The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released The Cost of Defence: ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2007-08.

This document has been written to give readers greater access to the complex workings of the Defence budget and to promote informed debate on defence budget issues. 
 
In releasing the document, ASPI Defence Analyst Mark Thomson said:

This year’s budget capped off an extraordinary thirteen month period that saw the government promise more than $41 billion worth of new defence initiatives over eleven years; around $16 billion last budget, $14 billion this budget, and more than $11 billion in between.

As a result, next financial year the Defence budget will reach $22 billion. This is an increase of $2.1 billion over the funding for this year, and represents 2% of GDP.

Key initiatives in this year’s budget included $6.1 billion over ten years for 24 Super Hornet F/A-18F aircraft, $1.8 billion for additional logistics and $1.3 billion for C-17 operating costs.

Another $1.3 billion in operational supplementation was provided which will bring the accumulated cost of the ADF’s commitment to Iraq to $2 billion and Afghanistan to $1.7 billion.

Unfortunately, Defence’s long-troubled acquisition processes again looks to be faltering. $2.1 million of previously planned investment in new equipment has been deferred over the past six months. Further delays cannot be discounted given the ambitious program of investment.

In a positive sign, the size of the permanent ADF has grown rather than fallen for the first time in four years – albeit by only 325 personnel. With an extra 5,500 people required over the next decade, the government is not taking any chances and has provided $2.1 billion over ten years for recruitment and retention (on top of $1 billion provided late last year).

Despite all the money flowing into Defence, still more money will be needed to cover the personnel and operating costs of new capabilities that will be delivered over the next few years. With an election due this year in which fiscal rectitude will be in stark focus, the question is: how much of the projected surplus will be needed to deliver the government’s plans for the defence force?  

ASPI has today released a new Special Report publication, Are we ready? Healthcare preparedness for catastrophic terrorism by Anthony Bergin, Director of Research Programs, ASPI and Raspal Khosa, Research Fellow, ASPI.

In this report the authors suggest that while positive steps have been taken in recent years, there are deficiencies in our healthcare system for mass casualty care. It suggests that further steps need to be taken to meet our healthcare preparedness, response and recovery goals for mass casualty incidents. While recognising that some hospital resource issues would need a response by the States, there are significant steps that can and should be taken by the Australian Government.

Key recommendations:

* a national summit should be convened to examine policies and practices for mass casualty disaster healthcare preparedness

* a national crisis centre that provides a common operating picture for all Australian government agencies should be established
 
* audits of national healthcare preparedness on a state-by-state basis for major disasters must be conducted and publicly released.

* national minimum standards for hospitals dealing with mass casualty disasters should be set.

* the healthcare system must be drawn into counter-terrorism exercises

* in the event of a disaster there should be a mechanism to limit general public access to mobile phone networks to guarantee communications between health workers and first responders

* the government’s national security website should provide practical information on health aspects of emergency response 

* funding research into disaster medicine should be a priority

* the federal government should provide funding to upgrade inadequate existing CBD healthcare facilities to function as disaster triage hospitals.
 
* the Commonwealth should contract with one or more commercial carriers to supply suitably qualified flight crews and large passenger jets for large volume casualty airlift

*  the states and territories should  maintain databases of volunteer healthcare personnel who could provide first aid to the walking wounded and reassurance to the uninjured following a mass casualty incident

* a Centre for Lessons Learned should be established to act as a repository for emergency response information 

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has today released a new Strategic Insight publication, Hercules or Sisyphus? Building capacity in the Asia–Pacific by Roland Rich, the author of several books on democratisation and development.

The report recommends a broadening of Australia’ aid program for regional countries to facilitate the development of vital private sectors as the key to economic development.

‘Continuing to strengthen governments and civil societies in developing countries that have a weak private sector is not a recipe that can lead to national success. It ignores the critical necessity for a viable private sector.’

The report argues that a new strategy is needed to involve the private sector directly to help build the capacity of the business sector in developing countries.

The report recommends a ground-breaking strategic approach; amending the Australian tax rules to encourage companies to become directly involved in building private sector capacities in developing countries by allowing them to deduct from their taxable income the full costs incurred in providing such assistance.

‘Taxpayers in donor countries will not have to pay for this initiative. It is not to be funded from public money. Nor does it require additional bureaucratic machinery for implementation. Its major strength is that it is not a public sector initiative’ according to the report.

Release of Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Strategic Insight No. 30/2006

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has today released a new Strategic Insight publication titled ‘The 2006 US Quadrennial Defense Review: Influencing Australia’s defence force’ by Peter Layton, an Australian on the faculty of the US National Defense University.

The US has articulated a new strategic direction for defence in tune with the post-September 11, post-Cold War strategic environment. If Australia chooses to follow, this new direction could fundamentally shape Australian defence policy just as the interwar British Singapore strategy and the Cold War US Guam Doctrine did.

In this paper the two key strategic drivers of the new US defence policy are discussed with the intention of stimulating debate on their potential implications for Australian defence polices.

In addressing these priority areas, the QDR defines distinct and important needs for military forces based on both an identified tangible threat and on a potential danger. The 2006 QDR is effectively shaped by two major but dissimilar strategic drivers: winning the ‘Long War’ and hedging against the re-emergence of a major state-based threat. 

‘The Long War affects both Australia and the US. Successfully meeting the transnational non-state actor threat requires global action that Australia cannot undertake alone. Collaborating closely with the US is directly in Australia’s interest to overcome a global terrorist threat that may be encountered anywhere.  Close collaboration with the US, and others, is essential for the necessary defence-in-depth’, states Peter Layton

‘Australia’s strategic culture suggests that the nation will adopt defence policies pragmatically informed by the QDR. While a lesser power, Australia since Federation has sought to be meaningfully involved in international affairs by being part of a great power’s alliance network.’

‘The new defence policies provide Australia as a ‘model’ alliance partner with opportunities and challenges.’

‘However, this QDR’s vision will influence all nations to a greater or lesser extent, willingly or unwillingly, close ally or implacable adversary’.

Release of Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Strategic Insight No. 32/2006

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has today released a new Strategic Insight publication titled ‘The
road to a nuclear North Korea: Regional reactions, global impacts, Australian interests’ authored by a panel of leading experts; James Cotton, Stuart Harris and Carl Ungerer.

The paper examines North Korea’s 9 October nuclear test, the culmination of a process begun in the 1960s, when with Soviet assistance Pyongyang began construction of a small experimental reactor. 

The immediate regional consequences have been common anger and concern, with widespread speculation about the implications of the North Korean nuclear test for international security and the future of the nonproliferation regime.

Fears have been raised that the test would spark a nuclear arms race as several nuclear-capable states begin to reassess their security policies in the face of North Korea’s actions. Another concern is that the North Korean test will lead to the collapse of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

‘Australia’s interest in the North Korean situation extends to the nonproliferation question and well beyond. Instability in Korea, whether resulting in outright conflict or in internal disorder after a North Korean regime implosion could have many serious consequences’, state the authors. 

‘The Australian economy is especially dependent on Northeast Asian economies for trade and investment—three of our four largest commodity trading partners are in Northeast Asia and major tension, let alone conflict, would affect them all. Further, following its role in the Korean War under UN command, Australia retains a residual responsibility for South Korea’s security. Most significant, however, is our membership of the Pacific treaty system centred on the US.’  Whatever action Washington contemplates, it would expect Canberra to support it, including by employing armed force.

Given the centrality of North Korea to Australia’s national interest, the authors argue that it would be in Australia’s interests to encourage the US to adopt a more flexible stance towards the problem.