The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1965. Defence Equipment

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30677, 17 February 1965, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1965. Defence Equipment

The arrangements announced in Washington this week for Australia to buy military gear costing 300 million dollars from the United States are of significance to New Zealand. Possessing no great armament or aircraft industries, Australia and New Zealand must buy from others. The traditional source is Britain; but in recent years Australia has increasingly turned elsewhere—to France for fighter aircraft, but chiefly to the United States, which, with infinitely greater resources than any other country in the western world, is the best market for a wide variety of modern equipment. The suitability of equipment and delivery dates are not the only factors influencing Australia. The Pacific route must be accounted more secure than the Indian ocean, for delivery.

New Zealand is subject to the same pressures that have forced Australia to enlarge greatly its defence forces; and it has similar commitments under the S.E.A.T.O. and A.N.Z.U.S. regional defence treaties. In fulfilling their commitments, Australian and New Zealand forces will operate together. What is more logical, therefore, than that they should use the same equipment? Indeed, logic would go further in making the first positive step towards AustralianNew Zealand union military co-ordination, with sensible savings in cost to both countries in bases and establishments. But while Australia and New Zealand continue to maintain individual defence forces, the argument for close co-operation is unanswerable.

For New Zealand to consider buying from the United States would mean some radical changes in Government thinking. Any idea that equipment and services for a modem defence force are obtainable cheaply—if not as gifts—must be abandoned. The report of the Chief of the General Staff for the year ended March, 1963, estimated that at the rate of purchase since 1958 equipment for a brigade group would not be complete before 1967 at the earliest. Trouble in Malaysia does not appear to have accelerated progress, because our Wellington correspondent reported last month that, unless there was a radical change in defence policy, a fully-trained unit of any size could not be put into a danger spot overseas until 1967-68. Incidentally, what has happened to the review of service pay and conditions announced six months ago to encourage recruiting for replacements urgently needed in Malaya? The Australian action in turning to the United States for a vigorous re-equipment programme must surely stimulate thought about New Zealand’s needs —including warships and aircraft—which must have become more urgent in the light of the additional commitments undertaken by the Government. There is as yet no assurance that the armed forces will have adequate supplies of modern equipment and supporting services.