Defence Strategic Review Must Not Equal Cuts
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence and Member for Herbert Phillip Thompson says the Labor Government’s Defence Strategic Review must not result in cuts to programs or spending.
Mr Thompson said he was concerned that the former Labor Defence Minister and former Chief of Defence Force who are to conduct the review presided over a period where Defence spending was cut to its lowest levels since 1938.
“We’re in a period of uncertainty the likes of which we’ve not seen for a long time, and the last thing we need is a repeat of the cuts we saw under Labor during Stephen Smith’s period as Defence Minister,” Mr Thompson said.
“It was then we saw Defence spending as a percentage of GDP drop to 1.6% in 2013, which the Coalition then managed to recover to 2.1% in 2020.
“The review is being run by the very person who gutted the Defence budget, something which was felt in a very real way by serving men and women, and was a huge hit to our capability.
“It’s not a bad thing to take stock and ensure that our structure and posture are appropriate for the times in which we operate – but I, and those who serve our nation, would like to see a guarantee that this review will not lead to any spending cuts or program delays.
“I’ve already spoken to diggers, warrant officers and senior commissioned officers, some who were around during the years Stephen Smith was Defence Minister – they’ve asked me whether this review will mean cuts to equipment, or maybe even if their jobs could be on the line.”
Mr Thompson said it was important that Defence members at all levels of seniority and experience should be consulted as part of the review.
“During my own time as a serving member, I’ve seen first-hand the effects of poor decisions made over the years, particularly when it comes to equipment that’s not fit-for-purpose,” he said.
“These decisions were made without consulting the people who use the equipment, so I’d hope that the views and perspectives of everyone from the private soldier up will be considered.”
ENDS