COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL DEFENCE STILL MARGINAL IN A WORLD OF CRISIS

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32970, 17 July 1972, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL DEFENCE STILL MARGINAL IN A WORLD OF CRISIS

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, July 16.—Suggestions that a new and happier era had arrived for the Ministry of Defence, following the restrictions and “mothballings” of last year, have not been borne out either in this year’s Estimates or in the annual report of the Ministry, released last week. It seems that despite the easing of pressure brought about by our Vietnam withdrawal. New Zealand’s defence situation is not much better than it was last October.

The bitter comments made then by the retiring Chief of Defence Staff (Sir Leonard Thornton) still apply. He said then that the money was no longer available to allow young leaders and specialists to train overseas with their opposite numbers in friendly nations. He added: “Our efficiency will diminish as our expertise drops. We are at the bitter end of the line in viability.” Since then there has been some relaxation, with hints that there would be more. These were scouted, however, when the Defence Estimates appeared at Budget-time. They disclosed that despite last year’s crippling cuts, the expenditure of $121,168,803 for that year was $5,578,000 above the amount voted. The Defence Estimate for 1972-73 is $128,175,000. This is a healthy gain on last year’s $115,590,000, but is not so reassuring when we remember that the amount actually spent on Defence last year was $121,168,803. By comparison, Australia last year spent $1,252,400,000, or 14.2 per cent of the total central government expenditure, on Defence.

Australians jeer Against this background, any suggestion of integration, or even of closer co-opera-tion, with Australian forces is divorced from reality. The Australian serviceman, who was outspoken concerning New Zealand’s minimal contribution in Vietnam, today jeers at our understrength participation in the Singa-pore-based A.N.Z.U.K. force. The main problem in this country is that there seems to be no special allowance for Defence when spending restrictions are applied by Cabinet. When a 10 per cent “across the board” economy drive is ordered, Defence suffers most heavily. The reason is obvious. Of this year’s Defence Estimate, considerably more than half ($77,001,000) consists of wages and allowances. This means that any cut must fall upon the remaining $51,174,000, which is needed for supply and maintenance and the purchase of new weapons and equipment. There is also the fiard fact that no “bargain basement” of “good as new” secondhand equipment exists today. The costs of new weapons is rising sharply. The Royal New Zealand Navy’s requirement provides a useful measurement of this. The Navy needs mining counter-measure vessels, a new survey ship, and a new frigate — approximately in that order. The recentlyretired Chief of Naval Staff (Rear-Admiral L. G. Carr) put the cost of a new frigate at $46,000,000, compared with $10,000,000 paid for H.M.N.Z.S. Otago in the 1950’s and $23,000,000 paid for H.M.N.Z.S. Canterbury.

International costs

Purchases on the international market must be made without regard to New Zealand’s financial strictures. The ship we order may well be a “second best” —smaller, slower, less sophisticated and less costly than the newlyplanned vessels now being built in British and United States shipyards. In a “make-do” role, the Cook Islands trader Moana Rua, which completed her survey in Auckland this week-end, is now being tested with a view to con-

verting her as a replacement] for the survey-ship Lachlan. The capability of her engines, and her handling ability in restricted waters, will be tested thoroughly—but the suggestion is that if at all suitable she will be pressed into naval service. The reason is obvious. The cost of a new Hecla-type ship (designed out of Royal Navy experience of surveyship’ requirements) is $10,500,000. Moana Rua, roughly the same size as a Hecla, with cabin accommodation for extra personnel and provision for extra oilstorage, might be converted for less than $2,000,000. Minister v. the rest New Zealand servicemen find it easy to blame whoever is Minister of Defence for deficiencies in the services. This is less than fair, for a single junior Minister cannot do much against the combined weight of his Cabinet colleagues. The present Minister of Defence (Mr McCready) prefaced the annual report of the Ministry of Defence, tabled in Parliament last week, with a factual summary of things as they were last financial year. He pointed out that despite restrictions Defence expenditure in 1971-72 rose by $12,000,000 —but that the wage bill rose by $13,500,000. Detailing the priorities—combat operations, operational capacity, the A.N.Z.U.K. Force—Mr McCready commented: “Visits and discussions made clear the serious consequences which will flow should restraints on Defence spending continue indefinitely and allow inflationary trends to whittle away the money available in real terms to keep operations going. These restraints have been irksome and frustrating—although I have found the morale of the forces by no means as low as depicted in some quarters.” This is straight talking by a new and junior Minister. It also highlights the fact that the Minister of Defence has

a very limited say in Defence policy and spending. Insofar as Defence policy is concerned, the services are part of the Prime Minister's Department. The Minister of Foreign Affairs (now this post is separate from that of the Prime Minister) has a role in determining the extent and location of overseas commitments. The Minister of Finance has overall direction of funds spent. Australian pressure? Recent discussions in Australia. in which most of the senior men connected with Defence have taken part, may result in New Zealand being forced to accept a more positive role in the defensive coverage of the area bounded by South-East Asia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific. This could end talk of curtailment, and could require the purchase of weapons in the first-line category. Australia is concerned about the increasing presence of Soviet Navy units in the Indian Ocean. There is a strong possibility that, after the massive incursion of Soviet fishing fleets into the Southern Pacific over «be past two years, the next fleet will be accompanied by Soviet naval units in a police role.

Australians are talking of a nuclear deterrent, lor which, in the Phantom and F-11l attack aircraft, they have suitable delivery vehicles. It could be that Australia, having her own raw materials, plus test ranges at Woomera and off the Western coast, could be next in the nuclear race—and that she could require New Zealand support in the production of a nuclear deterrent. In a world in which these possibilities exist, it is manifestly unwise to continue to treat the Ministry of Defence like “any other Department” —and to place petty restrictions on such things as the issue of toilet paper ind the painting and maintenance of Defence buildings and real estate.