Higher taxes needed as Coalition eyes extra $100 billion defence spend
The Age.
April 24, 2025

A Coalition plan to drive defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP would create a $100 billion hole in the budget through the first half of the 2030s and make it the second-biggest expenditure for federal taxpayers, eclipsing the age pension and NDIS.   :o

Peter Dutton would not be drawn on how he would pay for the huge ramp-up in expenditure, except to repeal Labor’s small tax cuts that are due to be in place in full from mid-2027.   :(


The Coalition is promising to increase spending on defence to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2030 in what it says will cost the budget $21 billion.

But beyond that point, the Coalition aims to take defence expenditure to 3 per cent by the middle of the 2030s.

Spending on defence under the government’s current trajectory reaches $108.7 billion in 2035-36. Under the Coalition’s proposals, it would jump to almost $142 billion in that year alone.

Between 2030-31 and 2035-36, the cumulative jump in defence spending envisaged by the Coalition is at least $100 billion. That does not take into account any substantial change to inflation or to the size of the economy.


Pressed on Wednesday how he would pay for the additional expenditure, Dutton – who last week said he aspired to ending income tax bracket creep – argued that by not going forward with Labor’s reduction in the bottom tax rate, the Coalition would save $7 billion a year.

That would be enough to cover the increase in defence spending to the end of this decade, but he would not elaborate on extra expenditure to meet the 3 per cent of GDP proposal.



“A great Coalition government will always be better on national security and economic management,” he said while campaigning in Western Australia.




At 3 per cent of GDP, defence spending would account for almost 12 per cent of total federal government expenditure. Only the GST, which goes to the states and territories, would make a greater call on the budget than defence.

Defence would surpass both the NDIS (forecast to be 9.1 per cent of total budget spending) and the age pension (9 per cent), which are currently the second- and third-largest government expenditures.

The Coalition’s policy would take defence spending as a share of GDP to its highest level since Australian forces were in Vietnam in the early 1970s.

Since then, expenditure in areas such as the aged pension (9 per cent of the budget) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (3 per cent) have grown sharply, while governments have introduced completely new spending such as the NDIS (9 per cent) and the private health insurance rebate (1 per cent).

Dutton would not be drawn on how the Coalition would spend the extra resources directed into defence, but said it opened up the options available to the government.

“Drone capability and guided weapons, our munitions and our capability across most platforms, including frigates. That all becomes a reality again. Our cyber defences where Labor has pulled money out,” he said.

On Thursday evening, Dutton attended a sunset ANZAC ceremony at the Sydney Opera House where his friend, mining magnate Gina Rinehart called for a gargantuan rise in defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP.

Rinehart said she supported “boosting our defence manufacturing here as well as our budget to 5 per cent of GDP”.   :o

There are only a handful of countries that have defence spending above 5 per cent of their nation’s GDP, and many of those are involved in current conflicts - including Ukraine, Russia and Israel.

Defence Minister Richard Marles is also at the event. Earlier in the day he rejected criticisms that Labor’s target was behind the Coalition’s 3 per cent target.

“Plucking a number out of thin air, putting it into a press release and calling that a defence policy is a joke. It is not as though Peter Dutton can waive a press release in the face of our adversaries and they’ll suddenly run from the battlefield.

You actually need to be thinking about what capabilities you are seeking to build, what you are seeking to acquire, and have deep thought about how you’re going to make that happen.”


Independent economist Chris Richardson said the problem with such large announcements as the Coalition’s defence plan was that it was uncosted with no detail about its long-term impact to the budget.

He said both sides of politics had not been upfront about the pressures on the budget, the need for more spending in key areas and ways to lift the speed limit of the entire economy.

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 12:23pm:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

hospitals, schools, ndis, higher taxes for low income earners, dv funding, foreign aid, social services, multicultural services etc etc

whiteknight wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 12:23pm:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

ROAM - Refusal Of Aboriginal Money...... $40Bn a year and then all these specious claims into the billions going on - time to shut the whole thing down.  2.5 years of Non-Abo Cash and the Defence is your oyster.

Just playing with figures here...

whiteknight wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 12:23pm:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

The RBA will print money to pay for it which will cause inflation.

We used to have a defence force that was quite potent, with the air force being the fourth largest and the navy being the fifth largest during WWII. These days, we'd be lucky to defend ourselves from Indonesia. It is time to upgrade, enhance and grow our defence force.

One of the biggest mistakes was the Canberra Class LHD ships, which are essentially defenceless ships. The two ships should've been scrapped in favour of the US America class LHD ships to include the capability to embark the F-35B fighter jets and project force while also being able to provide humanitarian support. The America Class LHD ships also have a potent ability to defend themselves. It's time also to upgrade from the ANZAC Class frigates, which really lack much potency.

