back to main

Q. What is the relationship between this publication and Defence 2000 – Our Future Defence Force?

A. The White Paper, Defence 2000, is still the Government’s endorsed policy guidance on defence policy and capability priorities. The Update is exactly that: a re-examination of the fundamental settings of our policy in the light of the significant strategic changes that have taken place since the White Paper was released in December 2000.

Q. Are there fundamental changes since 2000?

A. The principles laid out in the White Paper remain sound. The description of our strategic interests and objectives, military strategy, capability priorities and so on are still a robust framework for our defence. Within this framework, we need to rebalance capability priorities and expenditure to reflect the new strategic environment.

Q. The Update foreshadows ‘a reduced emphasis on capabilities of less importance.’ Is this code for reducing capabilities?

A. The White Paper clearly said that the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) would not remain immutable over the decade, but would be reviewed annually to take account of changing strategic circumstances, new technologies and changed priorities. Some changes over time are inherent in this approach. The priority for some existing capabilities are being examined as part of the usual DCP review and budget process, and these decisions are for Government to determine. Some revisions to the DCP have occurred already. Any further changes will be announced once they are made.

Q. How much of the White Paper has been implemented?

A. The Government has provided the resources promised in the White Paper. In the two years since the White Paper appeared, some 71 DCP initiatives linked to the White Paper have been approved with an all-up cost of some $13 billion. Other major initiatives are not scheduled to come up for a number of years (Joint Strike Fighter, Air Warfare Destroyer). Some new Defence capabilities not envisaged in the White Paper, such as for counter-terrorism, have been introduced.

Q. Are concentric circles still important?

A. It is not valid to describe Australia’s strategic interests in terms of geographic distance. Our national interests remain subject to security changes far from Australia and there are global influences on the security of our immediate neighbourhood. Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction are cases in point. The Government has drawn attention in the Update to the continuing importance of longstanding security problems in our immediate neighbourhood and the additional threat from terrorism. We also emphasise the extent to which our national interests are affected by events outside our immediate neighbourhood and the greater chance of our involvement in coalition operations further afield.

Q. Does the delay in publication stem from disagreements within Defence or within Government?

A. Like the DFAT White Paper released on 12 February 2003, the Update was produced after the usual iterative inter-agency consultation, and consideration by Ministers. The Update was considered by Government late last year in the wake of the Bali bombings and other strategic developments. These developments reflect the lesser certainty and predictability that the Update identifies as being features of our strategic environment. This has been the first opportunity to release the approved version.

Q. What is the purpose of the Update beyond its public uses?

A. The Update summarises the broad conclusions of an extensive review of our defence interests. This has required a great deal of analytical effort involving intelligence agencies, the Defence Organisation, and other Departments and agencies. Their work, much of it classified, has influenced the Defence Management and Financial Plan and the Defence Capability Plan, each of which will shortly go to Government for consideration in the budget context.

Q. Does the Update indicate a switch of attention away from Australia’s region?

A. The major changes are in terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the US lead in responding to them. These have their regional implications – such as the Bali bombing. The Government’s response has covered both domestic, regional and broader international dimensions. These dimensions are interconnected. Part of our response to the War on Terror, for example, has included Memoranda of Understanding with a number of governments in South East Asia on Combating Terrorism. Defence is involved in such initiatives. The Update acknowledges the continuing importance of trends in our immediate neighbourhood, and that there may be increased calls on the ADF for operations there.

Q. There is little detail on changes for the ADF. What substantive implications are there for Defence?

A. Some immediate decisions have not waited on this more comprehensive review. They include the beefing up of ADF counter terrorism and Special Forces, and the improvement of equipment for force elements involved in the war on terrorism. Others decisions are still going through Government, and these decisions will be influenced by the new guidance.

Q. Does the proposed resumption of defence cooperation in Counter Terrorism with Indonesia mean that the ADF will resume working with Kopassus?

A. We will explore this option with Indonesia. While Indonesian policy is shifting responsibility for CT to their National Police, much actual capacity for CT response remains with the Armed Forces. In the environment of a heightened terrorist threat, Australian lives could rest on the effectiveness of Indonesian capabilities and cooperation between our defence forces. We are already cooperating on this with Indonesian police and intelligence.