Australia worries over N.Z. ‘bludging’

Press, 4 March 1989, Page 20

Australia worries over N.Z. ‘bludging’

Brendon Buras,

in Parliament, on the frigate deal

CAN New Zealand afford the ANZAC frigates? More importantly can it afford not to have them? The Quigley defence resources review addresses both questions. Its answer is that the money can be found and that logic and New Zealand’s credibility as a defence partner require the frigate deal to proceed. A blunt warning that trade may suffer without the ANZAC ship project is carried in the closing pages of the review. j “In our view the Australians attach so much significance to the trans-Tasman relationship that any down-grading of its importance on our part could jeopardise the very substantial •benefits that New Zealand has already gained and can build on from unrestricted access to Australian business opportunities.”

Claims that the review was altered to include such views have already been rehearsed and rejected. But there is no doubt that some concern is felt about the impact of New Zealand opting out of the frigate project. It is not only an issue on this side of the Tasman. A recent article in the “Asian Wall Street Journal” from an Australian author was headed: “New Zealand: A lousy neighbour.” Written by an Australian Labour Party member, Mr Michael Danby, it said resentment may be such if New Zealand reneges on the frigate deal that recriminations may occur. The frigates issue is seen by Australia, in the view of the' Quigley review, as the litmus test of New Zealand’s dependability as a defence partner. A complex web of issues is involved for both countries.

Any attempt to unravel this must start with the Lange Government’s anti-nuclear policy. Great annoyance was caused to the Hawke Government by the policy — and its popularity. There have long been pressures within Australia’s Labour Party for the country to close American bases and ban nuclear ship visits.

Mr Hawke only managed to find time to visit New Zealand after Mr Lange led his Government back into power in the 1987 election. The impetus for the visit was closer economic relations; the two countries are still poles apart on defence issues, although Australia has agreed to expand military links, such as through the ANZAC ship project. But the peace, movement in New Zealand sees Australian efforts in this area as an attempt to get New Zealand in a de facto way back into the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance. There is currency to the view that the Government has

been hoist with its own petard. The anti-nuclear policy assisted in the re-election of the Government. Strong links exist between the Labour Party and the peace movement. Indeed, the movement gained funding from the Government through the reparations paid by France for the Rainbow Warrior bombing. Now, however, the Government has a problem as it tries to deal with the realities of what was left after the A.N.Z.U.S. connection was severed. The 1987 Defence White Paper, reflecting the Government’s own view, outlined the need for more self-reliance and a greater role in the South Pacific, in concert with Australia. This requires more defence spending, which led to the Quigley review. The Government realised it would have financial and political problems if total defence spending had to be increased, so the money had to be found within the existing vote. The review tied in with the genaral restructuring of the State sector. But if the Government took a leap for New Zealand in leaving behind dependence on the United States and looking for self-reliance in defence, the Labour Party, if not the general public, has gone a step further. Strong feelings of sovereign pride were fanned by the antinuclear policy and its acclaim internationally. Now, there seems to be a mood that given geographic isolation, the lack of any foreseeable threat (confirmed by the Defence White Paper), and limited resources, New Zealand does not need the frigates. This has not been helped by intimations that Australia will punish New Zealand if the frigate deal does not go ahead. Mr Lange must rue the day he set down in a Cabinet minute the warnings from Mr Hawke and the Australian Defence Minister, Mr Kim Beazley, that the overall relationship may suffer without frigate purchase.

But consider the Australian view.

New Zealand embarked on a populist but what they saw as impractical policy; it then sought to expand its trans-Tasman defence links to help replace the

A.N.Z.U.S. defence umbrella; proposals emerged for a joint frigate project, with Australia saying it was prepared to pay more for its own vessels in giving New Zealand a price that cannot be bettered.

Mr Lange visited Canberra last August and was infused with enthusiasm about the project. One month later, the Labour Party conference in Dunedin attacked the deal. This reporter noted with amazement, as Mr Danby now recalls that not a single member of the Government stood up and defended the frigates. So far, only three members of the Government — Mr Lange, Mr Tizard and in an unexpected move, Mr Marshall — have publicly endorsed the project. The Quigley review has come out in favour, but Mr Tizard suggests, although he welcomes it, that the review team exceeded its brief in such advocacy. Australia can only feel pleased with the Quigley review’s recommendation, in whatever circumstances it arose.

It is worth noting that while the frigate programme causes controversy because of its $2 billion cost spread over 20 years, there is no criticism of an aircraft replacement programme, costing a similar amount over the same period. The focus on the frigates has. caused the view across the Tasman that there is an element of anti-Australianism developing in New Zealand.

This seems to centre on the view that the frigates project ,is an attempt to get New Zealand back under the nuclear umbrella of A.N.Z.U.S.

The Quigley review acknow-

ledges the difficulties involved in the trans-Tasman relationship. “New Zealand has always been wary about becoming too closely identified with Australia. Australia has always been puzzled by New Zealand’s continued determination to make its own way in the world.”

Co-operation has occurred where this has been perceived to be mutually beneficial, says the review, and this was the case in defence at present. But presumably history would show that where mutual benefits were not seen by both countries, then they agreed to differ. This is not the view of Australia if New Zealand does not buy frigates.

A veteran political commentator in Canberra, Mr Laurie Oakes, says New Zealanders seem to believe that they can get away with an isolationist policy if Australia’s defence forces are doing their job. He warned that this would produce bad blood.

“There are some fine ANZAC traditions; bludging on your mates is not one of them,” Mr Oakes said recently. The Quigley review notes the problems of grafting New Zealand’s defence needs on to those of Australia at a time when the Kiwi sense of nationhood has bloomed in the anti-nuclear environment. “In political terms, there may be a perception that a closer trans-Tasman relationship is contrary to New Zealand’s desire for a more self-reliant stance and that Australia has in reality become a substitute for America.” It concludes by saying logic required a wide New ZealandAustralia relationship and it was

impractical to exclude defence from that growing tide. The Quigley review has identified annual savings of $l6O million which would provide enough funds to pay for the frigates without Defence needing more resources. However, such a level of savings would only be available after six years of readjustment, during which time much smaller amounts would be freed up. There are doubts within Defence that this level of saving can be achieved. Already there are signals that there will be a fight to retain Air Force and Army bases in Auckland. The Minister of Finance, Mr Caygill, has indicated he wants some of the savings flowing from the Quigley review for the Government’s coffers. That is in spite of pledges to the military that all the funding from change would be available for investment in projects such as the frigates. But even accepting that the frigates will not cause an increase in Defence funding, the Government still has to steer the ships project through mine-in-fested waters. At present, there is a distinct reluctance for Government hands to show themselves on deck. Some argue they cannot do so when the price is still unknown. By June, when the cost of the frigates will be known, they will not be able to hide behind this smokescreen. Australia will at that time expect an answer to its ANZAC call. The response may chart New Zealand’s trans-Tas-man relationship for years ahead.