NZ’s defence ‘farce’

Budget cuts, staffing problems and obsolete equipment plague the armed forces

One job New Zealand’s new gov ernment is going to have to face this year is to take a serious look at the state of the country’s defence force.

It may not like what it finds.

It could, in fact, discover what one newspaper editorial has suggested - the defence force has become a defence farce.

There is certainly plenty of evidence to suggest the commitment to maintain a “credible minimum force” spelled out in the 1991 defence policy paper has been seriously compromised.

Look at some facts: the defence budget has been cut by 37 per cent since 1989;; the force has lost 15 per cent of its total number over the last year or so; and the 9552 staff remaining in mid-1996 was at the lowest level since World War 11.

The army, air force and navy are all operating at about 20 per cent below strength.

The army’s two vital regular force rifle battalions have only 70 per cent of their normal complement.

The air force revealed in October that it was close to a crisis situation, having lost 908 highly qualified technicians dur ing the previous two years and being 70 pilots short.

Of greatest concern to the Pacific was news about New Zealand’s Orion mar itime patrol aircraft which have a search and rescue responsibility for 12.3 per cent of the earth’s surface - from Antarctica to north of the Equator. The RNZAE has six Orions but only enough crew for four of them.

It’s not just a staffing problem. The force’s credibility is additionally strained by obsolescent equipment, as even the prime minister is aware.

Every time he travels overseas in an RNZAE VIP Boeing-727, it seems to break down.

The air force’s Hercules transport planes and Iroquois helicopters are con siderably older than most of the people who fly them and would be military museum pieces in most other countries.

When the army was sent to Bosnia as part of a United Nations peace-keeping force, it took the same armoured person nel carriers it had in Vietnam in the late 19605, their protection and firepower woefully inadequate 30 years later.

The previous government deferred a decision on their replacement as well as on new Navy helicopters to replace the obsolete Wasps. The biggest issue for the

new government this year is going to be whether to buy two more Anzac frigates to join the two already being built in Australia and ensure continuation of a

four-frigate Navy.

The decision, which must be made by November, will inevitably spark a bitter controversy (as did the purchase of the first two) and focus renewed attention on the trans-Tasman defence relationship.

The Australians will see failure to buy the extra ships as New Zealand reneging on repeated pledges to maintain the afore mentioned “credible minimum force” and there are many in this country who believe a two-frigate Navy would be

meaningless.

On the other hand, many say New Zealand does not need any more expen sive ships, a view shared by three of the

four biggest political parties in parliament

and some MPs of the fourth, the National Party. Others warn that New Zealand should maintain an independent stance in the post-Cold War environment and stay out of Australia’s military expansionism.

They see Australian moves to lift military preparedness in conjunction with the United States as being aimed at a non existent threat from China and say New

Wellington

David

Barber

Zealand has nothing to gain from being associated with them.

Canberra is bound to put pressure on New Zealand if the government decides against buying more ships, though that will almost certainly be counter-produc tive in the new political environment.

But as Richard Prebble, leader of the ACT Party, said last year, decisions like frigate purchase cannot continue to be made in isolation of New Zealand’s wider defence and foreign policy.

The only party leader to make a speech on the issue during the election campaign, he warned that New Zealand did not have a credible defence policy.

“Either we believe we do not need a defence force-then the expenditure of SNZI billion (SUSO.69 billion) a year is a waste,” he said, “or we do think it’s possible we may need to call on defence forces - in which case they need to be

strengthened.”

With this statement, Prebble has put his finger on the real question for 1997.

The answer surely is that New Zealand does need a military force even if its role is to be limited to civil defence. South Pacific resource protec tion, disaster relief and UN peacekeeping

operations.

And all the evidence late last year pointed to a force that was singularly ill equipped for even these basic roles.

Updating equipment is one thing -

and the National Party government insisted it had spent SNZ92 million (SUS 64 million) in the last six months

doing just that.

But the best equipment in the world is worthless if the military do not have the skilled people to operate it and the trend from uniform to better paid jobs in Civvy Street has seemed inexorable.

National’s defence minister, Paul East, said the military always had prob lems retaining stalf when the economy was buoyant.

But if his government had laid a foun dation for sustainable economic growth, as it claimed, this begged the question.

If New Zealand wants a well equipped military force for whatever reason - it will have to pay for it and the politicians will have to persuade voters that it’s necessary. ■