We should also have gone with the US Arleigh Burke destroyers over the Italian AWD ships we currently have, as the three AWD ships we have are not as heavily armed by comparison, especially when compared to Chinese destroyers. The Hobart Class have only 48 vertical launch cells as opposed to the 96 cells on the Arleigh Burke Flight III currently in service with the USN.

We also need to develop a missile defence system like the Patriot anti-missile system, as our country is essentially defenceless in this regard. Australia should also lobby the US to purchase at least one squadron of the B-21 Raider stealth bombers, as we have had no dedicated bomber capability since the retirement of the F-111.

We're a diplomatic nation under Labor and really don't need to spend anything on defence.

Under liberal it's a different astory as they can't seem to let the diplomats do their thing behind the scenes, but we shouldn't be surprised as there is never any separation of power with liberals

Can you imagine us in a war with China? Be wiped off the map in about 7minutes

Labor majority government wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 3:34pm:

We're a diplomatic nation under Labor and really don't need to spend anything on defence. Under liberal it's a different astory as they can't seem to let the diplomats do their thing behind the scenes, but we shouldn't be surprised as there is never any separation of power with liberals Can you imagine us in a war with China? Be wiped off the map in about 7minutes

Don't tell Brian that -

he says we could fight off China easily.     ::)

All good then - we'll just coast along until the invader is knocking on the door......

Labor majority government wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 3:34pm:

We're a diplomatic nation under Labor and really don't need to spend anything on defence. Under liberal it's a different astory as they can't seem to let the diplomats do their thing behind the scenes, but we shouldn't be surprised as there is never any separation of power with liberals Can you imagine us in a war with China? Be wiped off the map in about 7minutes

Nonsense - they'd have to get here first.... under attack the whole way... in the last resort, the entire Sydney to Hobart fleet will fling itself upon them ...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 3:31pm:

We used to have a defence force that was quite potent, with the air force being the fourth largest and the navy being the fifth largest during WWII. These days, we'd be lucky to defend ourselves from Indonesia. It is time to upgrade, enhance and grow our defence force. One of the biggest mistakes was the Canberra Class LHD ships, which are essentially defenceless ships. The two ships should've been scrapped in favour of the US America class LHD ships to include the capability to embark the F-35B fighter jets and project force while also being able to provide humanitarian support. The America Class LHD ships also have a potent ability to defend themselves. It's time also to upgrade from the ANZAC Class frigates, which really lack much potency. We should also have gone with the US Arleigh Burke destroyers over the Italian AWD ships we currently have, as the three AWD ships we have are not as heavily armed by comparison, especially when compared to Chinese destroyers. The Hobart Class have only 48 vertical launch cells as opposed to the 96 cells on the Arleigh Burke Flight III currently in service with the USN. We also need to develop a missile defence system like the Patriot anti-missile system, as our country is essentially defenceless in this regard. Australia should also lobby the US to purchase at least one squadron of the B-21 Raider stealth bombers, as we have had no dedicated bomber capability since the retirement of the F-111.

American ships tend to be too large for the RAN to man.  In the case of the Adelaide Class LHD, we opted for the Navanta Class from Spain. Shipbuilders from the United States were not included, as American amphibious warfare ships were too large for Australian requirements, and were either too personnel-intensive or could not operate the number of helicopters required.  Unless we opt to increase the size of the RAN - always a difficult proposition - or we opt for a smaller ship.  The Navanta Class ships can operate more helicopters simultaneously than the American class and it is not defenceless, it mounts six 30mm cannon and is meant to be part of a task force, rather than operate alone.

The same problem goes for the Arleigh Burke destroyers.  We simply need a bigger RAN it we are going to have bigger ships.  A difficult proposition when wives are unwilling to allow their men to be sailors and prefer them to work shorter hours at a mining site.  The Arleigh Burke was looked at the time of the adoption of the Italian ships and Arleigh Burkes were found to be too small for Australian purposes.  Even the US Navy found the first versions to be too small and the Flight III versions are larger than their predecessors.

We presently operate two squadrons of F/A-18F or G models.  They are more capable than the F-111 ever was.  It is designed to operate from medium altitude, rather than low-level.  The F-111 was of it's period, just as the F/A-18 is.  Indonesia is our ally, not our enemy, so why do we need to attack it or defend against it?

Patriot SAMs would be hideously expensive to operate.  We have a superior system in NASAM, which has replaced the Rapier system, it is designed for medium range defence, rather than long range defence.

All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 8:27pm:

All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Too many people are banned from your MRB so
they can't join in the conversation.   ::)


Quote:

The following posters are banned from this forum: Frank/Soren Bobby Gordon JaSin Laugh till you cry Bias_2012

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 8:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:27pm: All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Too many people are banned from your MRB so they can't join in the conversation.   ::)

If they behave, they can post, Bobby.  You are banned because you refuse to be disciplined.


