Fishing might become defence problem

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33254, 18 June 1973, Page 14

Fishing might become defence problem

Because no direct threat towards New Zealand was evident now did not mean that a threat would not develop; nor would the threat necessarily be in military terms, Mr M. McKinley, a member of the Opposition advisory secretariat on foreign affairs, said in Christchurch at the week-end.

He was speaking at a seminar on New Zealand’s defence organised by the Christchurch branch of the Institute of International Affairs.

“There are up to 500 Japanese fishing boats off the coast of New Zealand and a Russian fishing fleet is also there all the time,” he said. New Zealand might soon have to pay much more attention to the conservation of its resources, especially if the conference on the law of the sea led to this country establishing much wider control over its continental shelf than was permitted by the present 12-mile limit on foreign fishing vessels. “To police these waters New Zealand has two minesweepers and about nine patrol boats. We can’t even patrol the 12-mile limit with these. We use boats capable of 17 knots down-hill with a following wind to chase

Japanese boats capable of 28 knots.

“And the Japanese radar picks up our radar long before our radar even finds their ships. They just clear out,” he said. NEW BOATS

Mr McKinley said the new patrol boats New Zealand had on order would also be inadequate, “even though they were ordered by the Opposition while it was the Government.” The new boats had no missile capability, they were not fast enough, and their main armament would probably be no more than a modified bofors gun. Mr McKinley also questioned whether New Zealand’s frigates were efficient anti-submarine vessels. "The concept of the Navy is changing; the only things that can fight submarines effectively are other submarines. They don’t have to be nuclear. Australia’s O class submarines are quieter than nuclear vessels,” he said. The O class were the best conventional submarines in the world; Australia had ordered six of them and they gave Australia the capacity to "go nuclear,” which meant New Zealand’s interests might not always be identical with Australia’s. The Opposition, after nearly two decades as the Government, was taking the opportunity to make a complete review of defence, he said. The National Party was trying to look at what defence policy would have to be in the 1980 s and beyond,, New Zealand was a maritime nation and naval matters were particularly important. ( RECONSIDERATION All Governments were having to reconsider the sort of issues for which they might have to ask their young people to go out and get killed. “It’s not just a matter of how do you justify going to war. Governments find, in the end, that they need policies that even make the possibility of being killed a little attractive,” said Mr McKinley. “By the 1980 s the whole of New Zealand’s environment in terms of defence and foreign policy might have changed. By then there might

be nothing we can do except use what I call ‘the Finnish argument.’ “According to this, instead of trying to defend .yourself or protect your resources you simply put up a sign at all your borders and ports—in as many languages as seems necessary — saying ‘Welcome’,” Mr McKinley said.