Latest news with #2023DefenceStrategicReview
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Want free dental and free childcare? What a defence splurge would really cost Australia
Since US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that Australia immediately increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, many in the domestic defence commentariat have followed suit, sensing a unique opportunity to wedge the Albanese government. This push for Australian militarisation is about more than just national security. It threatens the viability of the very social policy agenda that voters emphatically endorsed in the May 2025 election. The recent commitment by NATO members to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on 'core defence requirements' and an additional 1.5 per cent of GDP on broader defence investments has supposedly ratcheted up the pressure. Of course, such calls neglect major differences between NATO members and Australia. As argued by Professor Peter Dean, co-author of Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review, NATO members are facing an active Russia-Ukraine war and, unlike Australia, also benefit from NATO's US-led collective defence arrangements. However, Dean still calls for an increase to 3 per cent, in line with a 2025 Australian Strategic Policy Institute report. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far admirably resisted this pressure campaign. Considering his government's booming electoral victory, this is understandable. The Coalition's vague and unfunded commitment to the 3 per cent target was emphatically defeated at the ballot box. And as explained by Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's International Security Program, increased defence spending would require 'the government to either borrow more, cut spending, increase taxation, or all three', just as it is trying to implement its social policy mandate. The policy trade-offs required to reach a 3 or 3.5 per cent target would be particularly severe. Meeting the 3.5 per cent target would require cuts equivalent to further reducing spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme by more than half. In terms of new spending, it would cost $210 billion extra over a decade, according to analysis by this masthead. That would be more costly than both implementing universal affordable childcare (estimated at $7.3 billion a year) and expanding Medicare to include dental ($12 billion), two long-time progressive priorities. As a result, defence spending would then become the driving prerogative of Treasurer Jim Chalmers's push for tax reform. No other budget area would receive a blank cheque for such vast amounts of money. The NDIS has been revised significantly to contain spending growth and improve its efficacy. And the Defence portfolio itself has persistently failed to deliver on major projects. The pre-AUKUS conventional submarine program suffered from major cost blowouts and delays, and there are rising concerns about navy ship maintenance issues. To make matters worse, it appears that the Defence bureaucracy has inadequately advised Defence Minister Richard Marles on Australia's defence readiness. Loading Given rising US-China tensions, as well as China's continued militarisation of the South China Sea, it is entirely plausible that Australia should consider how to improve its defence capabilities, including via increased spending. But this debate ought to be carried out with the utmost respect for the Australian public and the mandate that it has so recently provided the government. The first priority should be to identify and reduce existing defence spending inefficiencies. Any new spending measures should then be thoroughly justified via rigorous public and parliamentary debate, including in comparison to alternative social policy priorities. It is entirely possible, and in fact likely, that parliamentarians and voters would much prefer universal affordable childcare to quixotic attempts to make Australia a regional military power. This is especially so as, unlike, for example, acquiring foreign nuclear submarines, many of the Albanese government's social spending priorities would help to boost Australia's GDP over the medium term, indirectly benefiting the defence sector. Moreover, the benefits of generational social policy interventions are far more certain than the speculative insurance mechanism of new weapons. In this context, the motivation behind calls to increase Australian defence spending dramatically is clear. They continue a long-running disregard by the national security establishment for popular sentiment, which is evidently most in favour of direct and urgent action on the cost of living, gender equality, and housing affordability, not defence. These calls instead overtly prioritise the conservative political mantra of achieving 'peace through strength', however unattainable this would be for a country of 27 million people.
