{"id":2013,"date":"2012-11-02T11:28:40","date_gmt":"2012-11-02T01:28:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=2013"},"modified":"2012-11-07T14:28:45","modified_gmt":"2012-11-07T04:28:45","slug":"sold-the-dummy-on-the-defence-budget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/sold-the-dummy-on-the-defence-budget\/","title":{"rendered":"Sold the dummy on the Defence budget?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Have we been sold a dummy pass on the impact of the defence budget cuts?<\/p>\n
Statements by the Defence Minister that that future plans are merely delayed may seem reasonable when money is tight and claims<\/a> that \u2018we are not going to allow our fiscal restraint to adversely impact on our overseas operations\u2019 indicate that in the short term, capability is not affected.<\/p>\n The Minister\u2019s claim however is a bit like saying that we will support our Olympic Team in London with everything they need, while behind the scenes cutting funding to the Australian Institute of Sport and sports development programs around the country. To then claim that our performance at the next Olympic Games will be at least as good if not better than the current standard is to defy credibility.<\/p>\n It is important in this debate to understand the consequences of large overseas operations being funded through \u2018Operational Supplementation\u2019, which is provided by Government over and above the normal appropriation for Defence. As a result of supplementation, Australian forces in Afghanistan do in fact have world\u2019s best practice and equipment, significant parts of which have been purchased as an \u2018urgent operational requirement\u2019. That means, however, that forces remaining in Australia do not necessarily have access to such high-end equipment. It also means that after the draw down in Afghanistan, those capabilities will not necessarily be transferred back to Australia as the supplementation ends and there is no budget established to support them here.<\/p>\n There is another catch to operational supplementation\u2014it only applies when the cost to Defence exceeds $10m. Take as an example the extensive deployment of defence capability in support of border protection tasks. The unplanned operational costs associated with this (which are only just under the $10m threshold) have to be absorbed by Defence using the budget they had planned to use for ongoing activities such as training and maintenance. The high operational tempo coming on top of implementing numerous reviews means that there are many such Government-directed activities that Defence has had to pay for by deferring other planned expenditure. It is instructive to look at how many new initiatives announced by the Government are in fact \u2018absorbed measures\u2019. \u00a0This is why we are now starting to see aircraft flying less hours, vehicles being mothballed and facilities slowly degrading with only essential safety-related maintenance being completed. These additional demands on the budget for the \u2018existing force\u2019 are compounded by the fact that the Government\u2019s own reports show that there was not enough money to start with.<\/p>\n