The Claim
“Doubled the defence force's annual budget, increasing it by $24 billion, despite the supposed budget emergency and after the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Defence Budget Increases: The Coalition government did significantly increase defence spending, but the claim requires careful parsing. The 2016 Defence White Paper set out plans to grow defence funding to 2% of GDP by 2020-21, representing what was described as "the most ambitious expansion and modernisation of the Australian Defence Force since at least the Menzies build-up in the early 1960s" [1]. The government committed to over $89 billion in ships and submarines over 20 years, including a $50 billion submarine program and approximately $40 billion for surface vessels [2].
The $24 Billion Figure: The specific "$24 billion" increase mentioned in the claim appears to reference the planned growth in defence spending as outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper. However, this was a projected increase over multiple years to reach the 2% GDP target, not a single annual increase [3].
"Doubled" Claim: Whether the budget was "doubled" depends on the baseline and timeframe. The 2016 White Paper planned for defence spending to grow substantially, but as a percentage of GDP, the increase was from around 1.6% (under Labor's final year) to 2% by 2020-21 [4]. In absolute dollar terms, the increase was significant but doubling would require verification against specific baselines [1].
Budget Emergency Context: The claim references the "budget emergency" declared by Treasurer Joe Hockey in 2013-2014. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) in December 2014 did reveal a budget deficit blowout to $40.4 billion, up from the $29.8 billion forecast [5]. The government simultaneously pursued austerity measures in other areas while increasing defence spending [3].
Iraq and Afghanistan Withdrawals: Australian combat troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2013 (under the Rudd government) and from Iraq earlier. The claim correctly notes that these withdrawals occurred before or during the early Coalition period, yet defence spending increased rather than decreased [6].
Missing Context
Labor's Defence Cuts: The claim omits that the preceding Labor government had reduced defence spending to historic lows. In 2012-13, Labor cut defence spending to 1.52% of GDP—the lowest level since 1938 [7]. This occurred as a specific measure to help return the federal budget to surplus [8]. The Coalition's increases were partly restoring funding after these cuts.
2% GDP Commitment: The increase to 2% of GDP was a long-standing Coalition policy commitment made before the 2013 election. The Abbott government reaffirmed this commitment in the 2014-15 Budget, promising "no further cuts to the Defence Budget" [9].
Strategic Context: The 2016 Defence White Paper cited a "more complex strategic environment" in the Asia-Pacific region as justification for the spending increases [2]. The government argued that growing regional instability, including China's military expansion, necessitated enhanced capabilities [1].
Long-Term Planning: The defence increases were planned over a decade, not implemented immediately. The 2016 White Paper provided "a decade of explicit funding guidance" with spending reaching 2% of GDP in 2020-21 and rising to 2.2% thereafter [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Australian (2015): A mainstream Murdoch-owned newspaper. Generally credible for factual reporting but with centre-right editorial leanings. The white paper story appears factual.
The Guardian (2004): A left-leaning mainstream outlet. The 2004 article appears to predate the claim's timeframe and may be included to provide historical context on defence spending patterns.
ABC News - Koukoulas (2013): Stephen Koukoulas is an economist with Labor connections who served as economics advisor to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. His analysis that the "budget emergency" was exaggerated reflects a partisan perspective [10].
New Matilda (2014): An independent online publication with progressive/left-leaning editorial stance. Known for critical coverage of government policy. Should be considered advocacy journalism rather than neutral reporting [11].
Overall, the original sources include a mix of mainstream media and opinion/analysis pieces from commentators with known partisan affiliations. The Koukoulas article in particular comes from a source with direct Labor government ties.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Historical Defence Spending: RMIT ABC Fact Check analysis shows that average defence spending as a percentage of GDP was remarkably similar between the Howard Coalition government (1.77%) and the Rudd-Gillard Labor government (1.72%) [7]. This suggests that, on average, both major parties maintained comparable defence spending levels over their terms.
Howard vs Labor Patterns: Under the Howard government, defence spending increased in real terms by 4.6% per year on average. Under Labor, real spending increased by only 0.6% per year on average [7]. However, Labor did have one anomalous year (2009-10) where spending jumped to 1.99% of GDP—higher than any single year under Howard, Abbott, or Turnbull [8].
Labor's Final Year Cut: Labor's last full year (2012-13) saw defence spending cut to 1.52% of GDP—the lowest since 1938 [7]. This was a specific decision to achieve a budget surplus promise [8].
Restoration vs Expansion: The Coalition's increases can be viewed as partially restoring funding after Labor's cuts, though the 2016 White Paper went further with ambitious long-term expansion plans [1][3].
Conclusion on Comparison: Labor governments historically spent similar amounts on defence as a percentage of GDP over their terms. The key difference was Labor's significant cut in their final year, which the Coalition reversed and expanded upon.
Balanced Perspective
Legitimate Policy Rationale: The Coalition's defence spending increases were framed as necessary responses to a "more complex strategic environment" in the Asia-Pacific region [2]. The government cited China's military expansion, regional instability, and the need to maintain Australia's "capability edge" as justifications [1]. The commitment to 2% of GDP was a clear election promise, giving the government a mandate for these increases [9].
