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**Iraq and Afghanistan Withdrawals:** Australian combat troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2013 (under the Rudd government) and from Iraq earlier.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].
This occurred as a specific measure to help return the federal budget to surplus [8].
連立 nounRenritsu 政権 nounSeiken の possessiveNo 増額 nounZougaku は topic-markerWa 、 , これ Kore ら Ra の possessiveNo 削減 nounSakugen 後 Ato の possessiveNo 資金 nounShikin の possessiveNo 一部 nounIchibu 復元 nounFukugen で auxiliary-verbDe あっ verbA た auxiliary-verbTa 。 .
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 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.
**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.
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.
**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 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 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].
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].
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].
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].