Govt’s defence policy statement ‘unbelievable’

Press, 12 October 1985, Page 16

Govt’s defence policy statement ‘unbelievable’

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Government’s admission that it would have been in office for two years before it had a defence policy was “unbelievable,” said the Opposition’s defence spokesman, Mr Doug Kidd (Marlborough). If the capabilities of the Armed Services continued to deteriorate at the present rate, the report of the planned panel of experts would be of academic interest only, Mr Kidd said.

The Minister of Defence Mr O’Flynn, had made it clear in the Defence estimates debate this week that he would not sign approvals for equipment purchases until the Defence Review was completed. This had been in response to Mr Kidd’s questions as to why medium guns had not been ordered when approval had been announced last year and why the recommendation for TOW antiarmour missiles had been returned to the Ministry of Defence unmarked.

The same debate had shown that there was no contract signed for improving the avionics and weapon systems of the Skyhawks. Nor would Mr O’Flynn agree to take action on the pay and conditions of service people necessary to halt the serious rate of losses. Two years would have gone by with nothing done to make up for the enormous losses resulting from the collapse of A.N.Z.U.S. In announcing the review, the Government had ignored the fact that by the time the report was due there would no longer be anyone in command positions in the United States Pacific Forces who would have had any experience in operating with New Zealand personnel and equipment, Mr Kidd said.

This meant that the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance would have reached the point where it was not only inoperative but incapable of being made operative if the need arose.

A matter for grave concern, Mr Kidd said, was the impact which the curtailment of Intelligence was having on the defence forces. The ability to give the Government adequate advice on security and threat issues was now substantially reduced. Defence advisers already were being avoided by their counterparts and had lost access to the top-level

people to whom New Zealanders had always had ready access. Even telephone calls were no longer being returned. Mr Kidd said maintenance schedules in the Navy dockyard and the Air Force were falling seriously behind through the loss of tradesmen and technicians. The capacity to keep equipment working was fast disappearing. For another year to have gone by before any effective action was taken to reverse these disastrous trends was scandalous. Consultation that was meaningful was commendable, he said. But the other “consultation festivals,” such as the Economic Summit, had created disillusionment and cynicism. Defence issues required specialist knowledge both in security and in strategic and technical matters. This raised an important question: would serving military personnel be permitted to make individual submissions to the panel? If they were not, said Mr Kidd, the panel would be cut off from the very people who had the knowledge and expertise to contribute.' While all this was happening, the Government would claim that it was acting om defence matters, whereas the truth was that it was only an illusion. Meanwhile, the capabilities of the Armed Forces would continue to haemorrhage away, in spite of the best efforts of those who remained committed to their Service, Mr Kidd said.