The defence dollar to be stretched to protect New Zealand's interests

BY WAYNE MAPP
Last updated 08:06 12/03/2010

Relevant offers

Comment

Editorial: Wellington's waterfront is a gem Sean Plunket: A holiday at Lyall Bay Editorial: Family reunions - who should pay? Trade talks vital, but benefits vague Sorry Britain, to have offended you with our drinking Regifting is not just ok, it's great Does David Shearer want to be Tony Blair? Editorial: Veto protects Syria's blood-stained leader It's the Halbergs: Let the debate begin Why are our children so badly behaved?

OPINION: Last year, the Government started work on the first major defence review in more than a decade. The main challenge is how best to defend New Zealand and our interests in the next 20 years.

We spend $2.1 billion a year on defence, so we need to make it count. The review must describe New Zealand's strategic interests, the right set of defence capabilities to meet them and how they are to be paid for. It will also have to reliably inform our defence partners how we view these matters.

A huge amount of work has been done over the past 11 months. The core concerns have been fully canvassed, gaps identified and problems found.

Looking at the strategic context, New Zealand's key defence responsibility is the South Pacific, out to Timor-Leste. Together with Australia, we have to be able to cover every reasonably foreseeable contingency, whether it be bringing stability to troubled countries, disaster relief, search and rescue or protecting our ocean resources.

Beyond our region we have choices. However, in the Asia- Pacific area, we should expect to be a reliable security partner. This is where our economic future lies. We need to contribute to the overall security of the region.

New Zealand has always taken an internationalist approach. That is why we are in Afghanistan. Terrorism with its roots in Afghanistan has killed New Zealanders. In partnership with 40 other countries, we are working to build a more stable Afghanistan so that it can be a responsible member of the international community, not a haven for terrorism.

All this means we need a deployable defence force that has the naval and air force capabilities to patrol and secure our region.

At present, there are some gaps in our capabilities. For example, we rely on sophisticated Orion aircraft to conduct the full range of maritime surveillance and search and rescue.

They are ideal aircraft for long range missions into the Pacific and beyond. However, they are more sophisticated than necessary for patrolling our own exclusive economic zone.

An option to cover this gap would be to have shorter-range, less advanced aircraft to cover the lower- level tasks. This would let us do more of these tasks for ourselves and help our South Pacific neighbours by basing these aircraft in the islands from time to time. The review will consider this option.

* * *

One immediate problem we face is that defence spending will be tight in the next five years. This is due to two factors. The first is the introduction of $2 billion of new or dramatically improved capabilities: new helicopters, new ships and upgraded Orion and Hercules aircraft.

Ad Feedback

All these generate additional depreciation and operating costs. This money has to be found.

The second is the impact of the recession on government spending, which means only small increases in defence spending over the next few years. The Government has been determined to get more value for money. In defence, this means shifting expenditure from the back office to the front line.

With 38 per cent of the $2.1b annual expenditure being spent on personnel, we need to ensure more of that money is spent on service people who are able to be deployed on operations, whether peacekeeping, disaster relief or conventional missions.

Operating costs will also need to be carefully scrutinised. This means looking beyond the vital immediate costs such as fuel, ammunition and maintenance. We can look for efficiencies in how we manage our bases and replace infrastructure such as hangars and housing. We can also look at functions such as human resources, logistics support and training to ensure that we get the best value for the three services.

In the next six months, the Government will conduct a Value for Money project to find savings of about $50 million a year. This will close the funding gap and ensure that defence is sustainable over time.

If we can meet the short-term financial challenge, the higher level of depreciation will go a long way to funding the replacement of the core capabilities in the Defence Force. It will also allow some new capabilities to bridge the gaps that the review has identified.

The review is a major task. It is too important to be rushed. The public in New Zealand and in many other countries will scrutinise our review to see whether it is responsible, robust and sustainable.

All of this work will be brought together in a White Paper this year. This will set our course for the next two decades.

Wayne Mapp is the Defence Minister.

5 comments
Post a comment
Matty   #5   01:18 pm Apr 15 2010

There are three NZ LAV's deployed in Afghanistan.

jimmy   #4   09:29 am Apr 14 2010

Concerned K1, we have far too many LAVs. A large number of them aren't even being used. They just sit in storage and cost moneey. Getting rid of some of them is a sound move on the part of the government. If we can trade a few for different variants, even better.

As for Ngamoko Nikora, 2/1 RNZIR has its LAVs and it is generally considered to have ruined the battalion. The reason they aren't in Afghan is not that the equipment Isn't up to the task, it's that the government doesn't want to send them there. That is a decision I think most New Zealanders would support.

Concerned K1   #3   09:46 pm Mar 16 2010

I find it worrisome the Defence white paper has now been delayed, as it will be September before we see the direction this Government is looking at, the tit bits of information trickling out talk about things like private partnerships with Defence concerning bases, hangers and such. Also reducing the number of the Army's new LAV-25 armoured personnel carriers! This looks like tinkering to me, this white paper is supposed to provide a blue print for Defence into the next two decades for New Zealand. Major equipment procurements and upgrades in the Navy and Air Force must be planned for if we are to have any credible Defence Forces into the future. It really is time to bite the bullet and secure our place in a globalized world.

Eddie   #2   06:44 am Mar 15 2010

THE ONLY THING OW FORCES CAN PROTECT IS THE MP'S THAT WHY WE GOT TANKS NOT PLANES OR SHIPS AS TP PROTECT MP'S YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE ON LAND THAT MEANS IT US THEY DONT TRUST I WONDER WHY WITH ALL THE STUPPED LAW'S THEY BRING IN

Ngamoko Nikora   #1   01:23 pm Mar 12 2010

Unfortunately in New Zealand there has always been this mentality that Defence is not that important both in the public mind and in the political arena. This was most recently illustrated in 2000 when the Labour government cancelled the F-16 deal for the RNZAF. Politicians like to ramp up Defence in speeches just as this article does but come time to pay the dollars committment suddenly evaporates. For example a number of years ago the P-3 Orions required a major overhaul that included replacing avionic equipment in order to bring them up to US Navy standard however this was going to cost $600 million dollars per aircraft. The government baulked and instead went for a cheaper overhaul costing $100 million per aircraft. Of course this did not include replacing the avionics suite on the P-3's. The Navy was also similarly treated when it came time to purchase a third ANZAC frigate Winston Peter's NZ First party said NO. So, a third frigate was not purchased. More recently this current Minister of Defence has indicated that the LAV-25 force maybe reduced in number. I recall that 105 LAV-25's were purchased in order to convert 2/1 Battalion, RNZIR to a mounted rifle battalion. This would make 2/1 Battalion ideally suited to be engaged in operations in Afghanistan. But, I don't think 2/1 are in Afghanistan with their LAV-25's. If they are I'd like to know where because I don't see them supporting US ground operations against the Taleban in Majhah.

I can re-call attending a Defence and Strategic Studies Conference at Otago University in the mid-'90's where Kim Beazley the Australian Defence Minister pleaded with his NZ counterparts to raise defence spending nearer to that of Australia's. But nothing happened. His plea fell on deaf ears. This upcoming Defence Review will be like many others in the past long on rhetoric and short on specifics. For example will the upcoming defence review see the re-establishment of the RNZAF's fighter wing?

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers
Opinion poll

Should bicycle helmets be mandatory?

Yes- They save lives and prevent injury

Yes- But only for children

No - It is a personal choice

I don’t care

Vote Result

Related story: (See story)

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content