Estimates Debate — Vote Defence

At the commencement of this debate you made the observation, for the edification of the Committee, that votes would be debated in descending order, according to the rank of the Minister. It is rather telling—rather revealing, one could say—that Vote Defence is languishing way down the order, at No. 10. It is not even on the front bench. In a bygone era, not so very long ago in actual fact, only about 30 years ago—hardly a previous geological age, by any reckoning—defence was regarded as a matter of great importance. Ministers of Defence were regarded as senior Cabinet Ministers. This very serious and important portfolio was entrusted to a Minister of experience and standing—a Minister ranked no lower perhaps than fourth or fifth in the Government. But this is no longer the case. It is not a reflection on the importance of defence; it is a reflection on the fact that this Government appears unable to understand that importance.

That lack of understanding is illustrated clearly by the wholly inadequate level of funding allocated to defence by this administration. The Government trumpets the quite mythical $500 million that it claims is additional funding afforded to defence in the Budget. The reality, of course, is that it is $500 million over 4 years and it will go only part of the way to replacing the roughly equivalent amount that it has pruned out of defence over the past 2 years. It is sleight of hand—give with one hand and take with the other. Two percent—that is the level of expenditure that New Zealand First would like to see allocated to defence—2 percent of GDP. It is not a massive slice of the pie—2 percent to ensure our sovereignty, 2 percent to secure our borders, 2 percent to protect our exclusive economic zone and our fisheries resource, to contribute to the security of the region, and to support the efforts of our regional partners and allies. Two percent is the figure Australia is working towards, and Singapore has already long since exceeded it. But not New Zealand; no.

Under this Government, the defence expense is less than 1 percent, and from that paltry sum the Government claws back revenues in the form of GST, road-user charges, and a capital charge that relates to the cost of servicing expenditure on major projects and acquisitions, and then of course depreciation. The actual amount of funding the New Zealand Defence Force has to work with is even more miserable. The defence of the nation is the first responsibility of Government, and less than $1 in $100 is manifestly insufficient as a measure of the importance of this truth.

Then what the Government spends money on, what it does allow defence to actually procure and operate, fails to reflect the realities of the world we live in. There was never any such thing as the benign strategic environment. In the real world there are still wars and conflicts. In the real world nations are not always nice to one another, despite the existence of the United Nations. Diplomacy is a wonderful thing, but only a fool would presume that people and nations could rely on it alone. There are times when it is also necessary to wave the big stick.

As we debate, the Middle East is dissolving into chaos yet again. Iraq and Syria are embroiled in civil conflict. Russia and Ukraine are facing off. The South China Sea has several potential conflicts threatening to spark up at any moment. North Korea is testing new missiles. Japan is talking openly about arming herself with nuclear weapons.

In the midst of this mêlée New Zealand stands blissfully unconcerned. We have no force in the air force, notwithstanding that it is possible to drop a Mark 82 bomb on the beach at Kaipara, from an Orion, retrofitted with a bolt–on hardpoint. Hallelujah! The Orions can drop bombs. They cannot jink or dogfight or avoid air-to-air missiles, defend themselves from ship-launched anti-aircraft missiles, or even hunt submarines any more, like they were originally bought to do, but they can drop old 20th century free-fall iron bombs. We are safe—not! Are the air force Orions also going to be fitted with infrared search and track, or data links, or Paveway designators so they can drop smart bombs as well, I ask the Minister? Or are we relying once again, as has been the policy of this Government, and the one before it, I might add, on the hope that we will not ever have to use any of these things in anger.

I ask the Minister, but the reality is he probably does not know what any of those things are. Defence is a side interest for this Minister, at best. His real passions are finance and foreign affairs. Those things are admirable and necessary—granted. But it would be nice, at the very least, to have a Minister of Defence who cared enough about defence to argue in Cabinet for a credible-sized slice of the pie. On the subject of admirals, the navy is down to one frigate because the other one is tied up in Canada, having an extended refit. It will be out of service for more than a year, for the duration of which New Zealand will have one ship to patrol a maritime territory covering one-sixth of the Pacific Ocean.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: And they can’t crew the inshore patrol vessels.

Quite right, Mr Goff. There is one ship. The refits to Te Kaha and Te Mana will amount to around half the cost of replacing them. I ask why this maintenance is not being done in Whangarei. Why is this Government not trying to get more bang for our defence buck by growing the ability of domestic engineering to take on such tasks? We could be building patrol ships here. We could be, and we should be, investing in developing a shipbuilding industry here in New Zealand, anchored on the requirements of the military, and from there, being able to construct everything, from coastal freighters to fishing boats. Instead, we have a navy cobbled together from imported civilian-standard vessels, based on designs for ferries and coastguard boats, and the like. The two poor, tired, and old MEKO 200 German frigates are being flogged to death because they are two ships being required to do the work of four.

In the 1950s and 1960s New Zealand maintained an operational fleet of six frigates. It was a core capability, and for a nation of 2 million people, with no exclusive economic zone, it was entirely affordable. What has changed? What has changed about the reality of the world we live in, since those days, apart from the fact that it has become less stable and less safe? Our population has doubled, and we have a vastly larger chunk of ocean to look after. We could be forgiven for thinking that the navy’s tasking requirement now calls for something closer to eight frigates than two, but that reality does not appear to have worked its way through the collective skulls of this Government, which disregards the need for credible defence, relegates it to 10th on the Cabinet priority list, and bases its decisions on financial considerations that have nothing to do with defending the nation and everything to do with making bottom lines look good.

We have no combat aircraft, nowhere near enough of a blue-water navy, and an ever-shrinking army that is perilously close to not being able to properly support the SAS, let alone mount an operation on the scale of Timor, where we sustained a battalion on rotation for more than a year. The New Zealand Defence Force simply does not have a sharp end any more, and because of that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on Vote Defence, not Vote Defence Force. There are two separate votes here. The member is straying into Vote Defence Force. I just bring him back. This is about defence, not the defence force.

Because of that, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit and retain enough good people to maintain core capabilities. Simply throwing money in the wrong directions within the context of an ever-decreasing budget is not the way to approach defence. We need to address the very real issue of pay and conditions and acknowledge that our people are underpaid in relative terms.

But money alone will not fix this problem. At the heart of it there is a lack of understanding of what motivates people to join the military. They do not join for money. George Orwell said: “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” That is why they join. Good men and women join up because they are motivated by a desire to fight the good fight. They are motivated to fight the righteous fight, to protect the innocent, and to stand in defence of the nation. To do that they need a military that is the sharp end, that is resourced, and that is intended to operate as a credible force, but this Government just does not get that. That is why Vote Defence is so pitifully insufficient and meagre, and why defence expenditure is so woefully misdirected.

New Zealand First in a position of influence over Government will set this matter to rights. We will resource defence properly and we will give it back the focus and breadth of tools that it needs. This is a dreadful Appropriation Bill and the election cannot come soon enough. Thank you.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Defence Force