|
Laura Rayner and Brooke McDonagh
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
This year’s Defence Budget provides a total defence package of $22.69
billion which is $690 million more than last year’s budget. However,
the defence budget as a proportion of gross domestic product has actually
dropped from 2 per cent to 1.8 per cent and departmental funding is actually
$966 million (or 4.1 per cent) less than the estimate for the year provided
by the previous Howard Government. In 2008–09, as part of its program
to implement efficiencies and identify savings of up to $10 billion over
10 years, Defence has redirected savings of $477 million to other areas,
such as partially offsetting the cost of Australian Defence Force (ADF)
operations.[2]
Outcomes and Outputs structure
The government says that it is implementing a new outcome and output
framework for Defence to ‘increase the Government’s and the community’s
visibility of what Defence delivers’.[3] Last year’s Portfolio Budget Statements 2007–08
signalled that the outcomes and outputs arrangement against which
Defence would report would be revised, with the number of outcomes dropping
from seven to three. With some changes to outputs, this is how the structure
now appears in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2008–09. This change
to outputs reflects the current organisational arrangement and appears
to better align with ‘Defence’s internal resource allocations and accountabilities’.[4] Time will tell whether these changes do actually make Defence
budgets more transparent.
However, transparency and clarity in the
Defence Budget is not aided by apparent inconsistencies in the Portfolio
Budget Statements 2008–09. For instance, are the resources available
within the Defence portfolio for 2008–09 really $36 billion—the total
given in ‘Table 1—Portfolio resources made available in the Budget year’?[5] Or does this $36 billion include intra-departmental
transfers made to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Defence
Housing Australia? Have some funds in this table been double-counted?
Funding of operations
In the 2008–09 Defence Budget, ADF operations, such as Operation Slipper
(Afghanistan) and Operation Catalyst (Iraq), will be funded from the defence
operations reserve. This reserve will be made up of funds taken from the
Department’s price indexation supplementation ($826.5 million) and from
the Savings and Efficiency Program ($209.4 million). It would appear,
therefore, that unlike the funding provided for previous operations, Defence
will actually be paying for its military operations from funds originally
earmarked for training and sustaining the ADF. As one analyst has suggested,
‘the use of inflation supplements and administrative savings to help fund
operations sits oddly’ with the government’s claim that it has ‘no higher
priority than defence and security’. Rather, it suggests the government’s
main concern is ‘bringing defence spending under much tighter control’.[6]
The increase in the price indexation supplementation has been described
as ‘an unprecedented billion-dollar windfall’ for Defence, coming from
the commodities boom.[7]
If it is a windfall and outside Defence’s budget requirements should Defence
be getting it? If it is not a windfall, then Defence will have a legitimate
need for the funds. The Defence Department has a legitimate call on Treasury
funds to cover known and binding increased contract costs brought on by
allowable increases in costs (and separately, variations in foreign exchange).
It is unclear which parts of the portfolio the use of price indexation
supplementation for operations will affect. If it includes price indexation
supplementation paid to Defence to cover contractual obligations to suppliers,
Defence will presumably have to find the money to fulfil these obligations
from elsewhere in its budget. Funding operations this way would seem to
be another way of forcing savings in the Defence Budget. However, unlike
the Savings and Efficiency Program, the origin of the operational funds
taken from price indexation supplementation is not identified within the
Defence Budget, and thus such savings are not transparently being achieved
only from non-operational areas or areas which support operations.
Acquisitions
The Defence Materiel Organisation’s (DMO) share of the 2008–09 Budget
is $9.6 billion. DMO is responsible for the management of 236 major projects
with a value of over $20 million each, and more than 180 minor projects.
