Tag Archive for: Australia

ADF: more than just warfighters?

An Australian Defence Force (ADF) engineering and health team conducted assessments of some of the current healthcare facilities and infrastructure in Padang in order to determine and develop engineering and healthcare support options for the post-disaster recovery operation that faces Indonesia and its people.In the 2009 Defence White Paper, the Government expected the ADF to carry out a number of tasks. In addition to its core war fighting roles, there were a number of secondary tasks, including missions that involve an overlap of responsibility with other government agencies. In this category were a range of activities; protecting our offshore estate; contributing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities for border protection; assisting civil authorities protect major events and deal with counterproliferation; supporting emergency response efforts for natural disasters within Australia and our neighbourhood; and providing marine search and rescue.

The rationale was that the ADF possesses a range of specialised capabilities on a scale and of a kind available from no other Australian agency and that humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations need to be closely integrated with efforts by civilian agencies.

Sometimes the ADF would be expected to be the lead agency—in circumstances where there might be a need to demonstrate a willingness and capacity to employ military force, or where its substantial level of capacity is required in circumstances that are beyond that of other agencies. In other cases, the ADF will take a more secondary role. The evacuation of Australian nationals from foreign trouble spots might be one such case. Read more

Australia in the Indo-Pacific century?

Defence Minister Stephen Smith used his ASPI speech on Wednesday night to make the definitive case for bringing the White Paper forward by a year. Close followers of the defence debate will be familiar with his strategic themes, but some interesting points emerged that hint at potentially sharp discussions around the Cabinet table. Most notable of these was Smith’s emphasis on the growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean region: ‘In this century, the Asia–Pacific and the Indian Ocean Rim, what some now refer to as the Indo-Pacific, will become the world’s strategic centre of gravity.’

Smith does not just mean India; he is talking about the factors which drive Chinese and US interest in the region, in Indonesia’s growing role above and beyond ASEAN and in the wider range of countries around the Indian Ocean that engage Australia’s strategic and commercial interests. Smith sees the US as an integral part of the Indo-Pacific and says that ‘substantially enhanced practical cooperation between Australia and the US is an essential part of Australia’s contribution to regional peace and security.’

Let’s be clear: if geographic terms have any meaning, this is not a vision of ‘Australia in the Asian Century’—the working title of Dr Ken Henry’s white paper. Stephen Smith is painting on a broader canvas, one which defines a wider set of Australian interests and which explicitly incorporates the United States. Australia will have two white papers, released perhaps some six or nine months apart. If these documents are truly to provide blue-prints for government decision-making, they should agree on how to think about the region and Australia’s place in it. Read more

Defence and Tony Abbott’s Heritage Foundation speech

Tony Abbott’s speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington last week had some messages for Canberra policymakers to help shape next year’s ‘blue’ Incoming Government Brief. The speech was oddly constructed as some commentators have said, but there were four interesting themes: one announced a new bipartisan approach with government and three pointed to emerging differences.

Abbott’s bipartisan point was about defence spending. The one line on spending in the prepared speech said: ‘we will seek efficiencies in defence spending but never at the expense of defence capability.’ In the Q&A, Abbott criticised the cumulative effect of spending cuts but stressed savings could be made as long as they didn’t damage military capability. He said ‘the last thing we want to do is dismay our friends and allies.’ He did not say that a Coalition government would reverse spending cuts.

This is a new element of bipartisanship—to cut defence spending in the four-year period of budget forward estimates. Some Coalition Speaker’s Notes obtained by Crikey ‘commit to restoring the funding of Defence to 3% real growth out to 2017–18 as soon as we can afford it.’ But 3% growth won’t restore what has been cut and Abbott’s comments suggest the Coalition prefers the government’s approach. No one in Defence should imagine they will get an easy ride under a Coalition government. Nor should the Coalition think that cutting Defence will be easy. If they do form government they will get a shock when the Incoming Government Brief advises that cutting future capability is the only way to stay within the new spending guidelines. Read more