Quote:

[quote]The following posters are banned from this forum: Frank/Soren Bobby Gordon JaSin Laugh till you cry Bias_2012

[/quote]

All unwilling to behave and do what the rules state.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 8:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:43pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:27pm: All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Too many people are banned from your MRB so they can't join in the conversation.   ::) If they behave, they can post, Bobby.  You are banned because you refuse to be disciplined. Quote: [quote]The following posters are banned from this forum: Frank/Soren Bobby Gordon JaSin Laugh till you cry Bias_2012

All unwilling to behave and do what the rules state.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)
[/quote]


No.
You banned me for saying that China was a threat to us.
I backed it up with facts  e.g.

China now has the largest navy in the world.

You had no right to ban me for that.
You're a dictator.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 9:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:59pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:43pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:27pm: All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Too many people are banned from your MRB so they can't join in the conversation.   ::) If they behave, they can post, Bobby.  You are banned because you refuse to be disciplined. Quote: [quote]The following posters are banned from this forum: Frank/Soren Bobby Gordon JaSin Laugh till you cry Bias_2012 All unwilling to behave and do what the rules state.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

No.
You banned me for saying that China was a threat to us.
I backed it up with facts  e.g.

China now has the largest navy in the world.

You had no right to ban me for that.
You're a dictator.[/quote]

I banned you because you refused to stop Trolling the forum with your bullshit line that the PRC was about to invade Australia.  The point is, you were given plenty of warning but you refused to listen, so you were banned.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 10:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:59pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:43pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 8:27pm: All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Too many people are banned from your MRB so they can't join in the conversation.   ::) If they behave, they can post, Bobby.  You are banned because you refuse to be disciplined. Quote: [quote]The following posters are banned from this forum: Frank/Soren Bobby Gordon JaSin Laugh till you cry Bias_2012 All unwilling to behave and do what the rules state.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) No. You banned me for saying that China was a threat to us. I backed it up with facts  e.g. China now has the largest navy in the world. You had no right to ban me for that. You're a dictator.

I banned you because you refused to stop Trolling the forum with your bullshit line that the PRC was about to invade Australia.  The point is, you were given plenty of warning but you refused to listen, so you were banned.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)[/quote]


Actually it was more about those subs -
it's all documented here:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1698655992/0#0

Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 10:48pm:

Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

It was defence related - on topic and true.    >:(

So unban everyone you prick.

Twilight Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

De Fence ain't no good unless you got sojuhs to watch over 'im - and the way this country has been shitting on men to make way for the sheilas for so long - it's no wonder men are just not bothering any more.

No matter what you say - women will not make up the numbers of high quality combat troops required, so isn't it time to start re-considering the approach to boys starting out in schools and then moving up into higher education and jobs and such - and put a stop to the feminist madness that has consumed the entire education system, the legal system, the social values, moral values, work places and so forth?

Saying it makes you feel unsafe is not going to stop an enemy onslaught.... FFS - if you can't hack being in the forces - don't be there! Young men about to die would rather go out with a smile on their face smelling of pussy... if you can't hack that reality, get out.

We need MEN!  MEN who want to do the job - not just look at it as a feather in their cap or a way to show how 'superior' women are... or look at it as a 'career' with kudos ..... FFS.  I've seen women in uniform wearing more medals than a US general... and not a shot fired in anger... are we getting the same as the Yanks and have a medal for everything?  AND women's claims for PTSD are huge!!  It's viewed as a retirement package, even for non-combat troops.

https://thegirlwhoworefreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Rain.jpg

Now I'm not going one way or the other with this, but:-

"While there isn't a single number representing the exact number of Australian servicewomen claiming PTSD, research indicates that PTSD is a significant issue for female veterans. One study found that ex-serving women in Australia exhibit higher rates of PTSD (24.8%) compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, studies suggest that female veterans experience more severe PTSD symptoms than male veterans".

Anyone care to comment?  This is not the best day to discuss such things - but since it's been dragged up..... let's start this war from right here!

I'm of the view that this whole thing needs to be looked over from top to bottom, start to finish, and some REAL solutions found, not least the failure to support non-Veteran ex-Service people after separation.  But that's supposed to already be in train - but hold not your breath.

Don't vote for the major parties ... careful where you step and watch what you swallow... and don't drink their Kool-Aid....

Gina wants defence spending up - perhaps she could buy a ship - HMAS Rinehart -minelayer seems apt.....

