Capability to dictate Australian defence spending
Lifting the federal defence budget will be based on what Australia's military can achieve, rather an arbitrary dollar figure, a senior minister says.
Pressure has mounted on the Albanese government to lift defence spending, after NATO allies agreed to boost theirs to five per cent of GDP.
While Australia has pledged to increase its spend to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34, the US has called for a rise to 3.5 per cent.
But Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia was already lifting its spending on the military, which would also centre on the ability of the armed forces to protect the country.
"We start with the capability, we don't start with the dollars, and that's how we work with every financial decision that the government makes," Mr Burke told Sky News on Sunday.
"With those capability decisions, we are already spending more than was spent before we came to office."
Despite the push from the US, Mr Burke said Australia's relationship with America was not at risk.
"The relationship with the United States is really important," he said.
"We have mature, decent, respectful conversations with the United States, but as I say, the conversation doesn't start with the dollars at our end."
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said the instability seen around the world reinforced the need for countries like Australia to spend more on defence.
"We are seeing authoritarian regimes across the globe flexing their muscles, and open, democratic societies like ours need to stand up for what we believe in, and need to make sure we achieve peace through deterrence," he told Sky News.
"There's a range of things that are very clear that we need to spend on ... and there's a whole series of areas which we're seeing are underfunded right now."
Before the federal election, the opposition had pledged to increase the defence budget to three per cent of GDP.
However, there was uncertainty about where the extra money would come from.
Mr Taylor said the budget for the military should be increased, regardless if there was pressure from the US.
"If a government is not in a position to keep its people safe, then it has failed as a government," he said.
Lifting the federal defence budget will be based on what Australia's military can achieve, rather an arbitrary dollar figure, a senior minister says.
Pressure has mounted on the Albanese government to lift defence spending, after NATO allies agreed to boost theirs to five per cent of GDP.
While Australia has pledged to increase its spend to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34, the US has called for a rise to 3.5 per cent.
But Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia was already lifting its spending on the military, which would also centre on the ability of the armed forces to protect the country.
"We start with the capability, we don't start with the dollars, and that's how we work with every financial decision that the government makes," Mr Burke told Sky News on Sunday.
"With those capability decisions, we are already spending more than was spent before we came to office."
Despite the push from the US, Mr Burke said Australia's relationship with America was not at risk.
"The relationship with the United States is really important," he said.
"We have mature, decent, respectful conversations with the United States, but as I say, the conversation doesn't start with the dollars at our end."
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said the instability seen around the world reinforced the need for countries like Australia to spend more on defence.
"We are seeing authoritarian regimes across the globe flexing their muscles, and open, democratic societies like ours need to stand up for what we believe in, and need to make sure we achieve peace through deterrence," he told Sky News.
"There's a range of things that are very clear that we need to spend on ... and there's a whole series of areas which we're seeing are underfunded right now."
Before the federal election, the opposition had pledged to increase the defence budget to three per cent of GDP.
However, there was uncertainty about where the extra money would come from.
Mr Taylor said the budget for the military should be increased, regardless if there was pressure from the US.
"If a government is not in a position to keep its people safe, then it has failed as a government," he said.
Lifting the federal defence budget will be based on what Australia's military can achieve, rather an arbitrary dollar figure, a senior minister says.
Pressure has mounted on the Albanese government to lift defence spending, after NATO allies agreed to boost theirs to five per cent of GDP.
While Australia has pledged to increase its spend to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34, the US has called for a rise to 3.5 per cent.
But Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia was already lifting its spending on the military, which would also centre on the ability of the armed forces to protect the country.
"We start with the capability, we don't start with the dollars, and that's how we work with every financial decision that the government makes," Mr Burke told Sky News on Sunday.
"With those capability decisions, we are already spending more than was spent before we came to office."
Despite the push from the US, Mr Burke said Australia's relationship with America was not at risk.
"The relationship with the United States is really important," he said.
"We have mature, decent, respectful conversations with the United States, but as I say, the conversation doesn't start with the dollars at our end."
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said the instability seen around the world reinforced the need for countries like Australia to spend more on defence.
"We are seeing authoritarian regimes across the globe flexing their muscles, and open, democratic societies like ours need to stand up for what we believe in, and need to make sure we achieve peace through deterrence," he told Sky News.
"There's a range of things that are very clear that we need to spend on ... and there's a whole series of areas which we're seeing are underfunded right now."
Before the federal election, the opposition had pledged to increase the defence budget to three per cent of GDP.
However, there was uncertainty about where the extra money would come from.
Mr Taylor said the budget for the military should be increased, regardless if there was pressure from the US.
"If a government is not in a position to keep its people safe, then it has failed as a government," he said.
Lifting the federal defence budget will be based on what Australia's military can achieve, rather an arbitrary dollar figure, a senior minister says.
Pressure has mounted on the Albanese government to lift defence spending, after NATO allies agreed to boost theirs to five per cent of GDP.
While Australia has pledged to increase its spend to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34, the US has called for a rise to 3.5 per cent.
But Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia was already lifting its spending on the military, which would also centre on the ability of the armed forces to protect the country.
"We start with the capability, we don't start with the dollars, and that's how we work with every financial decision that the government makes," Mr Burke told Sky News on Sunday.
"With those capability decisions, we are already spending more than was spent before we came to office."
Despite the push from the US, Mr Burke said Australia's relationship with America was not at risk.
"The relationship with the United States is really important," he said.
"We have mature, decent, respectful conversations with the United States, but as I say, the conversation doesn't start with the dollars at our end."