Once again, as in previous years, Defence has large amounts of money
for the acquisition of military hardware which it will be unable to spend
and will have to reprogram to spend in later years. The 2008–09 Defence
Budget has reprogrammed $1.066 billion of the Approved Major Capital Program
to later years because of ‘unanticipated contractor delays’.[8]
In a speech
on 15 May 2008, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement,
Greg Combet analysed the reasons for the delays, attributing approximately:
- 53 per cent to industry delays—‘including an inability to meet contracted
milestones by payment dates’
- 12 per cent to DMO processes—‘including administrative and contracting
requirements’
- 28 per cent to issues related to the United States Military Sales
System
- 4 per cent to ‘the unavailability of platforms for upgrades or work
needed’, and
- 3 per cent to ‘cost savings’.[9]
Mr Combet cited industry’s overestimation of its ability to meet schedules
as a cause for some of the delays, but he also pointed to ‘significant
capacity constraints within the economy’, specifically ‘in the area of
skills and infrastructure’.[10]
Given that 80 per cent of the ADF’s warfighting assets will be replaced
within the next decade, and that 65 per cent of the acquisition and sustainment
budget of more than $100 billion will be spent in Australia, it is likely
that reprogramming due to contractor delays will be a feature of Defence
acquisition for the foreseeable future, as it has been in the past.
Delayed projects
The government has singled out four ‘projects of concern’ which have
been experiencing industry delays.[11]
Wedgetail (Project AIR 5077—Airborne Early Warning and Control)
Project Wedgetail involves the acquisition and introduction into service
of six aircraft, designed as ‘the cornerstone’
of Australia’s surveillance, early warning and detection capability. It
was considered to have been ‘a
model acquisition project’ until the Howard Government became aware
in 2006 that it was behind
schedule. A contract was signed with Boeing in December 2000, and
the first aircraft was to be in-service by early 2007. Boeing has attributed
the delay to difficulties in integrating complex onboard electronics.
DMO’s Annual
Report 2006–07 stated that the delay had escalated to over two years.
In June 2006, the Howard Government announced
that it would reserve its contractual rights in regard to liquidated damages.
In February 2007 Boeing announced that the program had slipped two years.
The new Labor Government has warned Boeing and other Wedgetail contractors
that they need to meet production and cost deadlines.[12] In the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements
2008–09, DMO has signalled that there is ‘still residual technical
and schedule risk’ which could threaten Boeing’s current plans to deliver
the first aircraft in March 2009.[13]
Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters (Project AIR 87)
Twenty-two Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters with associated support
facilities are being acquired for the Australian Army from Australian
Aerospace, a subsidiary of Eurocopter. Operational capability has slipped
by two years, due to delays in the parent Franco-German program. On 1
June 2007, DMO stopped
payment to Australian Aerospace, and Defence has also claimed more
than $10 million in liquidated
damages for the late
delivery of training devices. The Defence Portfolio Budget Statements
2008–09 report that as at 21 April 2008, eleven helicopters and some
associated facilities and systems had been accepted by the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth and the contractor, Australian Aerospace, entered into
a formal dispute resolution process in October 2007 which is expected
to achieve a resolution through a Contract Change Proposal and the resumption
of payments by July 2008.[14]
On 22 May 2008, Mr Combet announced that a Deed of Agreement had been
signed, resolving contractual issues between the Commonwealth and the
contractor. This new Deed of Agreement ‘contains the basis for a Contract
Change Proposal that transitions the current support contract to a performance
based structure, to reduce cost of ownership to the Commonwealth over
time’.[15] All deliveries should be complete by the end
of 2009.
In December 2005 the then Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill,
announced
that Boeing Australia had been selected as the preferred tenderer to provide
the IAI (Israeli Aircraft Industries) I-View 250 UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles) because it ‘offered the best value for money’. In mid-2006,
the project reported that the in-service date was to be the ‘latter half of 2008’.
