Speech: Power - Defence Address to National Party Central Regional Conference

National Party Central Regional Conference Saturday 1 May 2004

Defence Address

Simon Power, MP for Rangitikei

The Prime Minister of New Zealand, during a debate about the cancellation of the F16 contract in March 2000, said, "we are very lucky to live in an exceptionally benign strategic environment".

In November 2001 following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre she confirmed her belief, in answer to questions in the House, that her statement was correct.

On 15 October 2002 directly following the terrorist attack in Bali, the Prime Minister again stood by her statement saying in the House "That statement was made in relation to direct threats from any other country and still applies in that sense".

Let's not split hairs Prime Minister. New Zealand and its citizens are not in any way, shape or form, safe from threat in our 'strategic environment'.

New Zealander's are prolific travellers, half a million of us live overseas. Over two thirds of those live in Australia. Australians were a direct target in Bali.

Australia is our closest neighbour and ally. If they are not living in a 'benign strategic environment' how can New Zealand?

It doesn't really matter in which capacity New Zealand troops are deployed around the world. They are in areas which are not considered 'a benign strategic environment'. Our 61 troops in Basra are in a war zone regardless of what it is they are doing there.

Let's get real. There is a war on terror and it is global. New Zealand does not exist in a 'benign strategic environment'. Our isolation does not protect us. It actually means more vigilance is required.

This concept of the Labour government has coloured its defence strategy and its acquisitions project.

The Government is spending some money in defence. They needed to upgrade equipment that had been allowed to run down. But what is driving their security policy?

The Labour Party has never hidden the fact they see the New Zealand Defence Force as a vehicle for peace keeping; search and rescue; maritime law enforcement; civil defence and as an agent in foreign relations.

It is a muddled policy not properly thought out in this new age of tactical and technological warfare. Spending must fit into a coherent strategic plan that recognises current geo-political realities.

The role of any government is first and foremost to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Nobody here, I am sure was happy to see the skyhawks go - though they haven't gone far at this stage, costing taxpayers $6 million to date to store and maintain them at Woodbourne with no buyer in sight - New Zealand's current Defence capabilities are woeful. It's personnel outstanding.

We are a country of proud memories of wars fought and won; we have a strong RSA and a history of doing our duty with our allies against tyranny and oppression.

In 2004 we do not live in a bubble of safety as the current Prime Minister would have us believe.

In 2005, National will begin rebuilding the nation's credibility, reliability and defence capability because we don't believe this government's claim, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that New Zealand doesn't need such a capability

The National Party has always been international in its outlook. Without reservation we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.

New Zealand has been an ally of these nations throughout the twentieth century. We recommit to doing so in the 21st, and in the face of the uncertain threats of the future, because alliances count most when the hard choices and decisions have to be made.

The strategies that New Zealand pursues in its defence and foreign policy must be bilateral, regional and increasingly global in order to advance our national interests and to protect our freedoms.

National is in a good position to reverse the 'benign' emphasis that has been put on the defence force. But it must be done right. This is a controversial issue. It can be politically difficult and it's expensive.

First and foremost therefore, we need to get our core principles right, before we even start talking about hardware. Policy and first principles must come first.

Purpose

The New Zealand Defence Force must adhere to two core pillars, reliability and credibility.

It should be a contributor. New Zealand must accept strategic environment changes and be willing to adjust to them where required.

The New Zealand Defence Force must be combat equipped. - Not just designed for disaster relief and resource protection. When I was in East Timor, soldiers told me "don't call us peace-keepers".

We are isolated from our neighbours. But this means we have a burden to carry because of our isolation, not an excuse to ignore it.

We must contribute to regional security. Currently we have more personnel deployed internationally than regionally.

Our National Defence Policy therefore, should concentrate on:

1. Military protection of national sovereignty. Emphasising our reliability and credibility as a regional and international military and defence force. 2. Re-building relationships with traditional allies, in particular Australia 3. Forging a strong identity in the Pacific including foreign policy and personnel 4. Developing better defence relationships with Asian Nations.

Policy

National needs to be asking the question - where do we stand in the global arena? What is our prime objective and what are the alignments we should be fostering?

The prime objective in defence policy for any sovereign nation - is the protection of its citizens, and the protection of its sovereignty from outside threats.

