Budget leaves nation’s security at risk

ANYONE considering suspending work on fallout shelters in their back yards or abandoning Chinese language lessons should swallow a large dose of reality instead.

This week’s Federal interim budget was a bit like an incoming CO issuing a routine order banning triumphalism, iconography, inappropriate language in Diggers’ lines and uniform shorts and long socks.

While it might look thoughtful and busy, particularly in the Halls of Fort Zinderneuf, it doesn’t actually achieve anything.

It also demonstrates a failure of leadership and forethought.

It is a positioning economic statement softening the electorate for next May’s real budget, hovering like future dental appointments for root canal therapy.

It’s more about addressing “nine year’s Coalition government neglect of Labor electorates”, while repositioning alleged pork barrels.

There is nothing for defence that can be realistically implemented in the next seven months that can’t be undone, like electoral promises to reduce energy costs by $275 per annum, reduce unemployment and provide affordable accommodation for people struggling with high rents and property availability.

These are real problems which will not be solved by a few bland statements in Budget Paper No 1.

According to Treasurer Chalmers Australia would “drastically lift its military tempo in the Pacific”, with a rise in overall defence spending to above two per cent of GDP.

National security spending would go eight per cent higher in the coming year, after the Albanese government’s own updated review to be released publicly next March prior to the May budget.

Beware the Ides of March.

The government has “promised” more than $233.9m for 500 “frontline” staff dedicated to veterans’ claims.

Another $87m was allocated over two years “to improving pathways to access and support”.

Almost $50m will be spent on new veterans’ and family hubs providing critical services and advocacy”.

Dedicated services are to be established in Ipswich, Hawkesbury, Queanbeyan, the Tweed-north NSW Coast and Hunter, northern Adelaide, Perth and another in Geelong, the defence minister’s electorate.

Development of two more in Queensland and Tasmania has commenced.

Nothing further to see here, move along!

It seems those increases benefit support staff rather than veterans.

While veterans deserve and need dedicated services, they are an increasingly large demographic with considerably squeaky wheels, particularly those who would never be satisfied no matter how much was invested in them or provided in benefits.

Perhaps it’s funding better applied for prevention rather than dealing with problems after they arise.