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 25^th, 2025 at 8:27pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 25th, 2025 at 3:31pm: We used to have a defence force that was quite potent, with the air force being the fourth largest and the navy being the fifth largest during WWII. These days, we'd be lucky to defend ourselves from Indonesia. It is time to upgrade, enhance and grow our defence force. One of the biggest mistakes was the Canberra Class LHD ships, which are essentially defenceless ships. The two ships should've been scrapped in favour of the US America class LHD ships to include the capability to embark the F-35B fighter jets and project force while also being able to provide humanitarian support. The America Class LHD ships also have a potent ability to defend themselves. It's time also to upgrade from the ANZAC Class frigates, which really lack much potency. We should also have gone with the US Arleigh Burke destroyers over the Italian AWD ships we currently have, as the three AWD ships we have are not as heavily armed by comparison, especially when compared to Chinese destroyers. The Hobart Class have only 48 vertical launch cells as opposed to the 96 cells on the Arleigh Burke Flight III currently in service with the USN. We also need to develop a missile defence system like the Patriot anti-missile system, as our country is essentially defenceless in this regard. Australia should also lobby the US to purchase at least one squadron of the B-21 Raider stealth bombers, as we have had no dedicated bomber capability since the retirement of the F-111. American ships tend to be too large for the RAN to man.  In the case of the Adelaide Class LHD, we opted for the Navanta Class from Spain. Shipbuilders from the United States were not included, as American amphibious warfare ships were too large for Australian requirements, and were either too personnel-intensive or could not operate the number of helicopters required.  Unless we opt to increase the size of the RAN - always a difficult proposition - or we opt for a smaller ship.  The Navanta Class ships can operate more helicopters simultaneously than the American class and it is not defenceless, it mounts six 30mm cannon and is meant to be part of a task force, rather than operate alone. The same problem goes for the Arleigh Burke destroyers.  We simply need a bigger RAN it we are going to have bigger ships.  A difficult proposition when wives are unwilling to allow their men to be sailors and prefer them to work shorter hours at a mining site.  The Arleigh Burke was looked at the time of the adoption of the Italian ships and Arleigh Burkes were found to be too small for Australian purposes.  Even the US Navy found the first versions to be too small and the Flight III versions are larger than their predecessors. We presently operate two squadrons of F/A-18F or G models.  They are more capable than the F-111 ever was.  It is designed to operate from medium altitude, rather than low-level.  The F-111 was of it's period, just as the F/A-18 is.  Indonesia is our ally, not our enemy, so why do we need to attack it or defend against it? Patriot SAMs would be hideously expensive to operate.  We have a superior system in NASAM, which has replaced the Rapier system, it is designed for medium range defence, rather than long range defence. All this really belongs in in the Defence Forum rather than here.  Why are you afraid to post there?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Perhaps because that is the topic of this conversation and because it related to Federal politics in the upcoming election?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 26^th, 2025 at 1:32pm:

Perhaps because that is the topic of this conversation and because it related to Federal politics in the upcoming election?

There is a thread that was created over a month ago, devoted to this topic, Future Defence Needs for Australia which you could have discovered if you'd looked in the appropriate forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Just a passing note:-

Re Young Hastie ... Captain is the lowest commissioned rank in The Regiment, one Captain for one Patrol.... it's a top heavy organisation in that way, though the reality on the ground - as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq with certain people and issues - is that rank does not guarantee operational control of an op.  That is, in fact, part of the creed of The Regiment pure (maybe just not SASR - the provincials).

This lowest commissioned rank shows two things - opportunity for promotion to Major and above within The Regiment is severely limited and secondly - those who achieve that are exceptional.  What this means is that most Captains are not there for a full-time occupation**, but in order to stamp their papers for possible future promotion. Also the selection process for both ORs and officers in Australia has shown deficiencies....

None of this justifies Young Hastie's lack of preparedness for the realities of the battlesphere, which responsibility primarily falls upon his superiors.  Perhaps he is better placed in a political position without direct power over ops.  You can't crack up over a simple piece of butchery on the battlefield... you know the rule if you know the rule... take it, carry on, and sort it out later when you have free time.


**Most often the Commanding Officer of the Regiment and even commanders at Squadron level - are drawn from 'outside', are being given their chance to stamp their papers, and are not 'grown' within the Regiment itself.  This can create problems - see Afghanistan.  Compare that with Paddy Mayne etc, who all 'grew' within THEIR regiment...

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26^th, 2025 at 11:28pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 26th, 2025 at 1:32pm: Perhaps because that is the topic of this conversation and because it related to Federal politics in the upcoming election? There is a thread that was created over a month ago, devoted to this topic, Future Defence Needs for Australia which you could have discovered if you'd looked in the appropriate forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

The following posters are banned from your forum:

Frank/Soren
Bobby
Gordon
JaSin
Laugh till you cry
Bias_2012