{"id":11169,"date":"2013-12-04T12:00:05","date_gmt":"2013-12-04T01:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=11169"},"modified":"2013-12-05T09:19:57","modified_gmt":"2013-12-04T22:19:57","slug":"reader-response-one-order-of-lhds-would-you-like-other-government-services-with-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/reader-response-one-order-of-lhds-would-you-like-other-government-services-with-that\/","title":{"rendered":"Reader response: one order of LHDs\u2014would you like other government services with that?"},"content":{"rendered":"
In his latest contribution<\/a> to The Strategist<\/i>, Nic Stuart continues to act as something of a catalyst for discussion on this blog. Following an eloquent reply on the benefits of regional amphibious capabilities from Peter Dean<\/a>, Nic\u2019s post partially departs the operational level and attempts to address the complexities of fiscal inputs, operational outputs, and public understanding of large government expenditures.<\/p>\n I believe there are several weaknesses in Nic\u2019s post. But the most alarming comes with his rhetorical question: \u2018Why should my tax dollars be spent on something unless I\u2019m persuaded of the need\u2019?<\/p>\n The answer is simple. The public elects candidates to represent their views, and in doing so cedes authority on such issues to Parliamentarians. Nic seems to channel John Locke, praising the virtues of the Law of Opinion and Reputation, while negating the Civil Law authority granted to elected officials. If his point is that we need greater public influence on government decisions, what Nic is seeking is not simply dialogue, but constitutional change.<\/p>\n As a government service, Defence is unique. In contrast with the health or education sectors, it\u2019s something with which the average citizen doesn\u2019t engage in a close or frequent way. This is why I found Nic\u2019s suggestion that specific platforms\u2014and their role in larger operational concepts\u2014require public explanation so curious.<\/p>\n An informed and engaged public is to be encouraged. However I believe the real challenge isn\u2019t how to engage people on the practicalities of operational assets, rather to provide a cogent analysis of interconnected national interests and an accessible policy framework which meaningfully addresses them. In relation to LHDs this would be a conversation tying together Australia\u2019s defence, trade and foreign affairs interests.<\/p>\n At the risk of repeating others, I believe the LHD\u2019s greatest strength is that it\u2019s not conflict-dependent, and is sure to be put to good use. As a platform, it\u2019s well-suited to our geography and the infrastructure standards of regional neighbours. It\u2019ll be a core element of future humanitarian and peacekeeping missions and will support regional confidence building through military diplomacy. As a government acquisition I\u2019d expect a positive cost\/benefit evaluation, and while it may be true that missiles are cheaper, they lack the warmth and nuance required in a humanitarian response.<\/p>\n Lastly\u2014but certainly not least\u2014the fiscal challenge facing governments of all levels is more than a matter of simply informing the constituency. In a post which refers to the large levers of public policy, Nic\u2019s reference to current tax rates is flippant. The macroeconomic implications of boosting funding through tax increases would be significant, with far-reaching effects on interest rates, growth and market confidence.<\/p>\n But if it\u2019s dialogue Nic\u2019s after, nothing draws an engaged public quite like the possibility of a tax hike.<\/p>\n Luke Maynard is a graduate of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In his latest contribution to The Strategist, Nic Stuart continues to act as something of a catalyst for discussion on this blog. Following an eloquent reply on the benefits of regional amphibious capabilities from Peter …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":198,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[259,26,628],"class_list":["post-11169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-amphibious-operations","tag-defence-spending","tag-lhd"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n