The Age
3 days ago
- Business
- The Age
Guns or dental care? What a defence splurge would really cost Australia
Since US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that Australia immediately increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, many in the domestic defence commentariat have followed suit, sensing a unique opportunity to wedge the Albanese government. This push for Australian militarisation is about more than just national security. It threatens the viability of the very social policy agenda that voters emphatically endorsed in the May 2025 election. The recent commitment by NATO members to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on 'core defence requirements' and an additional 1.5 per cent of GDP on broader defence investments has supposedly ratcheted up the pressure. Of course, such calls neglect major differences between NATO members and Australia. As argued by Professor Peter Dean, co-author of Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review, NATO members are facing an active Russia-Ukraine war and, unlike Australia, also benefit from NATO's US-led collective defence arrangements. However, Dean still calls for an increase to 3 per cent, in line with a 2025 Australian Strategic Policy Institute report. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far admirably resisted this pressure campaign. Considering his government's booming electoral victory, this is understandable. The Coalition's vague and unfunded commitment to the 3 per cent target was emphatically defeated at the ballot box. And as explained by Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's International Security Program, increased defence spending would require 'the government to either borrow more, cut spending, increase taxation, or all three', just as it is trying to implement its social policy mandate. The policy trade-offs required to reach a 3 or 3.5 per cent target would be particularly severe. Meeting the 3.5 per cent target would require cuts equivalent to further reducing spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme by more than half. In terms of new spending, it would cost $210 billion extra over a decade, according to analysis by this masthead. That would be more costly than both implementing universal affordable childcare (estimated at $7.3 billion a year) and expanding Medicare to include dental ($12 billion), two long-time progressive priorities. As a result, defence spending would then become the driving prerogative of Treasurer Jim Chalmers's push for tax reform. No other budget area would receive a blank cheque for such vast amounts of money. The NDIS has been revised significantly to contain spending growth and improve its efficacy. And the Defence portfolio itself has persistently failed to deliver on major projects. The pre-AUKUS conventional submarine program suffered from major cost blowouts and delays, and there are rising concerns about navy ship maintenance issues. To make matters worse, it appears that the Defence bureaucracy has inadequately advised Defence Minister Richard Marles on Australia's defence readiness. Loading Given rising US-China tensions, as well as China's continued militarisation of the South China Sea, it is entirely plausible that Australia should consider how to improve its defence capabilities, including via increased spending. But this debate ought to be carried out with the utmost respect for the Australian public and the mandate that it has so recently provided the government. The first priority should be to identify and reduce existing defence spending inefficiencies. Any new spending measures should then be thoroughly justified via rigorous public and parliamentary debate, including in comparison to alternative social policy priorities. It is entirely possible, and in fact likely, that parliamentarians and voters would much prefer universal affordable childcare to quixotic attempts to make Australia a regional military power. This is especially so as, unlike, for example, acquiring foreign nuclear submarines, many of the Albanese government's social spending priorities would help to boost Australia's GDP over the medium term, indirectly benefiting the defence sector. Moreover, the benefits of generational social policy interventions are far more certain than the speculative insurance mechanism of new weapons. In this context, the motivation behind calls to increase Australian defence spending dramatically is clear. They continue a long-running disregard by the national security establishment for popular sentiment, which is evidently most in favour of direct and urgent action on the cost of living, gender equality, and housing affordability, not defence. These calls instead overtly prioritise the conservative political mantra of achieving 'peace through strength', however unattainable this would be for a country of 27 million people.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Guns or dental care? What a defence splurge would really cost Australia
