Release of the ASPI’s Strategy report on public opinion in Australia towards defence and security.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report Attitude Matters: Public Opinion in Australia towards defence and security which provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date survey of Australian public opinion on defence and security issues.

Attitude Matters was written by Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University, with additional contributions by Peter Jennings and Brendan McRandle of ASPI. Prof McAllister is one of Australia’s leading academic expert on public opinion. He has charted community views on defence and security policy through the Australian Electoral Survey (AES)-a major poll of Australians coinciding with each general election from as far back as the late 1960s through to the last federal election in 2001. The paper also draws on more recent polling on Iraq, the US alliance and other key security issues.

McAllister writes that, “the end of the Cold War, the 11 September and Bali attacks, and events in the Middle East, have all combined to undermine many of the certainties which informed the public’s long-standing views on defence and national security during the latter half of the twentieth century. There is now greater volatility in public opinion on defence issues than at any time in the recent past.”

“As defence and security enter mainstream political debate, the public’s awareness of the policy options is likely to increase. As a result, the traditional policy freedom that successive governments have enjoyed in the area is likely to diminish.”

“The relationship between policy-making and public opinion is complex and often the subject of heated debate. Policy decision-makers cannot afford to be led by opinion polls. Indeed at times our political leaders must try to change public opinion rather than follow it. Equally though, governments ignore public opinion at their peril. Policies that get too far out of step with what the community is broadly prepared to support will not survive in the long-term”, writes Peter Jennings, Director of Programs at ASPI.

“This publication provides some fascinating insights and tells us a great deal about how Australians have responded to local and world events. It contains important information for policy makers and commentators” said Brendan McRandle, Outreach Program Director at ASPI. “Of particular interest is the way increasing numbers of Australians have identified Indonesia as a security threat, yet over the same period, the public has become much less worried by China”. Professor McAllister’s work shows that, “To all intents and purposes, Indonesia has replaced China as the focus of the public’s threat assessment.”

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its summary budget report Your Defence Dollar: The 2004-05 Defence Budget.

The report is a condensed version of the 2004 ASPI Budget Brief: The Cost of Defence that was released in May two weeks after the budget.

Accordingly, while The Cost of Defence contains an extensive and detailed analysis of the Defence budget, Your Defence Dollar is a more succinct and accessible document.

In releasing the publication, Dr Thomson said that:

“There is a surprisingly large amount of new money for national security and Defence, notwithstanding the emphasis given to Tax and Family in this year’s pre-election budget.”

“Specific measures for Defence include $816 million for logistics, $654 million for personnel, $300 million for estate upkeep and $132 million to maintain our deployment to Iraq until the middle of 2005.”

“But just like last year, there continues to be a slow shift of spending away from capital investment in future capability to spending on today’s personnel and operating costs.”

“This budget announced that around $2.2 billion of previously planned investment in new military equipment would be deferred from the first part of this decade to beyond 2007-08 because it has become increasingly clear that Defence simply cannot spend the money as quickly as first thought.”

“To improve the delivery of investment projects, there are major reforms under way in the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) whose job it is to acquire new equipment.

“This had better work. Later this decade, when the deferred investment funds reappear in the budget, DMO is going to really have its work cut out for it.” 

” Overall there have been visible improvements in Defence’s budget discipline, planning and reporting compared with a couple of years ago, nevertheless we think that more could be done to ensure that value for money is being delivered.”

“We’re into the central years of the 10-year White Paper funding period and, as yet, the Government has not decided what Defence funding will be past 2010. That’s one of the reasons why we called for a new White Paper in our 2004 Strategic Assessment.”

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) latest publication ‘Power Shift: Challenges for Australia in Northeast Asia’

NORTHEAST Asia’s importance to the world economy and international security is uncontested but it is also a subregion undergoing an historic transition

Griffith University International Relations experts Professor William Tow and Associate Professor Russell Trood have developed an important strategy report titled Power Shift: Challenges for Australian in Northeast Asia which was released today (June 7) by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the Griffith Asia Pacific Research Institute (GAPRI).

The report discusses five key emerging factors in Australia’s evolving relations with Northeast Asia. These are:

China’s rising economic strength and growing strategic engagement with the region.

The movement towards “normalisation” in Japan

The shifting power structures and strategic allegiances on the Korean peninsula

The strengthening of the nexus between economic and security issues

A tendency towards diplomatic balancing instead of hegemonic competition, as the USA restructures its strategic presence.

Discussing the report, Professor William Tow said there were emerging trends with the potential to define Australia’s economic relationship with Northeast Asia.

