Big retirement rise in Services

Press, 13 March 1985, Page 1

Big retirement rise in Services

By PATRICIA HERBERT in Wellington

Parliament was told yesterday that the early retirement rate in New Zealand’s Armed Services had risen dramatically since December. The Opposition spokesman on defence, Mr Doug Kidd, raised the matter and implied it was linked to the A.N.Z.U.S. row and reflected a drop in morale. He said that in the last three months 15 naval officers and 20 Air Force officers had given notice that they would retire early. The first represented a fivefold increase on the corresponding period last year and the second, a two-fold increase. Not only that but the number of other ranks who had decided on early retirement were now “equal to half a frigate crew,” he said.

The Minister of Defence, Mr O’Flynn, conceded that there had been “a rather larger number” of early retirements and “a rather larger number” of notices of intention to retire early than before, but said that the whole thing had to be put in perspective. His advisers had told him the situation was “satisfactory.” There were only 328 “deficiencies” against a total Armed Services roll of more than 12,500 and the real difficulty was only in

certain trades and ranks where personnel were leaving to pursue career opportunities elsewhere. Mr O’Flynn also announced that New Zealand would mount “a big Army exercise” in Western Samoa this year, the first in what was to become an annual event. Both men were speaking to the 1984-85 Defence estimates. It was a debate the Opposition had been impatient for for some weeks and it went on the attack with enthusiasm.

Mr Kidd led the charge. He said that Mr O’Flynn — the “reluctant warrior” — had been muzzled by the Government because whenever he had opened his mouth, dribble had come out.

“This is the man who would confound any enemy by blowing up our tunnels and bridges after we are invaded,” he said.

He also pointed to an apparent inconsistency in Mr O’Flynn’s recent comments.

“A week ago, this confused man was trying to arrange to have New Zealand troops play hide-and-seek among thousands of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. “Today he says in this House that our forces will never be allowed to be in any situation where they are in contact with nuclear forces,” Mr Kidd said. Mr Kidd was referring to a statement Mr O’Flynn had made earlier in the session in answering a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, who had asked if the Government would permit the Navy to exercise outside New Zealand’s territorial zone with United States nuclear-powered or nuclearcapable ships.

Mr Kidd also asked Mr O’Flynn how many times he had met the Chiefs of Staff since taking office. Mr O’Flynn said it was their practice to come and see him once a week but that in the excitement of recent times, they had been “turning up two or three times a week.”

In relation to the urgent Armed Services review now under way, Mr Kidd asked how a defence policy could be developed in a month. Mr O’Flynn said Labour had promised a defence review in its election manifesto and that work had begun on it last year. He had decided to make it a matter of urgency because of the American response to

the warship ban and substantial progress had been made.

Mr Kidd asked if Mr O’Flynn knew that the artillery’s medium guns could not fire and, if so, why he had not yet obtained approval to replace them. The decision should have been taken before now, he said.

Mr O’Flynn replied with a stinging attack on the National Party’s performance in defence. He said it had been in power “a very long time” and had always talked a lot about defence while spending less and less on it. The fact was that in 195859, the defence vote represented 7.1 per cent of Government expenditure and that this had fallen steadily to 4.6 per cent in 1983-84. “In other words, three

defence reviews and no money put behind them,” he said.

- Mr O’Flynn confirmed that only three of the Army’s 16 medium-range artillery guns were now safe to fire, “to say nothing of the difficulty of getting parts and ammunition.” He said they were of preWorld War II design and had been bought secondhand in 1950. Plans were to replace them with 155 mm calibre artillery costing about $ll million. Mr Kidd asked if it was true that spare parts orders for the Air Force from United. States sources were meeting the response, “Regret unable to supply.” The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, interjected to deny the claim.'

Mr O’Flynn attempted to

embarrass the Opposition by quoting a newspaper report of 1983 which had Mr Kidd saying that New Zealand should be less reliant on A.N.Z.U.S.—that it had clung to the Americans’ coat-tails for years and that it should form an A.N.Z.A.C. force with Australia to diminish the dominance of the United States. He said that Mr Kidd had since been whipped into line by his party. Had he not been, he would support the Government’s policy of making New Zealand’s defence forces a little more self-reliant and a little less of “a lean-to to the Pentagon.” He quoted Mr Kidd in the same interview, proposing a nuclear-free South Pacific in which any visiting vessel woufc be completely and effectively disarmed while in territorial waters. That was the stand Labour had now adopted, Mr O’Flynn said, adding that Mr Kidd should be praised for his earlier opinions. He had been “a John the Baptist” screaming in the wilderness.

Mr Norman Jones (Nat., Invercargill) said no-one believed Mr O’Flynn, the socialist guru of the Government benches,” and that he made Captain Mainwaring of “Dad’s Army” look like a military genius. Referring to Mr Lange as “the toast of Moscow,” Mr Jones asked why, as he was banning allied

New Zealand ports, he did not complain to the Russians about the missiles they were bringing to the Pacific.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, accused Mr Jones of using smear tactics and “nasty innuendo.”

He said New Zealand had had a disagreement with the United States but that did not mean the Government supported the policies of the Soviet Union. It did not and it would not.

Mr Bolger asked if Mr O’Flynn thought the Russians posed any threat to this part of the world and, if he did, to explain how New Zealand could be defended without help from its treaty partners. His question may have been prompted in part by a letter members of Parliament have received from 141 United States Congressmen.

Mr Lange said the spirit of the letter was friendly but conceded that the main thrust of it was that the United States would face difficulty in protecting its allies if denied port access.

Mr Bolger also asked what amount of money Mr O’Flynn proposed to spend to fill the gap created in New Zealand’s defence by “the destruction of A.N.Z.U.S.” How much, on what, and when? Mr O’Flynn said Mr Bolger was six months ahead of himself and that he would have to wait until the review was completed and for the 1985-86 estimates.

Mr Doug Graham (Nat., Remuera) said he was disappointed by the quality of the replies Mr Palmer and Mr O’Flynn had given and charged, them with being “evasive on a serious issue.” He said the Government lived in “never-never land.” There had been a sizeable build-up of the Soviet fleet in the South Pacific — so much so that the Americans decided in 1983 that the nuclear balance in the region favoured Russia. “Those are the facts,” he said and asked Mr O’Flynn if he thought New Zealand would be safer standing alone or in an alliance. “We cannot look after ourselves with our four elderly ships,” he said.