Major win for abortion access in Aussie state
A Bill seeking to expand access to abortions in NSW, particularity in remote and regional communities, has reached a major milestone after passing the lower house, despite significant changes and claims of misinformation.
The Bill, introduced by upper house Greens MP Dr Amanda Cohn in February, would expand access to abortions by allowing nurse practitioners to supply medication to terminate pregnancies of up to nine weeks in gestation.
Since being introduced, the Bill has been significantly watered down with amendments specifying the endorsed nurse practitioners and midwives must have the needed skills and training to administer the drug, known as MS-2 Step.
Opponents of the Bill – including former prime minister Tony Abbott – have argued against forcing conscientious objectors to actively refer abortion services. That component was removed as the Bill made its way through parliament.
NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman on Wednesday said he would support the current, amended Bill, as did Labor Premier Chris Minns.
The lead-up to Wednesday's vote was marred by allegations of misinformation, but ultimately passed without significant discourse in the lower house after two proposed amendments were shot down by a majority of MPs.
A third reading of the bill was passed 65 to 20. The bill was initially introduced by Greens MP Amanda Cohn. NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia
It will now return to the Legislative Council.
Greens Newtown MP Jenny Leong thanked MPs for the vote.
'It's wonderful to think that very, very soon, there will be better access to abortion care for people across the state of NSW as a result of the decision we are making today,' she said.
'Sometimes it feels like when you're in this place that we will never get good outcomes for people in their communities, and sometimes we do really good work together.
'I feel like this debate has shown what we can do when we work together in the actually genuine interests of the community that we serve.'
In introducing the first reading of the Bill, Ms Leong said it was about 'equity in access to reproductive healthcare – access to abortion services – and increased that access to women and people across the state of NSW'.
She urged MPs in the room to, despite their personal opinions, 'actually consider whether or not you're okay with the idea of people in the city having access to better services and more services … than those in regional and rural' Greens Newtown MP Jenny Leong thanked MPs for the vote. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia
An amendment put forward by independent Wagga Wagga MP Joe McGirr requiring nurse practitioners or endorsed midwives have at least two years of experience was not supported by Health Minister Ryan Park or Liberal health spokeswoman Kellie Sloane.
The MPs raised the extensive training received by both nurses and midwives, including 5000 hours of clinical practise for nurse practitioners, with Ms Sloane saying the amendment 'makes it even harder for access and equity in regional areas'.
'This amendment is unnecessary. It's inconsistent with health data, ignores the expertise of nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives and it makes harder for our regional, remote communities to access this important healthcare,' she said.
They also noted the Bill as tabled was supported by peak medical bodies, including the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Family Planning Australia
Ultimately, the amendment was voted down by MPs.
As was a second amendment also put forward by Mr McGirr seeking a 'certain requirement for training' prior to commencing of practise for endorsed midwives and qualified nurses undertaking terminations, facing similar opposition. Premier Chris Minns said he would support the Bill. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
Mr Park said stipulating specific training requirements was not done with any other health service and would 'mean NSW is inconsistent with the rest of our country and with national guidelines', including the TGA guidelines.
Mr McGirr on both counts said he was not seeking to undermine the bill.
The Bill initially sought to ensure abortion services be provided across the state within a reasonable distance from residents' homes, and would remove unnecessary reporting to health authorities about the termination.
It would also have empowered the Health Minister to compel public health services to comply with directions to offer abortion services and would require practitioners who object to abortion to refer a patient to someone who will.
Abortion was decriminalised in NSW only in 2019.
Nonetheless, hospitals in the regional centres of Queanbeyan, outside Canberra, and Orange were found to have banned abortions, prompting an apology during budget estimates from NSW Health secretary Susan Pearce.
Dr Cohn has previously said the intention of the Bill was to expand who could perform medical terminations which she said was necessary to bring legislation in-line with changes in 2023 to the national medicine regulator.
Its introduction has stirred fiery debate since it was tabled. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman backed the amended Bill. Christian Gilles / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia
In a parliamentary debate last week, upper house Liberal MP Chris Rath compared abortion to the Nazi genocide of Jews, stating 'it is bizarre that abortion is increasingly being categorised as a human right to health care'.