“The remarkable performance of the Chinese economy is not only driving regional economies, but is also shaping the region’s political and security environment,” he said.

“If momentum builds, and there are some signs that it will, the region might move to deepen economic cooperation.

“The risk for Australia is that it may be more exclusively Asian in its membership.”

Associate Professor Trood explained that although Australia has a tradition of engagement with the region, was a valued economic partner in its growing prosperity, and was respected for its capacity and willingness to contribute to regional security, Canberra’s relations with the countries of Southeast Asia received more attention.

“Our current security debate is mainly about how extensively Canberra should complement Washington’s main strategic priority, namely the global war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11,” Associate Professor Trood said.

“However, disturbingly absent from active consideration is how we could most effectively engage East Asia’s most formidable powers to take advantage of opportunities and help them meet the challenges shaping their future,” he said.

“Australia needs to respond to the changes that are taking place, and interpreting the trends will be an important challenge for us to ensure our own future prosperity.”

Among guests attending today’s launch of the strategy report were Professor Robert Sutter (Georgetown University, Washington DC), ASPI Program Director – Outreach Mr Brendan McRandle, Head of Griffith’s Department of International Business and Asian Studies Associate Professor Leong Liew, Vice Chancellor Professor Glyn Davis, and Professors Colin Mackerras, Nick Knight, Yan Islam and Associate Professor Bill Case.

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) Strategic Assessment 2004

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report Beyond Baghdad: ASPI’s Strategic Assessment 2004.

“Australia faces its most challenging and turbulent strategic outlook since the mid-1960s.”

This is the key judgement in Beyond Baghdad, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s 2004 Strategic Assessment, released today.

ASPI’s annual Strategic Assessment is Australia’s only public survey of the full range of defence and security issues facing the nation. Beyond Baghdad was written by ASPI Director of Programs, Peter Jennings.

Among the issues covered in Beyond Baghdad:

Terrorists will attack Australia if they identify an opportunity. We have little choice but to take al Qaeda at its word when it claims that Australia is a target.

Iraq’s future prospects are poised on a knife edge. One possible outcome is the creation of a stable, more open and prosperous regime in the Middle East. The other is anarchy, and a substantial rebuff to America’s place in the world.

A new age of warfare, where precision strike weapons and low-technology fertiliser bombs compete uneasily for dominance.

America’s economic and military power will make it the world’s strongest state for the foreseeable future. Australia’s defence alliance with the US remains vital, and we should look for new ways to strengthen cooperation while retaining our independent approach to security.

In North Asia, the character of Chinese power is the dominating strategic issue. In Japan, a brighter economic picture is matched by more outward-looking foreign and security policies.

Southeast Asian governments are struggling with economic modernisation, weak administrations, terrorism, and leadership transitions. 

In the South Pacific, Australia must ask tough questions about the long-term viability of the island states.

In an age when security problems are horizontal – with challenges as diverse as terrorism and border security — our government structures are narrowly vertical.

Beyond Baghdad calls for the government to accelerate progress towards developing a national security strategy.

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) Report on Paying for Defence to 2050

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report A Trillion Dollars and Counting: Paying for Defence to 2050

The author Dr Mark Thomson said:

” We’ve looked at the prospects mid-century for what it will cost to maintain our current defence force and whether the ageing of the population will limit the availability of personnel.”

“The good news is that there will continue to be more than enough young Australians to maintain the personnel strength of the ADF, although Defence will have to be agile and responsive to attract them.”

“The bad news is that the long-term trends in the cost of personnel and military equipment are upwards, as is the trend in the cost of maintaining and operating that equipment.”

“On the basis of these trends, our best estimate is that defence spending will have to rise around three-fold out to 2050 just to maintain our current range of military capabilities, although growth in the economy over the same period will ensure that the percentage of GDP only grows to a bit over 2%.”

“But when we look at credible upper range of the trends, the percentage of GDP in 2050 quickly grows to a more uncomfortable 3%, or even 4%.”

“The problem is that by mid-century the ageing of the population will see overall Commonwealth spending exceed revenues by around 5% of GDP on current policy settings according to Treasury’s 2002 Intergenerational Report.”

“No part of Government will be immune from contributing to a balanced budget later this century – including Defence.”

“While Defence delivered substantial efficiency gains last decade by contracting out non-core activities, the pace of reform has slowed and there are no big productivity gains on the horizon.”

Dr Thomson concluded by saying “The best way to boost Defence efficiency is to move away from the current centrally planned bureaucracy, and adopt a more business-like approach by giving the Service Chiefs direct control over resources and making them directly accountable for delivering results.”