Defence review team differ in views

Press, 18 February 1989, Page 1

Defence review team differ in views

Political reporter It is neither surprising nor sinister that changes in emphasis occurred in the Quigley Defence report, according to Strategos Consulting, Ltd. The company, whose directors are Mr Derek Quigley, Mr Alf Kirk, Mr Rob Campbell and Ms Sue McAffer, carried jnit the review. In a statement it said claims that the report was rewritten after Government pressure to endorse the Anzac frigate project are completely incorrect. The anonymous tipster who made the claims had apparently based this on an analysis ~of~ different extracts of the review, said Strategos. But it said the review of Defence resources management was an extensive and very detailed document. -•- The review went through several stages of drafting as different views and facts were incorporated, analysed and refined. “It would therefore be neither suprisihg nor sinister -'to find modification and changes in emphasis over time,” said the Strategos directors. The company’s directors are known to have markedly different social and political views. Mr Quigley is a former National Cabinet Minister; Mr Kirk is a former trade union economist who has also worked for Mr Lange; Mr Campbell is from a trade union background and was on the Labour Party Council until his resignation from the executive last week-end; and Ms McAffer is a former Parliamentary press secretary to Mr Quigley and has a background in marketing and advertising. Mr Kirk has said he has personal misgivings about the frigate project but that he put these aside in working on the review. The statement said the strength of Strategos was it was capable of distilling differing viewpoints and developing a professional analysis. The review of Defence had reflected the assumption that defence policy had been defined by the 1987 White Paper. This had outlined the need to replace the existing frigates with new vessels able to play a greater role in the South Pacific. Other assumptions used for the review were' that there be efficient and effective allocation of resources to attain Defence policy objectives and that the Government had already set the economic resources available for Defence.