Does Australia need to increase defence spending? || Insiders: On Background

Key Concepts

• Defense Spending as a percentage of GDP
• China's military expansion and assertiveness
• US alliance reliability (Trump factor)
• Deterioration of global rules and norms
• Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)
• Force Posture
• Defense Strategic Review (DSR)
• Integrated Investment Program (IIP)
• Reserve Forces
• Recruitment and Retention Challenges
• Capacity vs. Workforce
• Northern Base Network
• Long-range weaponry and diminishing geographical advantage

Defense Spending and Strategic Context

• Dutton's Plan: The Coalition proposes increasing defense spending to 2.5% of GDP within 5 years (an additional $21 billion) and 3% of GDP within a decade. This is partly funded by reversing Labor's tax cuts.
• Global Trend: Many countries (Europe, Japan, New Zealand) are increasing defense spending due to global instability and uncertainty.
• China Factor: China's growing military power and potential conflict over Taiwan are key drivers for increased defense spending.
• US Reliability: Concerns about the reliability of the US as an ally, particularly with a potential return of Donald Trump, necessitate greater self-reliance. Even if the US remains reliable, Trump's demand for allies to spend 3% of GDP on defense reinforces the need for increased investment.
• Deteriorating Global Norms: The increasing use of force by states to achieve their aims (e.g., Ukraine, Middle East) highlights the need for a stronger defense.
• Historical Context: Unlike the Cold War where Australia was on the periphery, it is now at the center of global strategic and economic shifts.

The Need for Increased Defense Spending

• Jennifer Parker: Emphasizes the China factor and the deterioration of global rules and norms. She argues that Australia's defense force is not adequately funded or structured to respond to the changing world, citing gaps in capabilities like integrated air and missile defense.
• Peter Dean: Highlights the major structural changes to order and power globally, with states willing to use force. He notes that Australia's geographical advantage is diminishing due to long-range weaponry. He uses the analogy of defense as an insurance policy, where premiums need to increase during periods of high risk.
• Distance is no longer a guarantee: Modern long-range weaponry (land-based anti-ship missiles, ship-based land attack missiles, submarines) diminishes Australia's geographical advantage. China's navy circumnavigation of Australia with live fire exercises underscores this point.

Critique of Dutton's Plan and Prioritization

• Lack of Specifics: Dutton's plan is criticized for not specifying what the additional defense spending will be used for.
• Jennifer Parker's Perspective: Argues against announcing specific kit purchases. Instead, she advocates for focusing on addressing vulnerabilities and force posture. Examples include:
  • Protecting power projection capabilities.
  • Securing sea lines of communication.
  • Addressing gaps in the northwest (lack of bases).
• Peter Dean's Perspective: Points out inconsistencies in the Coalition's approach, such as announcing F-35 purchases while criticizing laundry lists. He argues that the Coalition should articulate whether they agree with the government's defense strategy and, if not, explain their alternative approach. He also notes the Coalition's history of making unfunded commitments to defense.

Key Areas for Investment

• Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD): Both Parker and Dean emphasize the critical need for IAMD to defend bases, critical infrastructure, and deployed units against ballistic and cruise missiles. Dean specifies the need for a medium-range surface-to-air missile system.
• Northern Base Network: Dean highlights the importance of investing in the infrastructure of the northern base network (Exmouth to Cape York) as Australia's front line of defense and bases for power projection.
• Broader Protection: Parker argues for a broader approach to protection, including HMAS Stirling and the joint headquarters near Canberra, considering the range of China's missiles.
• Lessons from Ukraine: While geography differs, the Ukraine war highlights the importance of military sustainment, including ammunition, guided weapons, fuel, and reserves.

Recruitment, Retention, and Reserve Forces

• Recruitment Challenges: Both experts acknowledge recruitment challenges in the defense force.
• Jennifer Parker's Perspective: Argues that the focus should be on "capacity" rather than just "workforce." She suggests improving processes, delegation levels, and equipment acquisition to better utilize the existing workforce. She criticizes the outsourcing of defense recruitment and the lengthy application process (300 days).
• Peter Dean's Perspective: Highlights the need for competitive salaries and wages to attract young Australians.
• Reserve Forces:
  • Jennifer Parker: Advocates for a holistic review of the reserves' contribution to the force and their role in home defense. She suggests considering reserve patrol boats and diving units. She also raises concerns about the employability of current reserves due to currency requirements.
  • Peter Dean: Calls for a strategic review of the reserves, not just an administrative one. He suggests expanding the reserves and exploring different service structures, such as a ready reserve scheme.

Labor's Defense Spending Trajectory

• Current Spending: Australia is currently spending just over 2% of GDP on defense ($56 billion per year), set to rise to 2.3% by 2033-34.
• Criticism: Both experts suggest this is not enough.
• Peter Dean: Notes that many strategic experts (Dennis Richardson, Mike Pazolo, Angus Houston, Kim Beasley) have called for 3% of GDP on defense. He criticizes Labor's plan for having most of the money allocated to the far end of the decade, which is considered unwise given current risks.
• Jennifer Parker: Acknowledges that the current government has increased defense spending, but questions whether defense can currently deal with the threats it faces. She points out that cuts to programs like mine warfare ships and replenishment ships are due to a lack of funding.

Synthesis/Conclusion

The discussion highlights the urgent need for increased defense spending in Australia due to rising global instability, China's military expansion, and questions surrounding the reliability of the US alliance. While both the Coalition and Labor have plans for defense spending, they are criticized for lacking specifics (Coalition) and allocating funds too far into the future (Labor). Key areas for investment include integrated air and missile defense, the northern base network, and addressing recruitment and retention challenges. A strategic review of the reserve forces is also deemed necessary. Ultimately, a comprehensive defense approach requires both a well-defined strategy and adequate funding, suggesting a potential for collaboration between the government and the opposition.