Maybe some in defence breathed a small sigh of relief that cuts in defence public service numbers weren't as bad as hinted in pre-budget speculation but they were still pretty bad, in line with a long-term coalition view that defence contains too much tail for the number of teeth.
But we've seen much of this before.
When the Howard government was elected in 1996, it arrived with a mandate to reduce back office numbers and succeeded - for a while. Your correspondent is indebted to the ASPI 2013-14 defence budget brief for a very useful table showing historical workforce levels of uniformed and civilian personnel through this period.
From a peak around 24,000 public servants in 1990-91, numbers shrank to 20,000 in 1996, courtesy of Labor reforms such as the move to commercial testing of defence functions. However, the most notable fall of this period was in uniformed personnel who dwindled from just under 70,000 to 50,000 in 2000-01, by which time just about everyone realised that was way too few to meet the likely demands ahead.
Under the Howard government, civilian numbers reached their low point, less than 18,000, in 2000-01. They stayed there for the next few years then, curiously, took off again, increasing strongly from 2007-08 to exceed 20,000, where they have pretty much stayed ever since. According to the 2012-13 defence annual report, there were 21,500 public servants and 56,600 uniformed personnel. The Defence Materiel Organisation employs 5,389 public servants.
From that one can reach some very tentative conclusions. When times are tough and when coalition governments hit office intent on reform, defence civilian numbers fall. When the money is flowing and when Defence is busy with operations, numbers increase again.
Coalition plan Like the Howard government, the Abbott government arrived in office with a plan which involved reducing public service numbers across the entire organisation, not just in Defence. Coalition ambitions for Defence civilians were hardly a secret - their policy promises a first-principles review of the Defence Department and all its major processes.
"Over the last 40 years numerous second order or partial reviews of the Department of Defence, undertaken every few years, have consistently failed to improve accountability, rein in burgeoning bureaucracy or eliminate wasteful expenditure," it says.
The National Commission of Audit, released just before the budget, agreed. It said regardless of extra funds for defence, any growth guarantee had to come with an obligation to ensure it was spent efficiently. It noted Defence's mixed record in improving efficiency.
"A simpler and leaner structure is a priority," it said. It suggested defence should monitor and publish information on numbers in the combat force, headquarters and support roles, highlighting the teeth to tail ratio.
In fact, the Defence annual report provides very detailed information on personnel numbers, though not quite in those terms.
Headquarters personnel The Commission of Audit also recommended staffing in Defence HQ should return to 1998 levels.
So what was the situation in 1998? The Defence annual report for 1997-98 says there were 1239 personnel in Defence headquarters, of whom 241 were civilians 863 uniformed and 135 reserves. That's in a permanent force of 55,574, with 27,027 reserves and 17,664 civilians. Public service Senior Executive Service (SES) numbers stood at 94.
In line with changed reporting arrangements, defence no longer does a breakdown for Defence headquarters, although there were now 174 SES across defence, presumably most in HQ. Defence does produce a breakdown of those with star rank (brigadier or higher), with a total of 186. That included 26 new one-stars, against a net loss of 21 across all the star ranks. There were 169 SES, a decline of six.
Indisputably, civilian and senior rank numbers have increased.
Some of that increase is explicable as defence is now doing stuff it wasn't doing before.
Old soldiers bristle at the number of lawyers in the defence organisation on grounds that they sure didn't need any legal guidance when fighting the Japs in New Guinea. This is now a very different and more complex world. Much the same can be said about a whole range of specialist functions, although it's hard to argue this hasn't gone too far in some areas.
The National Commission of Audit specifically notes the growth in three-star officers (lieutenant general and equivalent) from four to seven since 1996, for which the coalition can share the credit.
The government's trademark Operation Sovereign Borders is commanded by Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, specially promoted for this job. Chief of Joint Operations is a new three-star position created in 2007.
Numbers in uniform Budget papers show the government aspires to get more into uniform and the target is 59,500 after four years. To that end it's reintroduced John Howard's gap year program which did quite well at encouraging school leavers to try defence for a year. Many stayed on. If the economy slows, there should be no problem filling the ranks.
Against this is another factor which could push up separations - after a long period of operations, some servicemen will feel they've achieved all they can and it's time to try something different.
The budget papers cite targets for reduction of civilian numbers. That's following a well-trodden path of natural attrition and tightening of recruitment practices rather than expensive retrenchments. That means not replacing those who quit and slowing down or halting hiring of new staff. This isn't just the coalition's doing. Under Labor, defence public service numbers dropped 700 to 19,700 in 2013-14, according to the budget papers.
The coalition plans to take this much further. It's aiming for 18,105 in 2017-18 and maybe a whole lot less, depending on the outcome of its first principles review. Various commentators have pointed out that those potentially hitting the road aren't just superfluous HR, admin and IT staff. It could also include scientists, intelligence analysts and linguists and others with desired skills.
On the plus side, defence gets to keep the savings.
But when the money starts flowing, which it soon will as the government begins pumping cash into defence to take funding to two per cent of GDP, the temptations seems to be to hire more staff to share the hard work around.