Since US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that Australia immediately increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, many in the domestic defence commentariat have followed suit, sensing a unique opportunity to wedge the Albanese government. This push for Australian militarisation is about more than just national security. It threatens the viability of the very social policy agenda that voters emphatically endorsed in the May 2025 election. The recent commitment by NATO members to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on 'core defence requirements' and an additional 1.5 per cent of GDP on broader defence investments has supposedly ratcheted up the pressure. Of course, such calls neglect major differences between NATO members and Australia. As argued by Professor Peter Dean, co-author of Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review, NATO members are facing an active Russia-Ukraine war and, unlike Australia, also benefit from NATO's US-led collective defence arrangements. However, Dean still calls for an increase to 3 per cent, in line with a 2025 Australian Strategic Policy Institute report. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far admirably resisted this pressure campaign. Considering his government's booming electoral victory, this is understandable. The Coalition's vague and unfunded commitment to the 3 per cent target was emphatically defeated at the ballot box. And as explained by Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's International Security Program, increased defence spending would require 'the government to either borrow more, cut spending, increase taxation, or all three', just as it is trying to implement its social policy mandate. The policy trade-offs required to reach a 3 or 3.5 per cent target would be particularly severe. Meeting the 3.5 per cent target would require cuts equivalent to further reducing spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme by more than half. In terms of new spending, it would cost $210 billion extra over a decade, according to analysis by this masthead. That would be more costly than both implementing universal affordable childcare (estimated at $7.3 billion a year) and expanding Medicare to include dental ($12 billion), two long-time progressive priorities. As a result, defence spending would then become the driving prerogative of Treasurer Jim Chalmers's push for tax reform. No other budget area would receive a blank cheque for such vast amounts of money. The NDIS has been revised significantly to contain spending growth and improve its efficacy. And the Defence portfolio itself has persistently failed to deliver on major projects. The pre-AUKUS conventional submarine program suffered from major cost blowouts and delays, and there are rising concerns about navy ship maintenance issues. To make matters worse, it appears that the Defence bureaucracy has inadequately advised Defence Minister Richard Marles on Australia's defence readiness. Loading Given rising US-China tensions, as well as China's continued militarisation of the South China Sea, it is entirely plausible that Australia should consider how to improve its defence capabilities, including via increased spending. But this debate ought to be carried out with the utmost respect for the Australian public and the mandate that it has so recently provided the government. The first priority should be to identify and reduce existing defence spending inefficiencies. Any new spending measures should then be thoroughly justified via rigorous public and parliamentary debate, including in comparison to alternative social policy priorities. It is entirely possible, and in fact likely, that parliamentarians and voters would much prefer universal affordable childcare to quixotic attempts to make Australia a regional military power. This is especially so as, unlike, for example, acquiring foreign nuclear submarines, many of the Albanese government's social spending priorities would help to boost Australia's GDP over the medium term, indirectly benefiting the defence sector. Moreover, the benefits of generational social policy interventions are far more certain than the speculative insurance mechanism of new weapons. In this context, the motivation behind calls to increase Australian defence spending dramatically is clear. They continue a long-running disregard by the national security establishment for popular sentiment, which is evidently most in favour of direct and urgent action on the cost of living, gender equality, and housing affordability, not defence. These calls instead overtly prioritise the conservative political mantra of achieving 'peace through strength', however unattainable this would be for a country of 27 million people.
Sky News AU
01-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
‘Not good enough': Defence Minister Richard Marles starved of formal updates on military readiness for more than two years
Defence Minister Richard Marles was not kept informed of the Australian Defence Force's readiness for more than two years, the latest defence report has revealed. The Auditor General's performance audit of the Department of Defence exposed the lack of formal reporting on ADF readiness between 2023 and 2024. The revelation, uncovered by the AFR, has sparked political pressure on the Albanese government over Australia's military preparedness and low levels of defence spending. Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor described the situation as unacceptable and called on Mr Marles to clarify whether he had been left in the dark about military readiness. 'Every dollar spent by the Australian Defence Force is taxpayers' money,' Mr Taylor said in a statement provided to Sky News. 'It is critical Defence continues to meet the highest standards in its expenditure and risk practices. 'It is clearly not sufficient for formal reporting on something as critical as Australia's preparedness to be conducted informally and verbally. 'The minister must clarify what he knew, when he knew it, and whether he was satisfied from these informal reports about the status of Australia's maritime preparedness.' Senior defence strategy analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Alex Bristow told Sky News that defence policy relies on "evidence-based advice to government". 