The contract
was signed in December 2006. The $145 million project will provide
two Tactical UAV (TUAV) systems each of which comprise ‘four I-View 250
UAVs, two ground control stations, four remote video terminals and associated
tactical support system’.[16]
The initial operating capability for the first TUAV is now planned for
2011.[17] The project is now reportedly
two years behind schedule and it has been suggested that ‘a deadline has
been set of the end of next month [June 2008] for the problems to be addressed,
otherwise the project will be scrapped’.[18]
Guided Missile Frigate upgrade (Project SEA 1390 - FFG UP)
The original scope of the FFG project was to upgrade all six FFG-7 Adelaide
Class frigates. In mid 2006 the scope of the original 1999 contract was
reduced from six ships to four. The project was the subject of a critical
report by the Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO) in October 2007 which estimated that
the delivery of the last ship will be delayed by four and a half years,
until June 2009. The ANAO report ‘highlighted the ongoing difficulties
caused by a prime contract which has limited the technical involvement
of the Project Authority [DMO] and failed to sufficiently specify test
procedures’.[19]
Major Projects Report
DMO will produce the first of it planned annual ‘Major Projects Reports’
at the end of 2008. These reports will contain ‘data and analysis on the
schedule, cost and capability of up to 30 major defence equipment
projects’.[20] The first
report will be limited to nine selected projects, hopefully those of greatest
concern. The Portfolio Budget Statements do not specify whether
the projects will be assessed before or after final government approval
(‘second pass’). In some cases, analysis of a project by ANAO before government
makes its final decision might be quite useful. The production of a ‘Major
Projects Report’ on Australian projects is very similar to the United Kingdom (UK) Government’s
approach, where the Ministry of Defence provides project summary sheets
on 20 of the top approved defence equipment projects and the ten largest
projects which are still in their assessment phases. These projects are
then analysed by the UK National Audit Office on the basis of cost, time
and performance.
Recruitment and retention
Targeted recruitment
Defence is facing continuing shortages of skilled military personnel
who are being lost to the private sector, especially the booming mining
and resources industry.[21]
ADF ‘… enlistment needs to increase from approximately 4670 per annum
to 6500 ... ’[22] The
ADF profile currently does not represent the broader Australian community,
with women and indigenous and ethnic communities under-represented.[23] Defence Science and Personnel
Minister Warren Snowdon has said that the ADF needs to be ‘… more representative
of wider Australia … ’, pointing to the fact that ‘the ADF tends to attract
young Caucasian males’.[24]
Despite stating that the skills shortage is Defence’s biggest challenge,
the Minister for Defence hinted in January this year that the money provided
for recruitment and retention in the 2008–09 Budget would not amount to
big figures when he said that ‘… success won’t so much be determined by
the size of the spend but how well we spend’.[25] In the end, the size of the spend will be
$148.7 million for Defence Force Recruiting programs and operations.
It includes targeting ‘Generation Y’, women and indigenous and ethnic
communities as a source of new recruits.[26] However, it is unclear from
the Portfolio Budget Statements
2008–09 just how this money will be allocated.
The only portion of the $148.7 million readily identifiable in the budget
papers is $3.381 million for Indigenous Expenditure.[27] There are currently approximately
700 indigenous soldiers in the Australian Army, a number which equates
to 1.4 per cent of their force.[28]
An ADF report to federal government in 2001 ‘recommended that women be
admitted to combat roles, if their fitness and medical standards were
the equivalent of male employees’.[29] And while, after a directive late last year, Australian women
are now allowed to serve in the Artillery for the first time, women still
cannot be employed in direct combat roles—‘jobs that have the potential
to expose them to direct combat, including field artillery, infantry,
clearance divers and defence guards’.[30]
Female officers are well aware that combat roles assist officers to move
up the chain and to ultimately become chiefs of service.[31] While Defence has ruled out women serving
as front-line infantry, if the government is serious about increasing
the recruitment of women, further incentives need to be rolled out, including
possibly ‘assigning a female mentor to each new recruit and implementing
flexible working arrangements’.[32]
The government wants to talk to ‘Generation Y’ ‘… in their language,
through the mediums they rely upon for their information … ’[33] Recruitment websites give ‘glowing
descriptions of lifestyle, sporting facilities, food and opportunities
for travel’.[34] A variety of other initiatives ‘… is being
introduced to lure Generation Y, including interactive recruiting centres
in capital cities’.[35]
Mental health initiative
In 2007, the media reported that 121
ADF personnel were ‘… discharged for mental illnesses, including anxiety
and depression, after serving in the Middle East’.[36] The government has allocated $3.8 million from the Defence budget,
over four years, for the introduction of a set of nine strategic mental
health initiatives. The package is aimed at improving access to mental
health services for current and former ADF members and active reserve
personnel. In the continuation of the new government’s apparent strategy
of funding budget measures from within Defence’s existing resourcing,
the government has allocated $2.2 million to the Department of Veterans’
Affairs and the remaining $1.6 million for the mental health initiative
will have to be met from within existing resourcing of the Department
of Defence.[37]
The package ‘… aims to enhance psychological resilience among serving
members, ensure successful transition into civilian life and provide effective
rehabilitation and support’.[38] This initiative cannot come soon enough for many Defence personnel
suffering with mental illness—some complain they have been denied adequate
support and have faced ‘bullying’ and ‘bastardisation’ when they sought
help for mental health problems.[39]
Professor Mark Creamer, the director of the Australian Centre for Post-Traumatic
Mental Health, has estimated that ‘… 10 per cent of Iraq or Afghanistan
veterans have mental health problems … ’ and said the ADF’s mental health
resources ‘… are massively under-resourced’.[40]
The government will also provide $1.5 million over four years to the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs to provide ‘… training and workshops for
community mental health workers who treat veterans … [to] help improve
practitioners’ ability to identify and treat service-related mental health
problems’.[41]
ADF family medical and dental care trial
The government’s 2008–09 Budget has allocated $12.2 million over four
years to trial the provision of free basic GP services and limited dental
care to families of ADF members in the rural and remote areas of Singleton
(NSW), Katherine (NT), East Sale (Vic), Cairns (QLD) and Karratha/Pilbara
(WA). The amount allocated for 2008–09 is $2.4 million.
