{"id":717,"date":"2012-08-13T12:00:15","date_gmt":"2012-08-13T02:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=717"},"modified":"2013-01-07T14:52:55","modified_gmt":"2013-01-07T04:52:55","slug":"australian-defence-planners-welcome-to-new-zealands-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/australian-defence-planners-welcome-to-new-zealands-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Defence Planners: welcome to New Zealand\u2019s world"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"NZ<\/a><\/figure>\n

New Zealanders have always discounted claims that Canberra\u2019s defence purse-strings are being tightened\u2014until now. The days when the proportion of Australian GDP devoted to defence was twice the New Zealand level of roughly 1% appear to be over. Gone too is that long era in which a succession of governments (Liberal-National and Labor alike) never once saw a capability proposal they didn\u2019t like. The Defence Capability Plan, replete with its 180 items, is about to have a Jenny Craig moment\u2014or at least that is what should<\/em> happen as a result of the funding changes being administered by the Gillard government. If elected, an incoming Abbott government would be unlikely to quickly reverse the very significant reductions that Stephen Smith has demanded in an era of depleting federal coffers. The pi\u00f1ata party which characterised Australian defence decision-making for nearly a generation has ended.<\/p>\n

There are some ironic twists in all of this. One is that Australia\u2019s strategic weight might be slimming down just as its alliance relationship with Washington is intensifying. But the United States is also reining in its defence expenditure (with more changes to come if sequestration kicks in). One can therefore think, pivot notwithstanding, that future American administrations will expect even more burden sharing from close allies. Yet meeting this expectation will be harder for Australia in an extended period of defence economising.<\/p>\n

A second paradox is that just as its defence resources are being slimmed down, Canberra is paying increased attention to its western and northern periphery and to the Indian Ocean, with the latter meaning an effective expansion of its area of strategic concern. A growing gap between ends and means is becoming a distinct reality. That disconnect won\u2019t be so obvious in an era of reducing operational tempo as the troops come home from Afghanistan, the Solomons and Timor Leste. But it will find a way to show up one day when a real test comes.<\/p>\n

In this challenging fiscal environment, strong ground rules are needed when it comes to authorising future capability development. First, every responsible government wants to ensure that core<\/em> capabilities are not sacrificed. But this makes it necessary to define \u2018core\u2019 and even \u2018capabilities\u2019. It\u2019s surprising what you can learn to live without. Second, any focus on deriving savings from internal efficiencies is likely only to delay cuts to core capabilities unless further injections of capital funds are found (as New Zealand will discover before long). Third, it\u2019s desirable to leave future governments with a series of authentic and therefore affordable choices about future capabilities, so that if a major platform needs to be replaced or superseded, that can realistically occur. That\u2019s something the writers of New Zealand\u2019s 2010 Defence White Paper sought to do. But in practice it means vigilantly policing a never-ending process which conspires to reduce the number of real options. Fourth, elected governments who may accept the need to remove a capability in a less demanding moment will always retain the right to demand those very same options with when things get noisier. This puts a premium on avoiding super specialised single role purchases (and Australia\u2019s shopping list seems to have a few of those). Fifth, it\u2019s necessary to be hard-nosed when friends claim that you are not pulling your weight. You\u2019re doing what you are doing for your own national interest as you, and not others, define it.<\/p>\n

Australian decision-makers will need to be similarly hard-nosed to make sure the core of the ADF\u2019s capabilities is a realistic and affordable mix. Ministers should be posing some tough capability questions of the defence establishment, including each of the services. These are the sorts of questions where there are no good alternatives but where some options are less ugly than others. Here are some of the questions that might be asked:<\/p>\n