THE PRESS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1986. The defence inquiry

Press, 25 February 1986, Page 18

THE PRESS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1986. The defence inquiry

The Defence Inquiry Committee was devised to enable public consultation on defence and security issues. The fact that 500 people have taken the trouble to prepare written submissions for the committee is an indication of significant interest. The chairman of the committee, Mr Frank Corner, has already disclosed some of the main drifts of the attitudes expressed in the submissions. He has commented on the intense anti-nuclear feeling, on the strong support for the idea of New Zealand’s standing alone in the South Pacific, and on proposals for the defence of New Zealand ranging from passive resistance to guerrilla warfare.

Establishing the inquiry was part of a process before the Government publishes another Defence Review. The inquiry committee is not a policy-making body, but is intended to allow for a public input to defence policy. The input is not confined to the submissions because the committee, under its terms of reference, is able to commission polling on public attitudes to defence and security. Even this polling process will not produce a policy on defence.

Mr Comer observed that there was not a single submission from an individual Maori or Pacific Islander and that the committee planned to conduct an opinion poll which would cover the views of minority groups. The committee plans to conduct public hearings in a number of centres. The idea of consulting the public on defence issues may seem to sit well with general democratic principles and with the idea of open government. It needs to be observed, nevertheless, that the views expressed in writing to the committee are not the only views on defence and security issues which have been committed to paper. Scholarly treatments of the issues have been made in books, in articles, and at various conferences. There is also the collective wisdom of various Government departments which are charged with conducting aspects of New Zealand’s foreign relations. Many New Zealanders also have considerable experience in dealing with foreign Governments.

The problem for the Defence Inquiry Committee will be to know how to deal with what lies in academic and other studies of particular questions. Some of those who are professionally engaged in security and defence issues may have made submissions to the committee. Some may not. The chances are that many would regard the committee’s brief and function with the greatest circumspection, even suspicion. Yet, if the committee wants to reach any valid conclusions on what New Zealanders think about defence and security it cannot ignore the views and knowledge of those who have made special studies of questions, and have had their work, through publication, or presentation at conferences, subjected to rigorous examination by others professionally concerned. These people may have made important contributions to New Zealand thinking about security and defence issues, or relations with other countries through security matters, regardless of whether they have made submissions to the Defence Inquiry Committee.

At present, the committee looks rather like a device to enable enthusiasts to air their thoughts, giving the Government some breathing space while it gathers its own policy ideas together. It may even give strength, through popular opinion, to the Government’s policy on nuclear ship visits. The trouble is that this is not a defence policy: it is a no-defence policy because of its international consequences.

The sixth paragraph of the Government paper, “The Defence Question; a discussion paper” allows the committee to canvass for other thoughts. The paper says, in part, “... the committee may also decide to invite knowledgeable individuals and groups to make additional submissions on particular topics.” This raises the question of where the committee wants to get: to acquire a knowledge of popular opinion or to produce a report based on wider and more detailed knowledge of international affairs and defence. If it takes the second course, the committee might embarrass the Government with propositions that do not accord with Government policy so far.

Some of those who have made the submissions may have had considerable experience in dealing with foreign Governments, and some may not. It would be a silly situation if a committee presented a report based largely on the views of those who have not dealt with foreign relations. One of the reactions in New Zealand after the United States responded vigorously and predictably towards New Zealand after the implementation of the nuclear ships policy was a feeling that it is better not to be involved with the United States. Taken to its extremes, such an attitude could lead to isolationism.

Many New Zealanders began to get some first-hand experience of dealing with a major foreign Power; but other New Zealanders, including Mr Comer himself, who represented New Zealand in Washington, already understood that point. The answer to the question of defence does not lie in New Zealanders turning in on themselves. The special case of Government departments is more difficult. The departments give advice to the Government of the day; the practice is that departments are not meant to be seen as having opinions different from the Government. Individual people in the armed forces have been precluded from making submissions to the committee. Individual Foreign Affairs officers may make submissions, but many would be reluctant to do so.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will not make a departmental submission. Yet the Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs embrace people who have had most experience in dealing with foreign Governments. No worth-while assessment of defence would be complete without the views of officers in these Ministries. Members of the committee have already had briefings from Foreign Affairs and Defence staff to help them assess the practicability of certain suggestions. Assessing the practicability is one of the matters with which the committee is charged. At least the committee can be expected to set aside the dottiest of any silly proposals put before it. This, however, is still not the way to contrive a defence policy.