.
We can offer a wide range of niche contributions to US-led global coalitions for conventional wars or peacekeeping.
However, we have limited capacity to make substantial contributions to such global coalitions and our small and lightly equipped army has little capacity for substantial land force operations against capable adversaries in our neighbourhood (it starts with "I" and ends with "nesia").
The Howard Government has embarked on a program to upgrade and replace much of the defence force over the next 15 years. This will cause its spending to rise from $15.4 billion a year to $16.7 billion a year by the end of this decade.
It includes phasing out the F-111s and replacing the F-18s with 100 Joint Strike fighters and acquiring four airborne early warning and control aircraft. The navy will acquire three air-warfare destroyers, while the army gets (heavier) replacement tanks and more helicopters.
Total defence force numbers will grow by 2000 to 54,000.
These changes will ensure we remain a substantial maritime power in the Asia-Pacific region, able to defend our maritime approaches and respond effectively to intrusion of hostile forces into our nearer region.
We‘ll have the capacity to offer substantial air, special or naval forces to global or regional coalitions in shooting wars. We‘ll also have the capacity to lead modest land operations in our immediate neighbourhood.
OK, that‘s what we‘ve got for our defence dollar and are committed to getting. Now let‘s look at the report‘s shopping list of what more we could buy and what it would cost.
If we were willing to raise our spending by a further $3.6 billion to $20.3 billion a year by the end of this decade, we could double the planned purchase of air-warfare destroyers, buy more air-to-air refuellers and early-warning aircraft and add three battalions to the army. This would greatly expand our ability to contribute to global coalition operations and launch independent operations in our near neighbourhood against any credible conventional adversary.
Or, if we were really thinking big and willing to lift our spending by an extra $8.2 billion to $24.9 billion a year, we could add another mechanised brigade, six transport aircraft and two small aircraft carriers with aircraft. This would transform us into a major military power, able to "kick arse" in the region. We could make substantial contributions to global coalitions and launch major land campaigns against capable neighbourhood adversaries.
ASPI is careful to express no opinion about these options. But my conclusion is that, while it may be too risky to think of spending less on defence, the extra capability we‘d get by spending more than the Government intends isn‘t vital enough to justify the expense.
Don‘t forget this is a Government that, while being the highest-taxing in our history, is desperately trying to keep the lid on health-care spending, can no longer afford bulk-billing, is spending far less than it should on unis and palming more and more of the cost on to students.
That being so, we‘ve got all the defence we can afford, thanks.