Budget Emergency Inconsistency: Critics, including economist Stephen Koukoulas, argued that the "budget emergency" rhetoric was inconsistent with simultaneously increasing defence spending while cutting other areas [10]. The 2014 MYEFO did show significant deficit blowouts while defence funding grew [5].
Post-Withdrawal Paradox: The claim correctly identifies a paradox: defence spending increased even as major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wound down. The government argued this reflected a shift toward "peaceful" regional engagement and capability modernization rather than operational costs [1].
Industry and Jobs Argument: The defence increases were also framed as economic stimulus, with the government highlighting that the $50 billion submarine program would support 1,100 Australian jobs directly and 1,700 more through supply chains [2]. The continuous naval shipbuilding strategy was presented as creating "long-term high skilled jobs" [2].
Expert Assessment: ASPI senior analyst Marcus Hellyer, who managed defence investment during the Labor government, noted that both major parties have historically maintained defence spending in the 1.7-1.8% of GDP range [8]. Public governance expert Stephen Bartos stated that "there was little difference between the two sides of politics when it comes to defence spending" [8].
Key Context: This was not unique to the Coalition—both major parties have historically maintained similar defence spending levels, with the Coalition's increases following Labor's anomalous final-year cut. The increases were partly restoration and partly expansion based on strategic assessments.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim contains elements of truth but requires qualification. The Coalition did significantly increase defence spending through the 2016 Defence White Paper, with plans to grow funding to 2% of GDP and major capital investments totaling tens of billions over two decades [1][2]. The "$24 billion" figure appears to reference projected increases toward the 2% GDP target.
However, the "doubled" claim is misleading without proper context. The increases were from a historically low baseline (1.52% of GDP in Labor's final year), partly representing restoration after Labor's cuts [7]. In percentage-of-GDP terms, the increase was from ~1.6% to 2%—significant but not doubling [4].
The claim correctly identifies the apparent inconsistency of increasing defence spending while declaring a "budget emergency" [5][10]. However, it omits that the 2% GDP target was a clear election commitment and that similar defence spending levels were maintained by both major parties historically [7][8].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim contains elements of truth but requires qualification. The Coalition did significantly increase defence spending through the 2016 Defence White Paper, with plans to grow funding to 2% of GDP and major capital investments totaling tens of billions over two decades [1][2]. The "$24 billion" figure appears to reference projected increases toward the 2% GDP target.
However, the "doubled" claim is misleading without proper context. The increases were from a historically low baseline (1.52% of GDP in Labor's final year), partly representing restoration after Labor's cuts [7]. In percentage-of-GDP terms, the increase was from ~1.6% to 2%—significant but not doubling [4].
The claim correctly identifies the apparent inconsistency of increasing defence spending while declaring a "budget emergency" [5][10]. However, it omits that the 2% GDP target was a clear election commitment and that similar defence spending levels were maintained by both major parties historically [7][8].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (10)
-
1PDF
Defence Investment - Budget 2016-17 Fact Sheet
Archive Budget Gov • PDF Document -
2
Australia joins Asia's arms race with spending on submarines, frigates
Australia will embark on a decade-long surge in weaponry and military forces to defend its land, sea, skies and space from Asia's rapidly growing military forces, today's Defence White Paper reveals.
Abc Net -
3
Funding and Delivering the 2016 Defence White Paper
Jstor
-
4
The state of Australia's defence: a quick guide
Introduction The Defence portfolio is extensive, comprising a range of activities and issues such as military exercises and operations; peacekeeping; defence planning and funding; force structure and posture; military-to-military and civil-to-military relationships; strateg
Aph Gov -
5
Federal budget deficit climbs to $40.4bn: experts react
The federal budget deficit will blow out to A$40.4 billion in 2014-15, up from the $29.8 billion forecast in May’s budget, according to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) released today…
The Conversation -
6
Australian government announces budget deficit blowout
The economic reversal is intensifying corporate demands for cuts to government spending.
World Socialist Web Site -
7
Brendan O'Connor says defence spending under the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments was similar, on average
Shadow Defence Minister Brendan O'Connor says the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments both spend 1.7 to 1.8 per cent of GDP on defence. RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.
Abc Net -
8
Budget 2014-15 - Defence Budget Overview
Minister Defence Gov
-
9
Koukoulas: Budget emergency fiction
Almost two months after a thumping election victory, there is not one hint of any economic policy change from the Abbott Government that will deal with the budget bottom line. Yet until the day before the election, this was painted by the Coalition as an "emergency" or "crisis". The reason is obvious. The budget is in triple-A shape and in the complete opposite of an emergency. While Labor didn't always get the politics right, it is difficult to find what policy settings could have done better.
Abc Net -
10
New Matilda - About Us
So Facebook is pretty popular, right? So popular your boss might have stuck it behind a firewall — so you can’t right now suck down your share of what is purported to be a $5 billion loss in productivity annually, thanks to its unrivalled ability to hold you to ransom with an unending game ofMore
New Matilda
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.