Spend less on defence? International politics expert says yes

We can all agree that home and contents insurance is a necessary evil; it is one of those things that is better to have and not need, than need and not have. A nation’s armed forces, its capabilities and supporting strategic policy and sovereign industries all serve the same purpose.

As Australia’s regional balance of power continues to evolve, is it time to begin a new discussion?

With Australia edging ever closer to the elusive 2 per cent of GDP on defence expenditure amid the largest peacetime rearmament program in the nation’s history, much concern has been placed on the nation’s capacity to finance the next-generation capabilities and mega projects over the long term.

The election of the Coalition in 2013 saw a major shake-up in the way defence was approached by government. Following what the Coalition describes as six years of neglect under the tumultuous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments, the newly formed government sought to create an environment of stability and consistency for defence with a number of key policy objectives.

Central to this was the commitment to return Australia’s defence expenditure to 2 per cent of GDP following what both Prime Minister Scott Morrison and now former defence minister Christopher Pyne explained as a 10 per cent reduction in real terms in the last year (FY2012-13) of the previous government – resulting in defence investment falling to its lowest levels since 1938.

While Australia’s defence expenditure looks set to increase to $38.7 billion in 2019-20, it is a case of business as usual for Defence and industry, with the Coalition’s budget announcement signalling the government’s continued commitment to supporting the capability and development of Australia’s sovereign defence industry capabilities.

The Coalition remains committed to continuing the delivery of a number of key projects identified as part of the government’s 2016 Defence White Paper, which focused on delivering a series of major capability upgrades and modernisation programs across the Australian Defence Force, including:

VIEW ALL

• The delivery of the first unit as part of the $5.2 billion LAND 400 Phase 2 program for Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles;
• Industry partners presented their bids as part of the $10-15 billion LAND 400 Phase 3 Armoured Fighting Vehicle program;
• Construction progress for the $35 billion SEA 5000 Hunter Class guided missile frigate program;
• Construction commencement and milestones at the $535 million SEA 5000 Shipyard facility at Osborne, South Australia;
• The continued arrival of Australia’s Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters;
• Signing the Strategic Partnership Agreement for the $50 billion SEA 1000 Attack Class future submarine program; and
• Committing to the acquisition of 30 self-propelled howitzers and 15 support vehicles to be built and maintained at a specialised facility in Geelong. 

Further supporting these milestones, the government has confirmed over the next decade to 2028-29 that it will invest more than $200 billion in defence capabilities. 

However, the growing conventional and hybrid capabilities of peer and near-peer competitors – namely Russia and China – combined with the growing modernisation, capability enhancements and reorganisation of force structures in the armies of nations including India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand, all contribute to the changing nature of contemporary warfare. 

This perfect storm of factors, swirling like a maelstrom across Australia's northern borders, has largely gone unnoticed by the Australian public, beyond the odd port visit by American or, as recently happened, Chinese naval vessels that seem to cause momentary flurries of concern. 

While Australia's record level of $200 billion over the next few decades has been widely hailed as a boon for Australian industry and the nation's position as a powerful, reliable ally amid rapidly evolving geo-strategic circumstances, for some the $200 billion is money misspent. 

Professor Mark Beeson writing for ASPI has said 'Australia should spend less on defence and more on countering immediate threats', calling for a major rethink in the nation's defence expenditure to prepare the nation and the Australian Defence Force for the challenges of the post-COVID-19 world. 

Professor Beeson sets the scene, stating, "The scale of the shock to the economy, not to mention to the national psyche, of the coronavirus crisis has been immense, and so has the response from government.

"Ideas that would have been literally unthinkable only a few weeks ago are now the conventional wisdom. Even Keynes might have been astounded at the scale and speed of the rethinking that has occurred within government ranks and the commentariat. We’re all Keynesians now, it seems.

"Academics often refer to these sorts of moments as paradigm shifts or critical junctures. A more fashionable way of describing them of late has been as ‘black swans’. Financial crises are a classic example, although their increased frequency may mean they’re not quite as surprising as they once were. The real surprise, perhaps, is that we repeatedly fail to learn the lessons they offer and use them to prepare for the next one."

What reasonable threats are there?

Professor Beeson seeks to stimulate debate, particularly around the level of tax payer money dedicated to equipping the ADF for what he believes are thinly veiled, ill defined threats that may in actuality not be real. 

He draws particular comparisons between Australia and the US, with specific focus on the funding disparity between counter terrorism and combating emerging infectious diseases and pandemics being the primary focal point amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

"Part of the answer can be found in the way we think about security and the sorts of people who shape strategic policy in places such as Australia and the US. The overwhelming focus of the defence establishment remains on preparing to defend Australia from potentially hostile states or terrorists, not from the much more plausible and immediate danger posed by infectious diseases. This is not a uniquely Australian problem, of course. All over the world, governments are spending money they can’t spare on threats they are unlikely to face," Professor Beeson posits. 

Expanding on this, he references specific examples, finishing with a rather poignant question for further analysis and consideration, "The US spends US$180 billion on counterterrorism and US$2 billion on pandemic and emerging infectious disease programs per year, a ratio that is indefensible and that requires a ‘redefinition of national security’, according to the former US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power.

"Closer to home, Indonesia’s limited resources would clearly be better spent on shoring up its rickety and inadequate health system than it would on upgrading its military hardware.

"Much the same criticisms could be made about Australia’s defence priorities, of course. Given that Australia is about to spend more than $80 billion on 12 new submarines, which even security specialists fear will be out of date before they’re even delivered, the long-suffering Australian taxpayer might reasonably ask, is this a sensible use of scarce resources when there are more immediate and compelling threats to our security?"

Your thoughts 

Australia’s security and prosperity are directly influenced by the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, meaning Australia must be directly engaged as both a benefactor and leader in all matters related to strategic, economic and political security, serving as a complementary force to the role played by the US.  

Australia cannot simply rely on the US, or Japan, or the UK, or France to guarantee the economic, political and strategic interests of the nation. China is already actively undermining the regional order through its provocative actions in the South China Sea and its rapid military build-up.

To assume that Australia will remain immune to any hostilities that break out in the region is naive at best and criminally negligent at worst. As a nation, Australia cannot turn a blind eye to its own geopolitical, economic and strategic backyard, both at a traditional and asymmetric level, lest we see a repeat of Imperial Japan or the Iranian Revolution arrive on our doorstep.

It is clear from history that appeasement does not work, so it is time to avoid repeating the mistakes of our past and be fully prepared to meet any challenge.  

There is an old Latin adage that perfectly describes Australia’s predicament and should serve as sage advice: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”  – “If you want peace, prepare for war”. 

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..