Mr Rath later that week apologised for the statement.
The Bill has also stirred protest on the steps outside parliament by anti-abortion campaigner Joanna Howe's coalition, with a Wednesday night protest attended by Tony Abbott and the Catholic archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher.
Opposition Leader Mark Speakman accused Dr Howe of 'brazen bullying', stating on Wednesday that he would 'vote according to my conscience and balance difficult and sensitive ethical, social, moral and medical concerns'.
'I will not cave to brazen bullying like this nor to the Americanisation of NSW … I thank all constituents who have contacted me. I have carefully considered their sincere and varying views. I will therefore vote for the Bill,' he said.
'I think that, on balance, the Bill will make no material difference to the rate of abortion in NSW.
'It will not interfere with freedom of conscience and will probably lead to better, not worse, health outcomes for many pregnant women seeking abortions.'
Mr Speakman noted some objections were 'based on misinformation' and that, despite stating he would not have supported the original bill, believed 'The attacks on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion in the original bill have now been removed by successful amendments.'
Premier Minns earlier on Wednesday stated 'enormous amounts of misinformation and lies that have been spread' on social media had 'whipped up a lot of good people in the community believing that the reform changes, the legislative changes, are far more extensive than they are'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘We'll keep protesting': Former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas charged after unauthorised protest, accuses police of ‘brutality'
Former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas has accused NSW Police of 'extreme violence and brutality' after sustaining facial injuries at an unauthorised protest. Ms Thomas, who challenged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the federal election, was charged with resisting arrest after participating in an anti-Israel rally on Friday. She was taken to hospital with facial injuries and has undergone surgery amid fears she may lose vision in her right eye. After being charged for not complying with police directions, Ms Thomas posted on social media, claiming she was engaged in a peaceful protest. 'I don't want to get into too much detail about the traumatic events on Friday, but I'm five foot one. I weigh about 45 kilos,' Ms Thomas said in the video. 'I was engaged in peaceful protest and my interactions with New South Wales police have left me potentially without vision in my right eye permanently. 'I look like this now because of (NSW Premier) Chris Minns and (Police Minister) Yasmin Catley and their draconian anti-protest laws. 'They've emboldened the police to crack down with extreme violence and brutality, and they were warned that those laws would lead to this outcome.' Ms Thomas said her injuries were 'nothing' compared to what the people of Gaza have gone through 'because of Israel'. 'Children being amputated without anaesthetic, people starving or getting shot lining up for food — that's why we protested on Friday and that's why we'll keep protesting.' NSW Police has confirmed that Ms Thomas had been charged with 'hinder or resist police officer' and 'refuse or fail to comply with direction to disperse'. 'The 35-year-old woman was issued a Future Court Attendance Notice,' police said in a statement. 'During the 35-year-old woman's arrest, she sustained facial injuries and was taken to Bankstown Hospital for treatment, where she remains. 'She will appear at Bankstown Local Court on Tuesday 12 August 2025.' Video footage circulating online shows scuffles between police officers and demonstrators during the protest, which was not authorised by authorities. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told Sky News that while the injuries were 'obviously serious', the protest had not been lawfully coordinated with authorities. 'When people were asked to move on by the police they should have followed the police direction. Apparently they didn't,' he said. 'The issue of the injury will be dealt with by the police review but for anyone wanting to have a protest, you know, no one's above the law.' Greens politicians have called for an independent investigation into the police response. NSW Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson described the arrest as 'brutal and excessive'. 'I have spoken with the people in police custody this morning in my legal capacity, and they cannot believe what they saw happen to the individual,' she said. 'Anyone watching knows it's wrong that police are violently arresting those calling for an end to genocide,' federal Greens senator David Shoebridge said.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
State urged to scrap law after police scuffle