Aspects of these budget measures on ADF family health which the government
has linked to Labor’s election commitments differ from statements made
during the election campaign which clearly identified the policy as a
retention initiative. The Labor Party’s defence policy document, Labor’s
plan for defence, released during the 2007 election campaign, said:
Free medical and dental care for ADF families
ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining
access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially
in regional and remote localities.
Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families
struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.
A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend
free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent
spouses and children.
Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment
starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote
bases locations and major regional centres.
On 12
November 2007 Mr Rudd identified Lavarack Barracks in Townsville and
Robertson Barracks in Darwin as the location of two of the clinics. A
media statement, ‘Federal
Labor’s Plan for Defence Families – free Health and Dental Care’,
released by Mr Rudd and Mr Fitzgibbon also on 12 November 2007, set
out further details of the commitment. This explained that Labor would
invest $33.1 million in a four year plan to extend basic medical care
to 12 000 ADF spouses and children and saying ‘Federal Labor’s 12
Defence Family Healthcare Clinics will extend the free GP and dental care
currently available to ADF personnel to their dependant spouses and children.’
In contrast, the 2008–09 Budget limits the program to $12.2 million over
four years and also limits dental care to $300 per dependant per annum.
Only five of the 10 rural and remote defence locations are mentioned,
and rather than Defence families attending Defence Family Healthcare Clinics
at these locations, families will now ‘select the doctor or dentist of
their choice’.[42] Changes
to the commitment to provide Defence Healthcare Clinics in Townsville
and Darwin are also reportedly being considered, with the possibility
that the two Defence Family Healthcare clinics promised in the campaign
at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville and Robertson Barracks in Darwin will
be replaced by defence families accessing Health Department GP Super Clinics
in Darwin and Townsville.[43]
White Paper
The Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2008–09 describe the process
which Defence is undertaking to produce a new Defence White Paper, including
the production of a Force Structure Review which will ‘take a top-down
approach to analysing the force structure and capabilities priorities
needed out to 2030’.[44]
The White Paper will form the foundation of Australia’s future defence
capabilities. The process of developing the new White Paper includes a
number of companion reviews into: workforce sustainment; the Defence Capability
Plan (which sets out plans for defence equipment acquisition); facilities
investment; information technology requirements; defence industry; defence
science and technology; and logistics.
The government will conduct consultations on the White Paper with state
and territory governments, industry and the general public. Also integrated
into this process will be an audit of the Defence Budget. To accommodate
changes in Defence policy flowing from the White Paper process, the next
Defence Capability Plan, the public version of which would ordinarily
be released in 2008, will now not be released until 2009.[45]
One outcome of the White Paper process is the need to reprogram $45.0
million of spending from 2008–09 to 2013–14 due to the deferral of some
first and second pass project approvals in the Defence Capability Plan
until after the Defence White Paper is finalised.[46] Additionally, the Departmental Income Statement
points to a budget adjustment of minus $139.7 million because of the need
to reprogram ‘net operating costs due to the expected reduction in capabilities
entering service until finalisation of the new Defence White Paper’.[47]
As one analyst has said about the Defence Budget, ‘[t]he solution is
not necessarily to throw more money at defence. A key part of the next
white paper will be to align means and ends. In the process, it will be
important to look closely at defence efficiency’.[48]
Nigel Brew
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
In contrast to previous budgets under the Howard Government, national
security is not a major feature of this year’s Budget—the Rudd Government’s
first. Most of the funding in the area of national security is intended
to continue or enhance existing programmes, rather than initiate any new
ones, with some of the funding already provided by the forward estimates.
