By Denis Hay

Description

Examine why Australia questions aged care funding but not military spending, despite the country’s monetary sovereignty.

Introduction

Australia is grappling with rising demands for aged care services as its population grows older, leading to a $5.6 billion reform package to improve the sector. Yet, every dollar given to aged care is met with scrutiny, with questions about sustainability and affordability. In stark contrast, military spending – including the $368 billion given for the AUKUS submarine deal – goes ahead with far less financial scrutiny.

Why do we ask, “At what cost?” for aged care, yet overlook the same question for military projects? This article explores these double standards and how Australia’s currency sovereignty means the government has the financial capacity to fund both without compromising one for the other.

Disparities in Spending Scrutiny

I. Aged Care Reforms: Why “At What Cost” is Constantly Asked

A. Key Changes in Aged Care

The Australian government’s $5.6 billion aged care reform package aims to improve services for more than 1.4 million older Australians, helping them stay at home longer before entering institutional care. However, the reforms include higher means-tested contributions from seniors, raising concerns about affordability for lower-income individuals.

B. Challenges in Aged Care Funding

Australia’s aged care sector is facing significant challenges, even with the new reforms:
1. Workforce shortages – More than 300,000 workers are needed to meet the demand for aged care services, but underfunding is making recruitment and retention difficult.

2. Underfunding – The sector is still underfunded despite the reforms, with many care facilities still struggling to provide adequate services.

3. Increased demand – With Australia’s aging population expected to double by 2050, more funds will be needed to provide quality care.

Despite these growing challenges, aged care funding is constantly questioned. The $5.6 billion reform package was seen as necessary, but it came with a public narrative focused on budget concerns and intergenerational equity, suggesting the government is walking a financial tightrope when funding such social services.

C. Public and Political Scrutiny

Aged care spending is consistently subjected to public and political debate, with media coverage often emphasising the “cost to the taxpayer“ and generational fairness. Yet this intense scrutiny stands in stark contrast to how military spending is viewed, where multibillion-dollar defence projects move forward with little financial questioning.

II. Military Spending: An Unquestioned Cost

A. Overview of Military Expenditures

In 2023, Australia committed $368 billion over the next 30 years to the AUKUS submarine program, making it one of the largest military spending commitments in the country’s history. The overall defence budget for 2023-2024 alone reached $50 billion, marking a significant increase compared to previous years.

B. Justifications for Military Spending

Proponents of military spending often argue that defence investments are critical for national security, particularly with the growing military presence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS deal, which promises to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has been framed as necessary for safeguarding Australia’s interests in the future.

However, this narrative ignores the question of cost. While $368 billion has been committed for submarines over the next three decades, far less attention is given to the financial opportunity costs – what else could be funded with such vast sums?

C. Limited Scrutiny on Defence Budgets

In contrast to aged care, military expenditures are rarely subject to serious financial scrutiny. Public debate around defence spending typically focuses on national security threats rather than the financial burden of these projects. Even when media coverage addresses military budgets, it rarely compares them to the costs of social services, leaving aged care and defence spending to occupy entirely different public conversations.

Australia’s Currency Sovereignty and the Real Limits

III. Australia’s Currency Sovereignty: Why “At What Cost” Shouldn’t Matter

A. Understanding Currency Sovereignty

Australia is a sovereign issuer of its own currency, the Australian dollar. This means the federal government is never financially constrained in funding domestic programs, including aged care. While resource limitations – such as the availability of workers and infrastructure – are real constraints, the government’s ability to fund these services is not limited by revenue or borrowing. Despite this, debates around aged care are often framed as if Australia runs like a household, with limited money to distribute.

B. The Real Limits: Resource Allocation, Not Finances

The real limitations on government spending are resource-based, not financial. With Australia’s monetary sovereignty, the government can fund both aged care and military spending without needing to ask, “at what cost.” The real issue should not be whether aged care is affordable but whether Australia is making the best use of its available resources, including labor and infrastructure. The conversation should focus on what kind of society we want to build rather than on artificial financial constraints.

C. Double Standards in Public Discourse

The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?

Rebalancing Australia’s Budget Priorities

IV. A Balanced Approach to Spending

A. Reallocating Funds for a More Compassionate Society

Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care.

B. The Long-term Benefits of Social Investments

1. Job Creation and Economic Growth: Investing more in aged care creates long-term economic benefits, including job creation in health and social services.

2. Improved Public Health Outcomes: Providing better care for the elderly reduces strain on the healthcare system and improves overall public health.

3. Greater Social Stability: A well-funded aged care system ensures that Australia’s elderly population is cared for, creating a more stable and compassionate society.

Why We Need to Ask Different Questions

When comparing the $5.6 billion given to aged care reforms with the $368 billion planned for submarines, it becomes clear that we are asking the wrong questions. Instead of focusing on the cost of aged care, we should be questioning why military spending escapes scrutiny. Australia’s currency sovereignty means it has the financial power to fund both defence and social services without needing to choose one over the other. It’s time to shift the conversation toward resource allocation and societal priorities rather than focusing on artificial financial constraints.

Question for Readers

Should Australia reallocate more of its budget from military projects to social services like aged care, or is national defence spending justified as it is?

Call to Action

If you believe Australia should prioritize the well-being of its citizens alongside national defence, share this article, and start a conversation about how our government can better use its financial resources. Explore more on how currency sovereignty can lead to more compassionate policymaking on our website.

Social Sharing

Share this article on social media to raise awareness of Australia’s budget priorities.

Reference

Aged care changes to ‘improve generational fairness’

This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.