There are savings in Defence

A large part of the problem in Defence is that there have been eleven Ministers in the last twenty years. A key task for a Minister is stopping the military from buying the stuff that is just the most fun or provides the best career opportunities. New Ministers can be bluffed by the chiefs, who, in my experience, include some of the most astute politicians in the nation. The biggest enemies a chief of service faces are the other chiefs as they fight mercilessly for a bigger share of the budget.

Hopefully a Defence Minister will stay around long enough to get the services back under control and address issues such as the likelihood that the next war will be come-as-you-are, meaning we fight with what we have got, or if we will have time to expand capabilities before engaging in combat. The entire structure of the forces depends on this decision.

The Services argue that the existing force is merely a base for rapid expansion as war approaches. That is the only way they can justify having about as many admirals as fighting ships. But the weight of evidence suggests there will be no time for expansion, so we need to be better equipped now, but without the huge overburden of senior officers. It will take a brave and experienced Minister to sort that one out.

Every government talks about a commitment to 2% real annual growth in the defence budget. There is no real rationale for this, it's just a tradition. Thankfully few actually deliver it. In the real world there are huge saving that could be made in Defence if a Government was prepared to make serious decisions about what we were trying to achieve, rather than just giving the military whatever they want.

But that would require actual governing. It's so much easier to just mouth the platitudes and play the games. Both major parties will probably go to the election telling us that the new submarines will be built in Adelaide using steel from Whyalla.