This perhaps reflects both an acceptance of the previous government’s
security initiatives and a decreased focus on terrorism and security issues.
Much of the cost will be met from within the existing resourcing of relevant
departments and agencies—essentially representing a cut to their current
budgets. This means that those affected will most likely have to cease
or cut back existing activities to find the necessary savings. Many of
the Budget’s funding measures specifically address the government’s election
commitments.
Office of National Security and the Asia-Pacific Centre for Civil-Military
Cooperation
There are, however, two major new initiatives which stand out—the establishment
of an Office of National Security within the Department of Prime Minister
and Cabinet (PM&C), and the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Centre
for Civil-Military Cooperation, both of which were election commitments.
Having all but abandoned the concept of a US-style Department of Homeland
Security, the Rudd Government has committed to establishing an Office
of National Security, headed by a National Security Adviser.[49]
The role of the Office will be to ‘develop, advise on and coordinate whole-of-government
national security policy’.[50] The government is providing funding of $5.2 million over five
years, with part of the cost to be met from the existing budgets of the
Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO), the Department of Defence, the Attorney-General’s
Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.[51]
The new Office of National Security has, however, been described by one
critic as a ‘re-badging [of] the old national security division’ that
already exists within PM&C and which should instead be established
as a ‘separate, statutory authority’.[52]
The Asia-Pacific Centre for Civil-Military Cooperation will be established
to ‘provide training and … liaise with Australian and international government
and non-government organisations to help Australia to develop future responses
to stabilisation, reconstruction and peace building needs in the Asia-Pacific
region’.[53] The government
has allocated $5.1 million over four years to the project (commencing
2007–08), the entire cost of which is to be met from within the existing
resourcing of the Department of Defence.[54]
Policing
Another new initiative is the provision of $25 million over five years
to develop a recruitment and retention programme within the AFP to assist
it in meeting its recruitment targets and to ‘improve the retention of
existing staff’.[55] That
the government has funded a specific programme to address the issue at
an annual cost of $5 million hints at the possible extent of the problem.
Related to this measure is the government’s undertaking to fund an additional
500 sworn AFP officers at a cost of $191.9 million over five years to
work on ‘high-impact’ criminal investigations.[56] The government claims this delivers on an
election commitment. However, as the Opposition has pointed out, only
$36.7 million of this funding is due to be spent before the next scheduled
election in 2010 and the budget papers do not indicate just how many additional
officers of the promised 500 are expected to be recruited before then.[57]
The government has also funded several policing and law enforcement initiatives
as part of its overseas aid programme and these are covered in the section
on Official Development Assistance.
Previous funding for the AFP which has been deferred, reduced or withdrawn
includes:
- half of the funding for the AFP’s airport liaison officer network,
which will now be provided from within the AFP’s existing budget, generating
savings for the government in 2008–09 of $1.5 million.[58]
- funding to maintain a surge capacity in the AFP, which will instead
now be provided from within the AFP’s existing budget, providing savings
of $2.5 million in 2008–09.[59]
- half of the funding for the AFP’s regional rapid deployment teams
(to deal with security incidents at regional Australian airports), which
will now be provided from within the AFP’s existing budget, generating
savings for the government in 2008–09 of $2.2 million.[60]
- funding for an increase in the staffing of the AFP’s International
Deployment Group (IDG), which has been deferred by one year, providing
savings of $10 million in
2008–09.[61] The government
considers it likely that the IDG will have sufficient capacity during
2008–09 to undertake its mission.
