Question for Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

No, I disagree Mark.

The 2000 Defence White Paper, Defence 2000 — Our Future Defence Force, provided a funding commitment equivalent to an average 3 per cent annual real growth for the decade to 2010-11, which was subsequently extended out to 2015-16.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1396/...ce_spending.htm

It's been happening for the last 10 years or so.

[John Dolva]

Evan, Cuold you comment on the Official thinking on conscription, please?

(I think there would be a lot of resistance, but if OZ is to achieve a selfsufficiency in a worst case scenario, (ie by adopting a neutral, defensive (not offensive) stance), then it must be strong, and conscription (with conscientious objectors valued and allowed alternatives with full pay, rights etc in support fields) seems to me a reasonable thing to have on the agenda.)

[Mark Stapleton]

I stand corrected, Evan. The 3% real term growth commitment comes from Howard's 2000 White Paper. However, others support the argument that if the real growth commitment is maintained, it will cause the GDP/Defence spending ratio to grow:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/0...e-spending.aspx

Rudd's Garden Island speech still represents a major capability upgrade for defence, the largest ever undertaken:

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2009/speech_0956.cfm

The White Paper assumes we face emerging threats, but it sounds like there's been input from right wing think tanks. Australia has no external miliary threat from SE Asia or its Pacific neighbours but the White Paper is assuming that will change. I hope their assumptions are wrong, but even if they are the defence contractors will still make big money at the expense of Aussie taxpayers, at a time we can least afford it.

[Evan Burton]

Evan, Cuold you comment on the Official thinking on conscription, please?

(I think there would be a lot of resistance, but if OZ is to achieve a selfsufficiency in a worst case scenario, (ie by adopting a neutral, defensive (not offensive) stance), then it must be strong, and conscription (with conscientious objectors valued and allowed alternatives with full pay, rights etc in support fields) seems to me a reasonable thing to have on the agenda.)

I couldn't speak officially at all, John, but I can say my personal opinion: we don't need it. Even with the shortfalls in recruiting targets, it would not be beneficial overall. It takes years to train and develop someone to a professional standard; a 2 or 3 year conscription period means you send them away just as they are becoming useful and you've wasted all those resources. If you were to extend the conscription period, you'd have to make it 6 years or so and that is unreasonable - in peacetime. If we were at war and being threatened, then it would be different.

No, the all-volunteer services are the way to go.

[John Dolva]

Evan, I'm sure there are grades of readiness. Other countries that have conscription like Switzerland and Sweden (who haven't fought a war in about 200 years) regards 18 months sufficient for a large pool of weapon/support readiness. Why is it regarded as not wasted? Why do you consider 2-3 to 6 years necessary?

[Evan Burton]

Good point. What I mean is that an army soldier can be properly trained in 6 months (a guess), so there is benefit for the army. For the navy and air force though, the jobs are generally of a more technical nature (there are exceptions).

[John Dolva]

Evan. So we agree it is a reasonable concept (?), but there are many factors to consider and some may simply not fit in with an overall strategy.(?)

Should Australia be attacked, the old Blitxkrieg format will be revved up to the max with an incredible array of new weaponry to catch people by surprise, and the ole shot gun or 22 ain't gonna do the job, no matter how determined the initially isolated pockets of Australian Defenders are, Army and Civilian. Rapid nationwide deployment by an already basic trained populace will have OZ hitting the ground running. This is priceless IMO. I've got kids here and noone is gonna to touch them while there's a flicker of life in me. I've no doubt the same goes for every Australian. We just gotta prepare for the worst and hope and work for the best. Prepare in an all solidly defensive way, and play an Outernational role in peace efforts globally, regardless of alliances.(At the moment a solid alliance with NZ should be, IMO, the primary focus there.) I'm not a military expert at all and would very much apprecite your thinking on these issues, Evan.

[Evan Burton]

I don't think conscription would work in Australia unless under circumstances where it would almost be redundant. Although there is national pride, the targeted people (17-30) will not defer to the government; there would be mass civil disobedience by the affected. The discipline problems in the ADF created by the conscription would be significant and detrimental. As I said, you'd need a justifiable circumstance for conscription to work - and in that circumstance people would be lining up to join anyway.

The peacekeeping role is one we have done a lot of, and are respected for. It has done a lot for Australia's international profile and we - along with NZ! - are considered 'honest brokers' by many countries.