governance and political system overview

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which supports the Prime Minister and coordinates and works across all government departments.

These are the key leaders:

  • Prime Minister – sets the national direction and leads the government.

  • Deputy Prime Minister – supports the Prime Minister and often oversees major national portfolios.

  • Minister for Defence – responsible for the Australian Defence Force and national security strategy.

  • Minister for Foreign Affairs – manages Australia’s relationships with other countries.

  • Treasurer – oversees the economy, the federal budget, and financial policy.

  • Minister for Finance – manages government spending and the performance of the public sector.

  • Minister for Women – leads policies that support women’s safety, opportunity, and equality.

  • Minister for the Public Service – ensures the Australian Public Service runs effectively and serves the community well.

Together, these ministers form the core of Australia’s executive government. They work across defence, foreign affairs, finance, national security, and public administration to keep the country safe, stable, and moving forward.

Strengths of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

1. Whole‑of‑Government Coordination

PM&C brings all major departments together so the government can act in a unified, coordinated way on national priorities.

2. Strategic Leadership

It supports the Prime Minister and Cabinet in making decisions on national security, the economy, foreign affairs, and major reforms.

3. Rapid Crisis Response

PM&C plays a central role during emergencies — bushfires, pandemics, cyber incidents — helping coordinate fast, cross‑government action.

4. Policy Expertise

The department houses specialists in security, economic policy, Indigenous affairs, public service reform, and international engagement.

5. Oversight and Accountability

It monitors how government programs are delivered and ensures departments stay aligned with national priorities.

Major Criticisms of the Department

1. Too Centralised

Some argue PM&C holds too much power, reducing the independence of other departments and concentrating decision‑making in Canberra.

2. Bureaucratic Complexity

Because it sits at the top of government, PM&C can be slow, process‑heavy, and difficult for the public to understand or access.

3. Limited Transparency

Critics say Cabinet processes and PM&C advice are often hidden from public view, making accountability harder.

4. Political Influence

As the Prime Minister’s department, it can be seen as too closely aligned with political priorities rather than neutral public service advice.

5. Overstretch

PM&C is responsible for a very wide range of issues — from national security to women’s policy to public service reform — which can dilute focus.

 

PM&C is the engine room of the Australian Government. Its strength is that it keeps the country coordinated and moving in one direction. Its weakness is that it can become too centralised, too political, or too complex for ordinary Australians to see inside.

Major Criticisms: Cuts or Shortfalls That Jeopardised National Security

1. Cuts to National‑Security Think‑Tank Funding

A government‑ordered review proposed slashing budgets for publicly funded national‑security think tanks, including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). Critics argued this would weaken independent strategic analysis at a time of rising global instability.

 

2. Defence Budget Not Keeping Pace With Strategic Threats

Analysts described the 2025–26 Defence Budget as paralysed and failing to match the scale of regional threats, despite a nominal $59B allocation. The criticism was that capability development was too slow and underfunded relative to Australia’s stated strategic needs.

 

3. Long‑Term Underfunding of Defence Capability

Commentary highlighted that governments of both major parties have historically underfunded Defence relative to the strategic environment, even while spending heavily on symbolic projects like the War Memorial. This underinvestment left capability gaps and slowed readiness improvements.

 

4. “Brutal Cuts” to Defence Spending (Public Commentary)

Media commentary (e.g., Sky News) described recent decisions as “brutal cuts” to Defence spending, arguing that reductions or delays in key programs risked weakening Australia’s ability to respond to regional volatility.

 

What These Cuts or Shortfalls Mean in Practice

Across these sources, the core concerns are consistent:

  • Slower military modernisation during a period of rising regional tension.

  • Reduced independent strategic analysis, limiting Australia’s ability to anticipate threats.

  • Capability delays in areas like naval power, long‑range strike, and cyber defence.

  • Mismatch between strategy and funding, leaving Australia vulnerable in a rapidly changing Indo‑Pacific environment.

 

Our story

Defence funding hasn’t matched the strategic threat environment

Australia’s defence budget has grown on paper, but capability delivery has lagged behind regional threats.

Policy Response

  • Legislate a minimum Defence spending floor tied to strategic risk, not politics.

  • Fast‑track procurement for long‑range strike, naval power, cyber, and northern bases.

  • Mandate transparent capability timelines with penalties for delays.

Outcome

A Defence Force that is ready, modern, and strategically aligned, not stuck in bureaucratic drift.

2. Criticism: Cuts to national‑security think‑tanks weakened independent analysis

Reducing funding for strategic research bodies undermines Australia’s ability to anticipate threats.

Policy Response

  • Restore and diversify funding for independent national‑security research.

  • Create a National Strategic Analysis Council to provide non‑political threat assessments.

  • Require annual public reporting on emerging risks.

Outcome

Australia regains independent, forward‑looking intelligence to guide national decisions.

 

3. Criticism: Capability delays and procurement failures

Major Defence projects have been late, over budget, or mismanaged.

Policy Response

  • Establish a Defence Capability Delivery Authority with commercial‑grade oversight.

  • Require fixed‑price contracts where possible to prevent blowouts.

  • Prioritise sovereign manufacturing for ships, missiles, drones, and munitions.

Outcome

Faster, cheaper, sovereign capability — and an end to decades of procurement waste.

 

4. Criticism: National security agencies overstretched and under‑resourced

AFP, ASIO, cyber agencies, and border security have faced rising workloads without matching resources.