Other security-related funding measures
Funding measures which continue or enhance existing programmes or capabilities
include:
- $8.4 million over four years for the continued provision of intelligence
support to Australia’s response and law enforcement operations against
illegal foreign fishing in the Southern Ocean (to be met from within
the existing budgets of the Department of Defence, the Office of National
Assessments, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Australian
Customs Service). The government claims this measure will yield savings
of $3.3 million over four years.[62]
- $1.1 million in 2008–09 for the Australian Customs Service (Customs)
to continue its aerial surveillance of Australia’s northern waters to
deter unauthorised arrivals.[63]
This funding serves as a ‘top-up’ to that already provided in the forward
estimates and will be reviewed in next year’s Budget. The government
has also committed $35.7 million over two years (from the forward estimates
and commencing in 2007–08) to keep the Customs vessel Triton
on patrol in Australia’s northern waters.[64]
- $1.3 million already provided in 2007–08 to deploy the Customs vessel,
Oceanic Viking, to monitor Japanese whaling activities in the
Southern Ocean.[65]
The government also provided $0.7 million in 2007–08 to conduct aerial
surveillance of Japanese whaling fleet activities in the Southern Ocean
during the 2007–08 whaling season.[66]
- $16 million over four years for Customs to increase its inspection
and examination of containers in Launceston, Darwin, Townsville and
Newcastle.[67]
- $58 million over four years from within the existing resourcing of
the Department of Defence to allow Defence to maintain its capacity
to provide threat analysis and assessment in support of Australia’s
counter-terrorism efforts.[68]
- $23.8 million over four years from within the existing resourcing
of the Department of Defence to enhance its ability to meet ‘high-priority
intelligence requirements’.[69]
- $2.4 million over four years from within the existing resourcing of
the Department of Defence to maintain its contribution to the National
Threat Assessment Centre located within ASIO.[70]
- $8.7 million over two years to enhance the Australian Secret Intelligence
Service’s strategic intelligence gathering capability.[71]
- $8.4 million in 2008–09 (from the forward estimates) for the continuation
of the Air Security Officer programme.[72]
- $34.1 million over four years (from the forward estimates) to maintain
the AFP’s rapid response capability for dealing with terrorist attacks
in the region.[73]
- $8.8 million in 2008–09 to continue the critical infrastructure protection
programme, $1.5 million of which will be met by the Department
of Defence from its existing budget.[74]
The remainder has already been included in the forward estimates. Another
$23.4 million over four years will enable the continued development
of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Modelling and Analysis programme.
Of this funding, $9.2 million is new, $6 million for the Attorney-General’s
Department and $0.8 million for Geoscience Australia has already been
included in the forward estimates, and $7.4 million will be absorbed
by the Department of Defence from within its existing resourcing.[75]
Health security
In keeping with World Health Organization advice that pandemic influenza
remains a threat, the government has announced funding of $166.5 million
over two years for the Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) to replenish
the National Medical Stockpile.[76] This will ensure that expiring pharmaceuticals and equipment
that might be needed in the event of a pandemic or a chemical, biological
or radiological incident are replaced and the Stockpile’s readiness maintained.
The government has also allocated $4.7 million over two years from DOHA’s
existing budget to ensure a whole-of-government approach to pandemic preparedness.[77]
The government has also announced that it will no longer fund the purchase
of deployable mortuaries which instead will be provided through a service
agreement with a commercial supplier. This is expected to provide savings
of $1.6 million over two years.[78] Similarly, the government will no longer be
funding rapid deployment teams for thermal scanning at airports, generating
savings of $5.8 million over two years.[79]
The measure will, however, still proceed, with costs to be met from within
the existing budget of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Conclusion
With the exception of a couple of significant administrative initiatives,
the national security budget this year appears largely to be designed
to maintain the status quo. While this perhaps indicates a tacit acceptance
of the previous Howard Government’s security regime, the major difference
is that the Rudd Government now requires departments and agencies to fund
many of the existing measures from their own budgets. This has had the
effect of generating millions of dollars worth of savings, but undoubtedly
places greater pressure on key agencies, such as the Australian Federal
Police, to maintain their current level of service. Although the Opposition
(and others) has portrayed this as an unjustified gamble with the country’s
national security and described it as ‘very dangerous politics’, just
what effect this has on Australia’s national security apparatus overall
in the short to medium term remains to be seen.[80]
|
