The Claim
“Increased military spending by $270 billion over 10 years, when the economy and our society were struggling to cope with the pandemic and the worst recession since The Great Depression.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is factually accurate. On June 30, 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison did announce a $270 billion defence spending commitment over 10 years through the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and accompanying Force Structure Plan [1]. According to the ABC article, this represented an increase of $70 billion from the previously planned $200 billion over 10 years that had been allocated in the 2019-20 Budget Statement [1].
The timing claim is also accurate. Australia did face significant economic challenges in 2020. The economy contracted by 7% in the June 2020 quarter, making it the largest quarterly contraction on record, though Australia did not technically have a full recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) until September 2020 [2]. The announcement came during the acute phase of COVID-19 pandemic uncertainty.
Missing Context
However, the claim omits several critical contextual factors that substantially reframe the decision:
Strategic Rationale and Regional Threats
The $270 billion announcement was explicitly framed as a response to deteriorating regional security conditions, not merely as discretionary spending during economic hardship. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update identified the Indo-Pacific region as facing "strategic competition on a scale not seen since the 1930s and 1940s" [1]. Specifically, the strategy was designed to address:
- China's military modernization and assertiveness: The strategy identified China's military expansion and coercive behaviour in the region as the primary strategic concern, including "annexation of territory, coercion, the influencing of domestic politics, and the use of cyber attacks" [1]
- Regional destabilization: The document warned of potential conflict escalation risks in the Indo-Pacific region that required immediate deterrence capability improvements [1]
- Capability gaps: The previous defence planning had focused on long-term capabilities (submarines for the 2030s-2040s), but the strategic update identified the need for medium-term defensive improvements [1]
Economic Recovery Justification
Importantly, the Morrison Government explicitly positioned defence spending as part of Australia's COVID-19 economic recovery strategy. Defence Minister Linda Reynolds stated that the spending was "part of the federal government's efforts to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 crisis" [3]. This framing highlights that:
- Defence spending creates jobs in manufacturing, engineering, and defence industries
- The sector is a significant employer and economic contributor
- Capital investment in major defence projects supports employment during economic downturns (similar to post-GFC economic stimulus)
Bipartisan Support
Critically, the announcement received immediate support from the Labor Opposition. Labor's defence spokesman Richard Marles stated: "COVID-19 is changing the world around us... Labor supports strong defence resilience for Australia" [1]. This bipartisan support indicates that the decision was not a partisan overreach but a response to genuinely perceived strategic threats that both parties acknowledged.
International Context
By 2020, NATO countries (except the US) were spending 1.5-2.5% of GDP on defence, and Australia was aiming to reach 2% of GDP through this investment [1]. The increased spending aligned Australia with allied nations' defence commitments in response to the same regional threats.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source provided (ABC News) is a mainstream, reputable Australian news organization. The ABC article is factually accurate and provides balanced coverage, including:
- Direct quotes from government officials (Morrison, Reynolds)
- Opposition response from Labor's defence spokesman
- Expert analysis from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
- Specific capability details (LRASM missiles, cyber spending, space capabilities)
The article does frame the decision as a response to China's rise, which reflects the government's actual strategic rationale rather than a biased presentation.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Australia's defence spending growth predates the Coalition government. The 2016 Defence White Paper (released under the Abbott/Turnbull Coalition government) already committed to sustained defence spending growth aligned with GDP growth [3]. However, examining Labor's defence spending record:
- Labor governments have historically supported substantial defence spending when aligned with identified strategic threats
- The 2020 announcement achieved bipartisan support from Labor, with Richard Marles explicitly endorsing the strategic assessment and increased spending commitment [1]
- Under Labor's previous government (2007-2013), defence spending also increased during economic challenges when strategic conditions warranted
- There is no evidence that Labor would have significantly reduced defence spending in response to the same strategic threats identified in 2020
The comparison suggests this was not a uniquely Coalition decision but rather a response to regional security threats that both major parties recognized as legitimate.
Balanced Perspective
While critics might argue that increased defence spending during economic hardship represents misplaced priorities, several factors provide important context:
The government's perspective:
- Defence capability is foundational to national security and regional stability
- Regional security threats do not pause for economic cycles; failure to respond creates greater long-term risks
- Defence spending supports employment in manufacturing and engineering sectors
- Deterrence investment is intended to prevent conflict, which would be far more economically devastating than the pandemic
- The spending was justified as part of economic recovery, not as separate from it
Expert analysis:
- Peter Jennings from ASPI supported the strategic assessment, noting the need to increase "hitting power" in the short term given regional risks [1]
- The deterioration in China-Australia relations (which accelerated after mid-2020) validated the government's security assessment
Reality of governance:
- Governments must balance multiple priorities simultaneously
- Defence budgets are typically committed multi-year spending that requires decisions during both economic strength and weakness
- Many major defence projects (submarine programs, missile systems) take decades to develop; delaying them creates greater costs and capability gaps
The broader context:
- This was not "discretionary" spending during a crisis; it was strategic investment in national security
- The economic impact of terrorism, regional conflict, or coercive actions by rival powers would far exceed defence spending
- Both major parties supported the strategy, suggesting it was seen as necessary rather than partisan excess
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate regarding the $270 billion figure and timing during the pandemic/recession period. However, it is misleading through omission of critical context. The framing suggests the spending was inappropriate or excessive during economic hardship, but the claim omits:
- The serious regional security threats that prompted the decision (explicitly China's military expansion)
- The government's explicit rationale that defence spending supports economic recovery
- Labor's bipartisan support for the spending and strategic assessment
- The multi-year nature of defence commitments that require decisions regardless of economic cycles
A complete and fair assessment would acknowledge that while the timing created a rhetorical tension with economic hardship, the decision was strategically justified and supported across the political spectrum. The claim cherry-picks the timing to suggest irresponsibility without acknowledging the legitimate security rationale.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is factually accurate regarding the $270 billion figure and timing during the pandemic/recession period. However, it is misleading through omission of critical context. The framing suggests the spending was inappropriate or excessive during economic hardship, but the claim omits:
- The serious regional security threats that prompted the decision (explicitly China's military expansion)
- The government's explicit rationale that defence spending supports economic recovery
- Labor's bipartisan support for the spending and strategic assessment
- The multi-year nature of defence commitments that require decisions regardless of economic cycles
A complete and fair assessment would acknowledge that while the timing created a rhetorical tension with economic hardship, the decision was strategically justified and supported across the political spectrum. The claim cherry-picks the timing to suggest irresponsibility without acknowledging the legitimate security rationale.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
Australia to spend $270b building larger military to prepare for 'poorer, more dangerous' world and rise of China
Australia will adopt a more aggressive defence strategy designed to counter the rising threat from China, with Scott Morrison warning the country faces regional challenges on a scale not seen since World War II.
Abc Net -
2
The Cost of Defence 2020-2021. Part 1: ASPI 2020 Strategic Update Brief
Aspi Org
-
3
A safer and stronger Australia - Budget 2020-21
Minister Defence Gov
-
4
2020 Defence Strategic Update
Defence Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.