Frigate criticism ‘left out of report’

Press, 27 July 1989, Page 6

Frigate criticism ‘left out of report’

By

BRENDON BURNS

in Wellington

An early draft of the Quigley defence review containing a highly critical analysis of Anzac frigates was replaced by sloppy, pro-frigate cliches, Sydenham’s member of Parliament, Mr Jim Anderton, told Parliament yesterday.

Speaking under Parliamentary privilege, Mr Anderton said the review team head, Mr Derek Quigley, had through threats of legal action, effectively censored all coverage of the issue in the New Zealand media. Because 70 per cent of New Zealanders were opposed to buying frigates from Australia, it was important, he said, that people knew the review team did not see the ships were justified on economic or military grounds. Mr Quigley’s company, Strategos Consulting, Ltd, conducted the review for the Government. A director and review team member, Mr Rob Campbell, said last evening that Mr Quigley was overseas and could not be contacted. Litigation was under way against the news media for earlier coverage of changes to the report, he said. Strategos would make no response to Mr Anderton’s speech. Mr Quigley has said previously that the defence review team was not subject to pressure. He has also said that the contents of the draft report did not represent the final views or beliefs of the review team. Mr Anderton, the New Labour Party’s sole Parliamentary representative, said in the House that the Government had used the published Quigley review to justify purchase of the frigates. But the early draft, obtained under the Official Information Act and released a fortnight ago, contained strong reservations and

criticisms of the project. All such material was left out of the final report, said Mr Anderton. “Far from endorsing the frigates, the draft says that the new frigates cannot be justified on defence or economic grounds and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether this should outweigh the consideration of pleasing the Australians.” He quoted the draft as saying: “The question comes back to whether the increased capability offered by four frigates can justify the immense cost. It seems to us on straight economic grounds the answer is ‘No’.” Mr Anderton said the draft stated the real cost of an Anzac frigate as twice that , in real terms, of the serving frigate H.M.N.Z.S. Canterbury. He said, again quoting the draft: “The cost differential adds capability at the margin. This means that New Zealand cannot allow its desire to maintain the relationship with Australia to totally override economic considerations.” Speaking virtually without interruption in a general debate, Mr Anderton said the differences between the early draft and the published report were strikingly one-sided. “All sections questioning the necessity or affordability of the frigates were removed,” he said. Also excised were all sections offering support for alternatives to frigates, he said. Nearly all material questioning

the cost of a defence relationship with Australia was deleted. Several additions were made proposing “weak military justification” for frigates. “Over-all, a highly critical analysis of the need for frigates was replaced by sloppy, profrigate cliches and generalisations,” said Mr Anderton. The clear and logical analysis characterising the rest of the Quigley review was inexplicably dropped when it came to frigates. The result was uncritical endorsement of the vessels, he said. “This endorsement is not in terms of the frigates’ military suitability but instead is, in totality, in terms of keeping Australia happy,” he said. The Government would be unwise to ignore the earlier draft, even if the criticism of frigates was hidden from the public in the final version. “It is clear from analysis of the changes to the frigate material that they were made at the last minute and they were not very well thought out,” said Mr Anderton. Nearly all arguments finally advanced in favour of frigates, such as economic and job benefits and the signal sent to New Zealand’s community of friends, had been added. "Someone definitely has some explaining to do as to why these changes were made,” said Mr Anderton. Justifying the frigates on the ground of keeping Australia happy was hard to understand

when the review said defence decisions should be made according to strict defence objectives. At the time the Quigley review was published, there were accusations of radical changes having been made under pressure from the Government, he said. Mr Quigley denied these, said Mr Anderton, and threatened legal action against the media.

The draft showed the truth of the claim that massive and inexplicable changes were in fact made. It had been released two weeks ago but only Australian daily papers had published the draft. . New Zealand’s libel laws were such that an issue of huge public interest had been muzzled.

“Mr Quigley’s threats of legal action have effectively censored all coverage of this important issue in the New Zealand media,” he said.

“It is a very sad reflection, in my view, of the courage of this country’s editors that they have not been prepared to stand up to this kind of threat,” he said.

In concluding his speech Mr Anderton said that frigates attracted opposition from 70 per cent of New Zealanders. This made it important that the Cabinet, Government, Parliament and the public knew that the Quigley review team’s view that frigates could not be justified on economic or military grounds, was deleted from the final report, he said.