We are an Island Nation of 4 million people. Our geographical location puts us, quite literally, at the bottom of the world. In World War I, our geography did protect us. In World War II the war reached the Pacific, there was a real threat to our sovereignty. Terrorism does not pay respect to geographical boundaries.

We fought in both conflicts. We fought in Korea and in Vietnam. Threats to sovereignty are not just about geography and physical invasion - it is also about a threat to our way of life. It is a government's duty to protect its citizens, its lands and its freedom.

That is why, whether there is a physical threat or not, New Zealand must be seen as a credible combat ready nation. Ready to defend our country in a physical attack, ready to defend our freedom from dangerous regimes, ready willing and able to cooperate with allies who share our values.

The current threats to our sovereignty and people is a sinister one and may strike in any shape or form. We therefore need to constantly maintain a combat ready defence force and enforce strict security controls on our borders.

Recent arrests in Thailand over fake New Zealand passports demonstrates again the need for vigilance at our own borders and how important it is to maintain a good working relationship with the intelligence agencies of our friends and allies.

We need world class border security and world class intelligence or we will pay a high price for being complacent.

New Zealand must also protect our sovereignty by committing fully to regional and international alignments.

We have, over the last 20 years allowed our defence relationship with what is commonly known as our 'traditional' allies; Australia, the UK and the US to slide because we have not been prepared to match our allies' expectations. We must show we can be relied upon.

Australian security concerns must inform our own defence strategy because, simply, each country forms the other's flank.

This function of geography cannot be ignored, nor should it.

Australia's size, population and closer proximity to Asia gives it a bigger awareness of its security and defence obligations. New Zealand proved at Gallipoli that though smaller, we were of equal stature in our courage and determination to defend our homelands.

Post September 11 Australia stepped up to the plate. They witnessed first hand the devastation on a mass scale that terrorism can produce in the Bali Bombings. Australia unhesitatingly joined her allies the UK and the US in the fight. It was a principled policy decision.

Their deployment was not made after a foreign policy gaff about what might have happened if Al Gore had been elected President of the United States. Australia knows the price of national and international alignments. According to The Australian Defence Force's Annual Report, their Government spent AUS18.2 billion on defence in 2002-2003.

The Year in Review stated, "In 2002-03, Defence continued to respond to the broad and complex demands created by a changed strategic environment (emphasis added). The high operational tempo of the last few years continued and the diversity of tasks confronting Defence expanded. Responding to the tragedy of the Bali bombing, the US-led operation in Iraq to enforce United Nations' Security Council resolutions, and the continuing commitment to the war on terror, demanded high levels of operational performance throughout the year."

Australia has never shirked from its security responsibilities. New Zealand has an obligation to her to step up. We have similarities that overcome our differences and alliances to maintain that have been built between our countries over generations of shared sacrifice. It is imperative that we work towards greater interoperability and sharing of security intelligence to combat any threats to our part of the Pacific.

With Australia, New Zealand has an important role to play in the Pacific. Regional security should primarily be our responsibility. The Islands are vulnerable to terrorist infiltration. Their border controls and security intelligence is minimal. New Zealand can be of considerable assistance. The Eminent Persons' Group Review of the Pacific Forum in April this year suggested, "there is considerable scope for enhanced cooperation and a more comprehensive regional approach to shared security interests. In particular, there is widespread agreement that regional effort on trans-national and regional security crises needs to be harnessed effectively".

The Pacific Forum is a valuable alliance and a vehicle to co-ordinate regional security in the Pacific. We must all work together and New Zealand should take the lead. Not only on paper, but also with a physical presence on the sea, in the air and on land.

Australia and the Pacific have long been New Zealand's ally and responsibility. In this new age however we must also look to the Asia region. Asia is made up of very many cultures, religions and races. Including China it is the largest population base on the planet. It can be a volatile region and it's on Australia's doorstep, which makes it only one step away from us.

Over the past twenty years, New Zealander's have come to better understand the Asian region. It is our biggest export market. 21.7% of our export went to Asia (excluding Japan) last year (Australia is a close second with 21.6%). 31% of permanent and long-term arrivals in New Zealand last year came from ASEAN and North Asian countries.

New Zealand is signatory to the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), which was signed in 1971 by its members, Malaysia, Singapore, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. It is a mutual defence alliance that operates through mutual consultation during time of crisis. This arrangement commits its members to consult each other in the event of external aggression against Malaysia and/or Singapore.

