Promises of increased money for our armed forces count for little if ministers delay important decisions, writes Michael O'Connor. In practice, however, the policy is not immutable even for the government that publishes it and certainly not for future governments. Yesterday's defence white paper owes much to the personal commitment of the Prime Minister and Defence Minister. Getting it accepted by Cabinet is supposed to have been difficult enough and the commitments made do not in any way bind a Beazley or even a Costello government. They don't even bind the Howard Government if it decides for whatever reason that the promises should be abandoned or deferred.
Australian governments have a very poor track record in providing for defence in a timely way.
The reasons matter less than the reality but one reason is that Australians believe that they can control the national defence strategy. Mercifully, we seem to have finally recognised that such an approach is futile because, by the time agreement has been reached in the face of a threat, it's too late to do much about it. Defence strategy will always be formed primarily by our geography but also by the range of economic and political interests that define the nation. These realities also apply to a potential adversary so that, for example, direct attacks on Australian territory will automatically engage those countries on the line of approach or create serious logistic vulnerabilities in any attempt to avoid engaging those countries. Ultimately, the circumstances of the time will determine what military commitments Australia makes.