'ASPI's Cost of Defence, published in May, also highlighted issues with the readiness of the Australian Defence Force and the progress of key acquisition and sustainment projects," he said. 'The defence readiness of the nation is a matter of legitimate public concern, especially when the Chinese ambassador is writing in the national press to dissuade the government from increasing defence spending." The report, which examined the sustainment of the Navy's Canberra-class amphibious assault ships confirmed formal reporting was suspended throughout 2023 and 2024. 'Preparedness reporting had not been provided to the Minister in 2023 and 2024 due to development of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review,' the report said. 'Defence expects the updated preparedness reporting to be in place by mid-2025.' The report added that advice to Mr Marles on preparedness has been through 'other means' over the two years, including via 'conversations'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected suggestions the government was unaware of Australia's defence posture, calling them 'ridiculous'. 'That's just absurd. That's just absurd,' Mr Albanese told Nine's Today programme on Tuesday. 'Frankly, I haven't seen that report, but we sit in the National Security Committee with the chief of the Defence Force. 'We meet regularly. I certainly have met with heads of all of the armed forces regularly.' Mr Albanese said his government had made major investments in defence since coming to office, including committing billions in new funding. NATO allies have agreed to boost military spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035, while the Albanese government has committed to a modest target of 2.3 per cent by 2033. Asked whether he was worried about a backlash from US President Donald Trump, Mr Albanese said, 'We will invest in the capability that Australia needs'.
Perth Now
01-07-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
Albo hits back at ‘absurd' defence claim
Anthony Albanese has rejected a report detail revealing his deputy, Defence Minister Richard Marles, did not get warship readiness briefings for years. An audit published on Friday found the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has failed to properly maintain Australia's biggest battleships – the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide. It also revealed Mr Marles did not get 'preparedness reports' from Australian Defence Force (ADF) officials 'in 2023 and 2024 due to development of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review'. Instead, Mr Marles was briefed 'through 'other means', including during conversations'. The Prime Minister flatly rejected the finding when asked about it on Tuesday. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (right) has rejected revelations his deputy and Defence Minister Richard Marles (left) did not get key readiness briefings for years. Credit: News Corp Australia, Martin Ollman / NewsWire 'Well, that's just absurd, that's just absurd,' Mr Albanese told Nine's Today. Pressed further, he said Mr Marles was 'of course' briefed. 'That's just ridiculous, frankly,' Mr Albanese said. 'I haven't seen that report, but we sit in the National Security Committee with the Chief of the Defence Force. 'We meet regularly. I certainly have met with heads of all of the armed forces regularly, and that is just completely incorrect.' He said the extra $57bn Labor had pumped into expanding capability 'has come directly after discussions and engagement, obviously with Defence'. 'And in the last budget in March, indeed, we brought forward a billion dollars of additional spending, bringing to over $10bn our additional commitments over the forward estimates as well,' Mr Albanese said. Preparedness reports detail what can be deployed in the event of a war or natural disaster – key information against a backdrop of looming conflict in the Indo-Pacific and increasingly common extreme weather events. Labor's handling of defence has come under a microscope since the US last month demanded Australia hike the ADF's budget to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Mr Albanese has resisted, saying Australia's national security was a matter for Canberra, not Washington. He has also said his government would first determine need and then allocate funds rather than set a flat GDP target. But the government's position has put Australia at odds with its allies across the world, with all NATO members bar Spain agreeing to lift defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP last week. Closer to home, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea have all recently committed to spending more amid warnings from the Trump administration the region faces graver threats than Europe. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took a thinly veiled shot at Australia last week, saying if European countries can agree to hike defence spending, then US allies in the Indo Pacific 'can do it as well'. 'I mean, look, if our allies in Europe and our NATO allies can do it, I think our allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region can do it as well,' she said, responding to an Australian journalist. 'But as for our specific relations and discussions, I will let the President speak on those.' Though whether the Trump administration would actually seek to mirror a NATO target for allies in the Indo Pacific remains unclear.
