N.Z. Spending On Defence Described As Inadequate

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28368, 29 August 1957, Page 10

N.Z. Spending On Defence Described As Inadequate

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 28.

New Zealand was not bearing its fair share of the Commonwealth or Allied defence burden, the president of the Air League of New Zealand (Sir Matthew Oram) said at the annual meeting of the league’s Dominion council today. He said that if New Zealand was to play its proper part as a sovereign and equal partner in international defence—and to fulfil the commitments —it had agreed to—then the Dominion must pursue the re-equipment and re-organisation of its x armed forces with vigour. "The Government White Paper on Defence has pointed out that the concepts of offence and defence have been radically changed by the introduction of thermonuclear weapons,” he said. “These weapons are extremely expensive and necessitate large diversions of national resources. The position is aggravated by the strategic need tb maintain existing types of conventional armaments alongside the new weapons. Conventional Weapons

“A small country like New Zealand cannot afford to buy and maintain atomic weapons. But it can and must make an effective contribution to allied defencethrough a fair and equitable contribution of conventional weapons. “New Zealand cannot be defended purely by local measures and it must rely on aligning itself with more powerful allies. “In common with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, New Zealand's political efforts are directed to-

wards the prevention of aggression and war. “Unfortunately, it is now clear that reliance on the United Nations Charter alone would not guarantee the security of the

free world—and it is also clear that it is necessary to provide arms in case of need.

“Consequently, New Zealand is now a partner in a number of international organisations of a political and defence nature — such as j’.E.A.T.O., A.N.Z.A.M., and A.N.Z.U.5.,” he said. Spending on Defence

Sir Matthew Oram said that a responsible approach in every sense was necessary for each nation in reaching the assessment of the size of its defence contribution. Factors such as each nation's stage of economic development, and the proportion of defence expenditure which must be met from overseas funds, had a major bearing on this assessment.

“There is no doubt that in such leading countries as the United States and the United Kingdom, a responsible, positive view is taken of defence needs and that this is expressed in the diversion of a substantial amount of these countries’ resources to defence,” he said.

“New Zealand occupies the lowest position. According to figures for 1955, £24,400,000 was spent by New Zealand on defence.

“Last year £26,200,000 was spent and .this year’s estimates provide for £24,800,000 plus an undisclosed sum for the Defence Fund, which, on the basis of past expenditure on the items to be paid for out of his fund, should be of the order of £2,700,000. This means a total of approximately £27,500,000 for defence this year. “In spite of this increase, it is pertinent to ask: are we bearing a fair share of the common burden?

“One common factor in defence is the realisation that a future war may come at very short notice and that there will be little or no time in which to mobilise reserves. The emphasis has therefore been placed on the ’forces in being.’ Deterrant Power

“The scene today is one where the deterrent power of retaliation must be made available in the right place, at the right time, and at the right intensity,” Sir Matthew Oram said. The Air League was of the opinion that if New Zealand was to pull its weight, it must pursue the defence problem with vigour.

“A United Nations publication on statistics of national income and expenditure, taken from the year books for the countries concerned, gives an indication of the relative defence loads carried in the year 1955-56,” said Sir Matthew Oram.

“This publication shows that New Zealand spent 12.5 per cent, of the Government’s expenditure on defence: the United Kingdom spent 32 ) per cent, of its annual expenditure: the United States spent 48 per cent.: Australia 23 per cent.: and Canada 31.8 per cent.

“In pounds, shillings, and pence this means that New Zealand in that year spent £N.Z.II 14s a head of population: the United Kingdom £NZ3O 8s; the United States £NZB7; Australia £NZI6 9s; and Canada £NZ43 4s.