Why Aged Care Funding Scrutinised, but Military Spending Not
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.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
6 comments
Login here Register here-
Andrew Smith
-
Truth Teller
-
Andrew Smith
-
Truth Teller
-
Andrew Smith
-
GL
Return to home pageAgree, and look no further than the dominant above median age cohorts of oldies and boomers (7+ million), who are predominantly ‘skip’ and follow RW MSM, inc imported fossil fueled demographic talking points and faux ‘free market’ ideology.
Meanwhile, since Howard’s ascension and adoption by Murdoch, we have been subjected to imported US ZPG/SPA demographic dog whistling of the ‘other’ including non-immigrants ie. NOM net OS border movement barometer.
Yet, barely a mention of the elephant in the room, our burgeoning ageing permanent cohort that requires funding and healthy budgets, with relatively fewer tax paying working age, but NOM churn over eg. students etc. are ‘net financial contributors’ eg. with visitors pay $billions in GST.
However, like the US GOP Koch Freedom Caucus, beware of calls to cut Medicare and social security, masked by dogwhistling of the ‘other’, while we blow $100 billions on dubious AUKUS project?
@Andrew Smith, I agree generally with your first two points. But “…… burgeoning ageing permanent cohort that requires funding and healthy budgets, with relatively fewer tax paying working age…..” misses the point made above by Denis – “…..Australia is a sovereign issuer of it’s own currency………”
Money supply is unlimited, we need resources, labor and infrastructure. (https://socialjusticeaustralia.com/australias-sovereign-currency/ – as referred to above by Denis.
TT Fine, but what does the idea ‘..Australia is a sovereign issuer of it’s own currency………” imply in practice?
Further, if taxes are not important, why do most nations including Australia have them?
What has been suggested sounds like MMT Modern Monetary Theory, but there are neither models nor working exemplars?
In my opinion it’s a nativist libertarian trap denies contribution of temporary migrants churn as financial contributors and a way to crash any progressive taxation system.
Further, there is a whiff of ‘Kochonomics’, see Truss & Kwarteng budget disaster Atlas Koch linked IEA at Tufton St.; desired outcome?
Crash budgets, economy, departments, governments etc. then open the door for ‘freedom’ of small govt., fewer public services delivered, user pays, less regulation and no or low taxes….
AS, there are 2 recent Australian examples of good and bad ‘money printing.’ I have slightly simplified these examples to hopefully help you
In about 2008, when the GFC hit us the Federal Gov’t released (printed) large amounts of money to balance the contraction of private activity and investment. School Halls, House insulation, Smallish handout to citizens, etc, etc. Releasing money in this fashion ensured that the released money went up and down the economy in many directions. EG: A builder wins the tender for a school hall, which added funds to company turnover. Builder then pays the trades – surveyor, excavator, concreter, chippie, plumber, electrician, internal cabinetry, landscaper, etc, etc. These workers then spread the money they receive – food, clothing, fuel, haircut, coffee & cake, etc, etc. Obviously these businesses then spread their income from sales. The funds continually circulate all through the economy. I think you can see where it’s going. And, best of all, very little inflation as the resources and workers were available to soak up the new money.
In about 2020, Coronavirus causes a severe contraction in private activity and investment, and the Feds again released (printed) large amounts on money. On this occasion, although releasing money was definitely needed, it wasn’t very well targeted. Large amounts of the handouts remained in ‘pockets’, rather than being applied to infrastructure projects, and circulating again and again. This ‘excess’ money (excess because it is not circulating as well as in the GFC example) just increases some people’s spending power and does little else. Which leads to the classic Inflation Spiral that we now have.
If you are thinking releasing (printing) money is unusual, have quick Internet read to see how a Home Loan is funded. Banks don’t lend out depositors’ funds as they used to 100 years ago, they simply add $500,000 (or whatever) to a new home loan in the borrowers’ name. They merely create the transaction out of thin air
I’m waffling on, but Federal budgets are nothing like a family budget.
Apologies for my waffling.
No probs, but in the background of quantitative easing or printing money for one off events, governments still need budgets supported by notes/bonds and/or taxes?
The critics ask what happens if printing money goes on (too long) and inflation spikes?
You can’t use old people as torpedoes or artillery shells or small arms ammunition. You definitely can’t use them as aerial delivered bombs (they tend to go splat rather than explode). They’re pretty much useless as weapons of war. So why not find ways to cut spending on them and transfer the money to shiny wonderful…oohh, I’m so excited, where’s my plastic raincoat…things that kill and can make lots and lots of money when you sell them.