These are the sorts of commitments New Zealand must continue to develop in the Asia Region. They foster good will and lead to a better flow of information and intelligence from the region.

Hardware, Personnel & Logistics

The reputation of the New Zealand Defence Force Personnel is exceptional for a country of our size. We have distinguished ourselves in all the conflicts and contributing force exercises we have been involved with since our inception.

The ability of our personnel is not at issue. What is, is our credibility as a working military and our reliability to deploy our defence force when and where they are needed.

In 2003 we had approximately 13,000 service personnel (including civilian). Over 500 are currently serving in 16 locations around the world in UN or peacekeeping duties.

Everyone has an opinion on military hardware and the level of importance of air, sea and land within the armed forces.

The Labour Party has put the emphasis on the Army. In 2003 there were 4,500 personnel in the army regular forces and 2000 in the non - regular force. This compares with around 2000 in the regular forces of the Navy and a little over 2000 in the Air Force.

The Labour government has set upon an acquisition project for defence hardware and a de-commissioning process for defence bases around the country.

New Zealand is an Island nation. It therefore seems to me to be obvious that our capability must be balanced, but with a key objective of sea-air power if we want to be seen as a nation that takes our own defence seriously. Oceans do not isolate us from other countries, they link us.

The current government's acquisition project is broken up into service requirements so it is best to examine what we will be lumped with and what we will require under these headings.

These are the issues an incoming National government will need to address:

Army

The New Zealand Government has ordered 105 LAV III at a cost of NZ$677 million, and it look's like we're stuck with them.

What we need to know is do we need that many? What are the alternatives? There is considerable controversy over the wisdom of choosing these vehicles, the arguments are broad and varied. The point is though that with our revised requirements we have to be very sure they are suitable for transport and the terrain, because if we have them, we will be using them.

The Minister of Defence signed a contract with Automotive Technik Ltd on 29 March 2004 for the supply of 188 Pinzgauer military vehicles. Delivery of these vehicles will begin in October 2004.

Tender evaluation for the remaining 133 (60 with armour protection) will be completed in May 2004 and it is expected the Government will be in a position to announce the preferred supplier in June 2004.

The cost will be up to $110 Million.

What are the alternatives?

Navy

The brief for Project Protector is to acquire a multi-role vessel, and offshore and inshore patrol vessels, to be operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy to conduct tasks for and with New Zealand Customs, The Department of Conservation, the Ministry's of Agriculture and Forestry, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Fisheries, Maritime Safety Authority & the Police.

The Government has endorsed a project budget of NZ$500 million. The first priority for a naval force is defence, not as a one-stop shop for every other government department.

Do we continue with this configuration or should we consider a different configuration with a third frigate as a higher priority?

Airforce

This is perhaps the most difficult of areas. The Airforce has effectively been decimated by this government and reduced to a maritime search and rescue, civil defence and as Helen's personal transport.

The air strike capability was signalled in the Labour Party's 1999 election campaign as for the chop - and it was.

Also for the chop was the national government's decision to upgrade the Air Strike Wing. Subsequently New Zealand has no air strike capability and the navy is reduced to practising with warbird planes. Our best NZ trained pilots are now flying under different flags.

The government took the skyhawks out of commission without even having a confirmed buyer and they languish in storage four years later.

The government has also decommissioned Hobsonville Air base and is in the process of ordering the RNZAF to sell off Whenuapai.

National is still of the opinion that New Zealand's defence force must have the capability to defend our country and to participate alongside our allies in times of need. It may be that we work with Australia in developing an air strike capability or on some other mutually advantageous configuration.

The location of Whenuapai is of strategic importance to New Zealand's internal defence. It should remain in part at least a military airport.

Conclusion

In budgetary terms, Defence is a big ticket item. Australia last year spent 2% of GDP on defence. Depending on which figures you believe,New Zealand spent between 0.8% and 1%. Our leader agrees with me that more needs to be spent on our defence capability. Costings have not yet been done, but come our shadow budget, I will be putting my hand up.

National's position on Defence is compatible with our overall principles of freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and providing security for our people.

Our nation must be free to defend itself and to be a responsible independent member of international alliances dedicated to the rights and freedoms of sovereign states and their citizens.

We have a duty to uphold the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. We need a credible and reliable defence force to achieve this.

© Scoop Media