Policy Response

  • Increase staffing and funding for AFP, ASIO, ASD, and Home Affairs intelligence units.

  • Expand cyber‑defence capabilities and national‑critical‑infrastructure protection.

  • Strengthen visa‑risk screening and foreign‑interference countermeasures.

Outcome

A security network that is properly staffed, technologically advanced, and able to respond quickly.

 

5. Criticism: Over‑centralisation and slow decision‑making in Canberra

PM&C and Defence bureaucracy have been criticised for bottlenecks and slow approvals.

Policy Response

  • Decentralise key Defence and Home Affairs functions to regional hubs.

  • Introduce statutory decision‑making deadlines for major security approvals.

  • Reform PM&C to reduce political bottlenecks and improve transparency.

Outcome

A national‑security system that is faster, more transparent, and less politicised.

 

6. Criticism: Weak alignment between migration settings and national security

Visa systems have been exploited, and enforcement has been inconsistent.

Policy Response

  • Strengthen visa cancellation powers for extremism, organised crime, and foreign interference.

  • Replace multi‑layered appeals with a single fast internal review.

  • Tighten student‑visa integrity and shut down fraudulent providers.

Outcome

A migration system that protects Australia’s safety and social cohesion.

 

🎯 The Big Picture

This framework turns national‑security criticisms into a coherent reform agenda built on:

  • Sovereign capability

  • Faster decision‑making

  • Independent strategic analysis

  • Stronger borders and intelligence

  • A modern, well‑funded Defence Force

  • A migration system aligned with national interests

It positions Australia for strength, stability, and long‑term resilience.

Defence funding hasn’t matched the strategic threat environment

Australia’s defence budget has grown on paper, but capability delivery has lagged behind regional threats.

Policy Response

  • Legislate a minimum Defence spending floor tied to strategic risk, not politics.

  • Fast‑track procurement for long‑range strike, naval power, cyber, and northern bases.

  • Mandate transparent capability timelines with penalties for delays.

Outcome

A Defence Force that is ready, modern, and strategically aligned, not stuck in bureaucratic drift.

 

2. Criticism: Cuts to national‑security think‑tanks weakened independent analysis

Reducing funding for strategic research bodies undermines Australia’s ability to anticipate threats.

Policy Response

  • Restore and diversify funding for independent national‑security research.

  • Create a National Strategic Analysis Council to provide non‑political threat assessments.

  • Require annual public reporting on emerging risks.

Outcome

Australia regains independent, forward‑looking intelligence to guide national decisions.

 

3. Criticism: Capability delays and procurement failures

Major Defence projects have been late, over budget, or mismanaged.

Policy Response

  • Establish a Defence Capability Delivery Authority with commercial‑grade oversight.

  • Require fixed‑price contracts where possible to prevent blowouts.

  • Prioritise sovereign manufacturing for ships, missiles, drones, and munitions.

Outcome

Faster, cheaper, sovereign capability — and an end to decades of procurement waste.

 

4. Criticism: National security agencies overstretched and under‑resourced

AFP, ASIO, cyber agencies, and border security have faced rising workloads without matching resources.

Policy Response

  • Increase staffing and funding for AFP, ASIO, ASD, and Home Affairs intelligence units.

  • Expand cyber‑defence capabilities and national‑critical‑infrastructure protection.

  • Strengthen visa‑risk screening and foreign‑interference countermeasures.

Outcome

A security network that is properly staffed, technologically advanced, and able to respond quickly.

5. Criticism: Over‑centralisation and slow decision‑making in Canberra

PM&C and Defence bureaucracy have been criticised for bottlenecks and slow approvals.

Policy Response

  • Decentralise key Defence and Home Affairs functions to regional hubs.

  • Introduce statutory decision‑making deadlines for major security approvals.

  • Reform PM&C to reduce political bottlenecks and improve transparency.

Outcome

A national‑security system that is faster, more transparent, and less politicised.

6. Criticism: Weak alignment between migration settings and national security

Visa systems have been exploited, and enforcement has been inconsistent.

Policy Response

  • Strengthen visa cancellation powers for extremism, organised crime, and foreign interference.

  • Replace multi‑layered appeals with a single fast internal review.

  • Tighten student‑visa integrity and shut down fraudulent providers.

Outcome

A migration system that protects Australia’s safety and social cohesion.

🎯 The Big Picture

This framework turns national‑security criticisms into a coherent reform agenda built on:

  • Sovereign capability

  • Faster decision‑making

  • Independent strategic analysis

  • Stronger borders and intelligence

  • A modern, well‑funded Defence Force

  • A migration system aligned with national interests

It positions Australia for strength, stability, and long‑term resilience.

Policies vs Policy Changes

National Security

Current: Fragmented funding, slow procurement, weak analysis, inconsistent visa enforcement, centralised bottlenecks. Change: Defence spending floor, new delivery authority, restored independent analysis, stronger visa powers, decentralised decision‑making.

Defence Capability

Current: Delays, cost blowouts, foreign dependence, capability gaps. Change: Fast‑track priority systems, sovereign manufacturing, fixed‑price contracts, northern defence build‑out.

Borders & Migration

Current: Slow appeals, student‑visa rorts, weak enforcement on high‑risk visa holders. Change: Single fast review, shut rogue providers, tougher cancellation powers.

Government Coordination

Current: Slow PM&C processes, low transparency, under‑resourced agencies. Change: Statutory deadlines, PM&C reform, boosted AFP/ASIO/ASD/cyber capability.