{"id":20652,"date":"2015-05-26T06:00:28","date_gmt":"2015-05-25T20:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=20652"},"modified":"2015-05-25T11:50:55","modified_gmt":"2015-05-25T01:50:55","slug":"the-2015-defence-white-paper-show-us-the-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-2015-defence-white-paper-show-us-the-money\/","title":{"rendered":"The 2015 Defence White Paper: show us the money"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Bank<\/a><\/p>\n

The adjectives applied by the government to describe the forthcoming Defence White Paper and its accompanying plan for the ADF include \u2018fully costed\u2019, \u2018externally assured\u2019, \u2018achievable\u2019, \u2018affordable\u2019, \u2018credible\u2019, \u2018realistic\u2019, \u2018properly funded\u2019 and \u2018enduring\u2019. This is all well and good. But if the new White Paper is to \u2018restore the compact that should rightly exist between the Government and its Defence Force\u2019\u2014as the Minister has said\u2014there\u2019ll need to be another adjective put on the list: \u2018transparent.\u2019 If the government wants to be taken seriously when it claims that its plan is \u2018credible, affordable and properly funded\u2019, it\u2019ll have to show us the money.<\/p>\n

To varying extents, past White Papers have tried to do so. Without doubt, the Howard government\u2019s 2000 effort is the gold standard. It provided a decade\u2019s worth of overall funding guidance in the document, and backed it up with a detailed breakdown of new funding over the decade in the subsequent budget. The 2009 White Paper provided far less information and the 2013 document did even less. All we got was a single figure in the budget for the six years of funding following the four-year forward estimates period. The difference between the 2000 White Paper and its successors is easy to understand. The 2000 document had an important story to tell, whereas its successors had a lot to hide.<\/p>\n

The argument within official circles (that I\u2019ve been regaled with many times over the years) will be that funding transparency is undesirable because it limits the government\u2019s flexibility. Flexibility, in this context, is the ability to claim to be doing something while not actually doing it. But if the Abbott government is fair-dinkum about having an \u2018affordable and long-term plan that aligns strategy, capability, and resources\u2019, it\u2019s time to put the money on the table.<\/p>\n

There are two reasons why the government should be eager to be transparent about its defence funding plans. First, transparency would allow them to put the \u20182% of GDP\u2019 issue back in the box once and for all. Disclose a funding envelope today that hits 2% of GDP in 2023-24 and be done with it. Otherwise, they could find themselves chasing their tails trying to adjust to the vagaries of the movable feast that\u2019s nominal GDP as the economy waxes and wanes. Second, it would provide political momentum to defence funding that a future non-Coalition government would find more difficult than otherwise to overcome.<\/p>\n

So when the government releases its \u2018vision for Australia\u2019s defence strategy over the next two decades in the new Defence White Paper\u2019, here\u2019s what it needs to do to justify the growing list of adjectives being applied to the document:<\/p>\n