{"id":16006,"date":"2014-09-24T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-09-24T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=16006"},"modified":"2014-09-25T08:09:04","modified_gmt":"2014-09-24T22:09:04","slug":"defence-policy-and-industry-balance-and-options","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-policy-and-industry-balance-and-options\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence policy and industry: balance and options"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Aerial<\/a><\/figure>\n

We\u2019ve had two timely contributions to the current defence policy debate in Australia: the first<\/a> by ANU\u2019s Professor Hugh White; and the second<\/a> by Innes Willox, Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group.<\/p>\n

Starting with White\u2019s sound advice on how to \u2018do defence policy better\u2019, inputs, outputs and outcomes are critical but I believe the start point in the process is a clear and consistent vision of Australia and its role in the world. That context enables us to determine more directly the type of outcomes we as a nation see for ourselves. They\u2019ll necessarily be long term in nature and contestable but they\u2019ll provide the framework around which the broader security and defence debate can then take place.<\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s policymakers\u2019 task is made more interesting because of its location; the size of its land mass, population and economy; and\u2014of increasing importance\u2014the perception held by others of Australia\u2019s role both regionally and globally. Together those factors create a unique set of policy challenges. The input element is also made more complex because governments, notwithstanding their occasional fiery rhetoric, seem to dislike restricting the capability or output options available to future governments.<\/p>\n

Force structure decisions are critical\u2014get them wrong and the options open to governments in the future close down quickly. That was the real issue for governments in the 90s: they had no options. That\u2019s why balance <\/em>becomes so important.<\/p>\n

When the word balance is used in the same sentence as force structure many in the strategic policy arena get uncomfortable and abruptly reject the concept. So let me clarify my definition of balance. It\u2019s certainly not about splitting the available defence budget equally across Army, Navy or Air Force or making decisions less contested or rigorous.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s about having a balanced defence force in capability terms, a ruler against which policy and capability decisions can be tested. As an example, the \u2018air package\u2019 that the Government is currently forward-positioning in the Middle East is self-reliant, balanced and capable\u2014and importantly of a scale that meets Australia\u2019s means. Self-reliant because it can see, sustain itself, and shoot. Balanced because it has the force elements necessary to prosecute the tasks given to it by government\u2014and not limited just to either seeing, or sustaining or shooting. It\u2019s capable because as a package it\u2019s not a liability to others in the coalition but gives government a range of policy options over time based on policy grounds not capability deficiencies.<\/p>\n

So the terms \u2018balanced\u2019 and \u2018options\u2019 are key, and segue nicely to Innes Willox\u2019s contribution.<\/p>\n

Setting aside the decision to \u2018make or buy\u2019 submarines for the moment, Willox\u2019s broader point is that industry capability is about the means available to governments to sustain a force structure over its life. It\u2019s not about rentseekers or industry assistance.<\/p>\n

So what does Government and Defence want from a mature defence industry? The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said<\/a> that defence capability decisions are about defence capability not industry policy. Willox\u2019s constituency would, no doubt, agree. But it might reasonably expect that government makes its expectations of the sector clear and consistent, a feature of government policy sadly lacking in recent times.<\/p>\n

In doing so, government should recognise the industry capabilities that already exist in the defence sector of the economy. Defence industry policy also needs to acknowledge and leverage Australia\u2019s competitive advantages. It can\u2019t just be a defence manufacturing policy.<\/p>\n

The 2000 White Paper triggered the entry of a number of new industry players into the local defence landscape. And Defence has been the beneficiary of that. The decision to enter the market wasn\u2019t made because government gave out assistance or provided industry largesse; rather, what Canberra provided was a ten-year roadmap for defence. It offered not guarantees but predictability\u2014around which companies could make their own decisions regarding risk and investment.<\/p>\n

The First Principles Review team and those developing the new industry policy could take a leaf from the 2000 approach. Herewith, a couple of suggestions:<\/p>\n