The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1969. One Team To Manage Defence

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32073, 22 August 1969, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1969. One Team To Manage Defence

The administrative changes that have been approved for the Ministry of Defence might seem to make little difference to the working of the three armed services. For reasons that have been apparent since the Defence Act was passed in 1964, New Zealand cannot have a single service combining the functions of the army, navy, and air force. The most conspicuous reason, mentioned by the Minister of Defence, Mr Thomson, in his statement yesterday, is that New Zealand forces must be able to “ dovetail “ rapidly into the forces of our allies In operational matters—and these include all the functions of the services outside New Zealand —the three sendees will each retain their identity and will be controlled by their own service chiefs and headquarters staffs. In all other aspects the management of the services will be unified under the control of the Defence Council, its chiefs of staff sub-committee, and one central defence staff headquarters.

The latest report of the Ministry of Defence to Parliament gave a clue to the nature of this move towards the integration of policy-making, planning, supply, finance, recruitment and management of personnel, defence aid, and the ancillary activities of the services: for the first time the Ministry divided its report, not by services but by defence activities. This new outlook on defence functions is now to be carried into the actual management of the services. The change may not have been devised to minimise inter-service competition for men, equipment, and participation in policv-making; but this will be one of its effects. The Army Board, the Naval Board, and the Air Board lost their former, traditional, prominence in the Ministry’s report Now these three authorities, and the inter-service committees which attempted to co-ordinate the working of the three services, are about to disappear. All their functions will be merged in the duties of the central staff, which will be drawn from the headquarters of the three services but will be concerned with defence planning as a whole.

Mr Thomson has justified this change by saying that the Ministry needs “ a more flexible and a more “ responsive administrative machine ” and that New Zealand must plan its military activities “ in a fully “ objective way ”. To achieve these aims the Ministry has made a clear distinction between the making of policy and the administration of the whole defence machine on the one hand and the execution of policy by its specialised parts on the other. The arrangement is simple in principle; it should be efficient in practice once the necessary adjustments have been made. It promises no immediate economies in manpower or money; and its effectiveness must depend very largely on the accommodation of the headquarters staff in one building. Nevertheless, the logic of the change can hardly be denied; and it probably exhausts the possibilities of integrated management of the services envisaged in the passing of the Defence Act five years ago.