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said the instability seen around the world reinforced the need for countries like Australia to spend more on defence.
"We are seeing authoritarian regimes across the globe flexing their muscles, and open, democratic societies like ours need to stand up for what we believe in, and need to make sure we achieve peace through deterrence," he told Sky News.
"There's a range of things that are very clear that we need to spend on ... and there's a whole series of areas which we're seeing are underfunded right now."
Before the federal election, the opposition had pledged to increase the defence budget to three per cent of GDP.
However, there was uncertainty about where the extra money would come from.
Mr Taylor said the budget for the military should be increased, regardless if there was pressure from the US.
"If a government is not in a position to keep its people safe, then it has failed as a government," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canberra Times
an hour ago
- Canberra Times
Plugging leaks: National Gallery of Australia in hot water over roof repairs
That funding, unveiled in the 2023-24 federal budget, included $25.5 million for "high-priority roof repairs" at the NGA where hangs, as Mr Albanese was eager to point out, "a single piece of art - thanks to Gough Whitlam - worth $500 million that has buckets on the floor because the roof is leaking in the same venue that has Blue Poles."
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Security expert brands Anthony Albanese's handling of US strikes on Iran 'disturbing' following revelation Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of attack
Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge has argued Anthony Albanese's response to United States strikes on Iran was made "even more disturbing" by revelations the Prime Minister had advanced knowledge of the attacks. Mr Albanese came under intense scrutiny over his and the government's reaction to news the US had bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities. The government initially put out a statement attributed only to a spokesperson which failed to explicitly support the attacks before the Prime Minister later held a press conference to give direct backing. Critics of Labor and Mr Albanese claimed the response showed the government was out of step with the Trump Administration and had been caught flat-footed by the US. However, on Sunday Sky News Australia revealed the Prime Minister did have advanced knowledge the US planned to attack Iran's nuclear sites, although not the exact timing on when the strikes would occur. According to Mr Shoebridge, the revelation is likely to prompt further questions about Mr Albanese's handling of the issue. "I think it's good that our government knew about this beforehand, but the fact that the government knew before it happened, that the US was going to bomb Iran, makes the Prime Minister's performance even more disturbing," he told Sky News. "Let's remember, the strikes happened on a Sunday. Almost every other world leader reacted that day. It wasn't until Monday that we got a stilted press conference from the Prime Minister and he still sounded clueless and flat-footed. "That made sense when we thought the whole thing had come as a surprise to him, but knowing he had pre-warning makes his performance quite bizarre." Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor last week claimed Mr Albanese had expressed "anti-US alliance' sentiments by failing to quickly back in the strikes and it is possible that criticism will be renewed following the revelation Labor had advanced warning. The back and forth over the government's response comes as the relationship between Australia and the US continues to experience increasing scrutiny after the re-election of President Donald Trump. Critics of the government have highlighted past comments from senior Labor figures about the US President to suggest there is a disconnect between the leadership of both countries. Australia has also come under pressure over its approach to defence spending, with Trump Administration officials pushing for Labor to lift its outlay. Mr Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles have both stuck by existing plans to increase spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP, despite pressure to reach 3.5 per cent from US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. "We have increased our defence investment,' the Prime Minister said on Friday. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.'
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Sarah Wells: Is buy now, pay later a credit score monster or a money-mover?
Buy now, pay later has become a financial mainstay, particularly among younger Australians. Platforms like Afterpay, Zip and Klarna have made it easy to spread the cost of purchases, effectively becoming the modern Laybuy. But with new regulations now treating BNPL as a form of credit, many younger consumers are wondering: 'Is BNPL wrecking my credit score? Or could it help build a stronger financial history?' As with most money tools — credit cards, home loans, and even overdrafts — it's how you use it and what you use it for that makes all the difference. Here's what you need to know about how BNPL now affects your credit report, and whether it can help (or hurt) your future borrowing power. Until recently, BNPL sat in a regulatory grey zone. It didn't technically count as 'credit', so your BNPL use often didn't appear on your credit report at all — unless you missed payments and ended up in collections. And even then the inquiry did, but not your behaviour. That's now changed. New rules brought in by the Albanese Government mean BNPL providers must conduct credit checks, assess suitability, and report repayment behaviour just like other credit products, and must also hold an Australian Credit Licence. In other words: BNPL will now start showing up on your credit report — both the accounts you open, and how you manage your repayments. If you use BNPL well — paying on time, keeping balances low, and not juggling too many accounts — it could help build a positive repayment history, or comprehensive credit report. This is especially useful for those who may have chosen to avoid credit cards, car loans, or are not yet at the mortgage stage and seem to lack debt contributing to their credit profile. But all that glitters is not gold, so think carefully about planning and budgeting, because should you miss payments or over-commit, it could drag down your credit score. Mainstream lenders may also view excessive use of BNPL (lots of accounts or frequent borrowing) as a sign of financial stress. BNPL can absolutely help you build a credit profile and repayment history — if it's used within your means — but unfortunately these products target those who may not be financially fit. Think of it like a set of financial training wheels: useful for practising good repayment habits, but not to be relied upon forever. And make sure you're going to use, appreciate or value what you add to your cart. Responsible use of BNPL is only one piece of the puzzle. Consistent saving, cash flow management, establishing an emergency fund through good budgeting, and using credit products wisely will make a bigger impact long-term. When it comes to finance, friends are assets, but foes are a liability, so keep your wits about you with BNPL and you'll reap the financial rewards. Sarah Wells is a Perth money and finance commentator