The NSW Premier has been urged to scrap controversial anti-protest laws after a former Greens candidate claimed she may lose vision in her eye following an alleged scuffle with police at a protest. Hannah Thomas was pictured with a swollen right eye and streaks of blood down her face after a protest outside SEC Plating in Belmore in Sydney's southwest on Friday. The company was picketed over reports it provided jet components used by the Israeli Defence Force, according to a NSW Greens statement. Ms Thomas, who was charged by police over the incident, has claimed she may have suffered permanent vision damage following the protest. Hannah Thomas was arrested at an anti-Israel protest. Supplied. Credit: Supplied NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson has since appealed to NSW Premier Chris Minns to turf controversial protest laws and have charges against Ms Thomas dropped, arguing there was evidence police 'acted beyond the scope of their lawful powers'. New laws introduced in February have given police fresh powers to prevent protesters from harassing, intimidating or threatening people accessing or leaving — or attempting to access or leave — places of worship. This also extends to people intentionally blocking, impeding, or hindering people accessing or leaving places of worship, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. The laws were brought in less than a month after news of an explosives-laden caravan being found in Dural broke, which later proved to be a fake terrorism plot rather than an anti-Semitic attack. Ms Thomas has claimed her injuries were a result of the 'draconian anti-protest laws', which are currently subject to a constitutional challenge in the NSW Supreme Court launched on behalf of the Palestine Action Group (PAG). However, NSW Police southwest metropolitan region commander Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden on Monday told 2GB the anti-protest legislation wasn't applicable to this situation, maintaining it was an unauthorised protest. In her letter, Ms Higginson cited alleged contradictory police statements, photographic and video evidence, witness accounts, and NSW protest law. 'What occurred in Belmore was not policing — it was punishment,' Ms Higginson wrote in her letter. 'A member of our community was brutally assaulted by uniformed officers while engaging in peaceful political expression,' she alleged. 'This has happened in a state where you and your government have continuously expressed intolerance for protest and embodied police to suppress protest through arbitrary, dangerous laws and sweeping police powers.' Ms Higginson has appealed to the Premier to intervene and have all charges against Ms Thomas, and others arrested on the day, dropped, and for police to declare it a critical incident. However Mr McFadden told 2GB he couldn't identify any misconduct, that he backed the actions of police, and he was comfortable in not declaring a critical incident based on information provided to him. NSW Premier Chris Minns has been urged to scrap controversial anti-protest laws following Friday's protest. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia Sue Higginson also urged the Premier to intervene to have charges against protesters from Friday, including Ms Thomas, dropped. NewsWire / Monique Harmer Credit: News Corp Australia Ms Higginson also pushed for a clear public directive to be issued to NSW Police to state protest is lawful and must be protected. Ms Higginson then turned her attention to the state government, urging Mr Minns 'acknowledge your government's role in emboldening excessive and violent policing' via the expansion of protest laws. Further, she called for the new anti-protest laws to be repealed. 'The trust between the community and the police has already been deeply damaged,' Ms Higginson wrote. 'Every day that passes without independent accountability and recognition of the harm that your Government's actions have caused will further fracture the legitimacy of your leadership.' Ms Thomas spotted following the protest. Supplied Credit: Supplied Mr Minns told a press conference he wasn't prepared to 'condemn' the actions of police given Ms Thomas didn't provide a statement to police, making it difficult to determine what had happened. Critical incidents are also typically declared based on health information, which is hard when that is not provided, he said. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) could step in at any time, Mr Minns said while also rejecting suggestions his own actions had emboldened police over the years. Speaking of Friday's protest, he said everyone had a right to protest, but not to go after specific businesses. He wished Ms Thomas well in her recovery. 'I don't want this to be lost in, I guess, the politics of the general caravan inquiry and changes to the law,' Mr Minns said. 'I genuinely hope that she's back on her feet as soon as possible, and she has a full recovery.' Police issued Ms Thomas with a future court attendance notice on Sunday and charged her with hinder/resist police and refuse/fail to comply with direction to disperse. She will appear in Bankstown Local Court on August 12. Four others were also handed down various charges. Mr McFadden is expected to brief the media at 2pm on Monday following the incident.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Defence spending: the art of picking the moment to panic
The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate.
