Clearly, the cost-cutting in the Defence Department has already begun. While the 2000 Defence White Paper had an ample supply of stock photos, the 2009 White Paper’s only image is the three submarines on the front cover. Not a diagram, map, or photo to break up the extremely plain single-column layout. More seriously, given the repeated delays in releasing the is document, you do wonder just how recently the content of the White Paper was finalized. Long and furious internal debates within Defence and, perhaps, Cabinet?
In any case, it seems that the hawks have won, and particularly the naval hawks. Australia is to build a new generation of submarines when the Collins-class is retired, to have 12 members instead of 6. The surface navy has done well too, with the air warfare destroyers to go ahead, and the option for a fourth still under consideration, the Anzac -class frigates to be replaced, as well as additional ships for sealift capability. The mess surrounding naval helicopters will get cleaned up with a purchase of a pile of brand new ones.
Continue reading ‘Defence White Paper’
Hugh White, former adviser to Hawke and Beazley on defence matters and now an academic at ANU, has written his own analysis of Australia’s military requirements – a sort of alternative Defence White Paper, which unlike the official version has the benefit of actually being available to read rather than sitting on Joel Fitzgibbon’s in-tray. It’s a very interesting read.
In very broad strokes, White believes the rise of China radically changes Australia’s strategic environment – whatever China’s goals, no longer will the USA have unchallenged military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, and this changes Australia’s defence priorities. Throw in a strongly growing India and Indonesia, and the neighbourhood is looking rather more crowded than it did through the last 30 years or so. In such a light, the force structure Australia has pursued, with an expensive (but, White argues, pretty strategically insignificant) capability for high-intensity amphibious warfare, spends a lot of money for not much purpose. White argues for a larger, but much lighter army equipped primarily to operate in regional stabilization operations, a navy whose high-end warfighting capabilities are almost entirely submarine-based and whose residual surface ships are for supporting the previously mentioned regional stabilization operations (and notably which doesn’t include air warfare destroyers, who White believes are sitting ducks for missiles), and a larger air force. None of this comes cheap, at around 2.5% of GDP compared to around 2% now.
Personally, White’s take at least has some internal coherence, even if you don’t accept all the premises behind it. Definitely worth a read.
We haven’t had a warporn thread for a while, as the government’s Defence White Paper is still in limbo. But it seems that various bits and pieces are starting to emerge, so to speak. The ABC is reporting that the upcoming defence white paper will recommend the doubling of the Australian submarine fleet, when the Collins-class subs are retired by 2025 or so. Unsurprisingly, this is being described as “Australia’s biggest-ever defence project”, even larger than the purchase of the next generation of combat aircraft.
Continue reading ‘Skipper, I have the conn…er…skipper?…able seaman?…work experience kid???’
While navigating the CPRS – sludge of a policy that it is – through the Senate will undoubtedly provide much of the political theatre this year, there are a number of other government reviews that will start to report back over the next few months. We’ll finally start to get some meat on the bones of the Rudd government’s policy agenda…a few months later than originally planned, but that’s hardly surprising.
For instance, the Defence White Paper, originally to report last year, is now scheduled to be released around April. If I recall correctly, there’s also a major health funding review due out soon. And the second-biggest of them all, the Henry taxation review, will roll on through 2009 (the biggest, in my view, was the CPRS). On top of that, the government will presumably respond to things like the Bradley higher education review, which reported recently.
I’d like to check with LP readers – what other major bits of policy (aside from the obvious major set-piece, the Budget) are coming over the next few months? And what kind of things might we expect in them? What should we be keeping an eye out for?
Recent comments
silkworm, SJ, Razor, anthony nolan, Legal Eagle, Tim Dymond [...]
Lefty E, Lefty E, Mark, Fascinated, Paul Burns, PinkyOz [...]
Mark, Paul Burns, Bert, Rx, Paul Burns, Andos
Razor, terangeree, Deborah, Saint Furious of Ikea, terangeree, terangeree [...]
anthony nolan, Helen, Nickws, kph, Helen, Caroline Church [...]
Saint Furious of Ikea, Chris, Paul Burns, David Irving (no relation), joe2, David Irving (no relation) [...]
Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V. [...]
anthony, Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan [...]
Chris, Ken Lovell, Gummo Trotsky, desipis, Pavlov's Cat, Pavlov's Cat [...]
RightHandThread, Nabakov, rumrebellious, Nabakov, RightHandThread, RightHandThread [...]
Fran Barlow, CMMC, Gummo Trotsky, Guido, pablo, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
Fascinated, Laura, Casey, Liam, anthony nolan, pablo [...]