www.waynemapp.co.nz

Defence

Over the last few weeks I have spent time assessing the current state of the Defence Force, and the likely challenges over the next decade to 2020. This will be the focus of three defence seminars I am holding in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The Auckland Defence Seminar will be held at the Victoria Cruising Club on April 11th at 6pm. Details are listed with the events at the end of the Mapp Report.

There are three issues – what are the strategic considerations, what are the capability requirements and what money would be needed.

Strategic considerations

I have recently visited Australia where the strategic environment was at the forefront of the discussion. There are essentially two considerations; what happens in our region, and what are New Zealand’s interests outside the region. New Zealand’s history and values mean we remain engaged with other western nations in ensuring stability, not just in our region, but also in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Capabilities

Our Defence Force is currently focussed on a capable land force, and maritime patrol and surveillance; perhaps not surprising when one considers the amount of water around us. These capabilities are not just relevant to New Zealand, they also have an ANZAC focus. New Zealand has six Orions, Australia has 18. Our six do matter in the region.

Looking forward a decade means dealing with the sustainability of the New Zealand Defence Force. Labour has run the line they have fixed the equipment shortfalls, and they have spent some money on equipment, especially in the Army.

Funding Issues

But in truth, there are huge gaps. The C130 Hercules fix will only last to 2015 – eight years from now. The P3 Orions will maybe get to 2020 – when they will be 55 years old. Replacing the C130s is a $1 billion exercise, and the P3s could be a $2 billion cost. None of this is currently funded.

The ANZAC frigates are now 10 years old, and they should last to around 2025. There is a mid-life upgrade planned. However, compared to the Australian upgrade, our upgrade is relatively modest. There is a good case to keep our ANZAC frigates complementary with the Australian ANZAC ships.

There is still significant renewal required in the Army (105mm guns, Unimogs), which will cost a lot.

On top of all this is the substantial base renewal and rebuilding, defence housing upgrades and, of course, pay and conditions for service people.

So Defence has big challenges over the next decade. Sustaining what we already have beyond the next 10 years will tax defence planners. The Defence planning horizon covers nearly 20 years. All major equipment typically has a life of at least 20 years. A fix for only 8 to 10 years simply delays the inevitable. National will have to deal with this reality.

The Smacking Bill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill I attach my speech in Parliament. I have done so since I believe it is important to put in public record my position on this important issue.

"I want to record, in somewhat general terms, my objection to Sue Bradford’s Bill, because she is amending the Crimes Act to make normal parental behaviour criminal. That is her intention. It does no good for her to say that all she is doing is removing a defence, so, therefore smacking is already illegal. That is simply not true. If one has a statutory defence, actions are protected. No crime is committed. There is not a criminal offence.

How much plainer can one get than that? If we take away section 59, we create a criminal offence – and that is what Sue Bradford is doing. The last intervention made by Sue Bradford was really remarkable, because certainly it seemed to me and my colleagues that it was actually an argument made by Sue Bradford for members to vote for Chester Borrows’ amendment. Sue Bradford at various times has come and gone a little bit on that one. I appreciate that she is now saying no, but at an earlier stage she said that she did not want to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour – amend the Crimes Act, as is stated by clause 2A, to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour - but that is exactly what she is doing. I have asked people in my electorate, by a scientific random opinion poll, what their view on this is.

I can tell members on the other side of the Chamber and this Committee that over 80 percent said that they do not want normal parental behaviour to be criminalised. That is, in fact, entirely consistent with all the current opinion polls, so that proves the accuracy of my method. I actually asked a second question, because I thought it was important that we know more than that. My second question was: “Do you think that the use of implements should be eliminated?” We have all heard about the cases involving jug cords, pieces of timber, riding crops and so forth, and there have been some problems with that issue – we all know that. The public was also clear on that matter. Eighty percent do want implements to be eliminated. So, effectively, 80 percent of the population are saying that Chester Borrows is right – and Sue Bradford’s intervention effectively admits that.

One of the purposes of the criminal law is to make conventional conduct certain, one way or t’other – it is either a crime or not a crime. People should not have to reply on police discretion over whether their behaviour is criminal. If we allow this bill to go through, we are abandoning our responsibility as legislators to the discretion of the police. That is an abandonment of our responsibilities. Good parents should not have to rely on police discretion. Good parents should be able to understand the law and say that either their conduct fits within it or their conduct does not, in perhaps some cases. That is what the role of legislators is – to provide certainty to our society.

The proposal made by Sue Bradford to amend the Crimes Act will criminalise normal parental behaviour, and that is why it is simply wrong for us to be legislating this way. There is a deep anger in the community, firstly about the way that this Government is ignoring the heartfelt views of New Zealanders, but it goes further than that.

People in the community are asking the Government and Sue Bradford why they are potentially making them criminals, why they are asking them to be dependent on police discretion, and why they are making the law less certain so that ordinary parental behaviour becomes criminal behaviour. The Prime Minister herself was confused on this whole issue, as well. She said that it was aimed only at those who beat their children. That is wrong, and she knows it is wrong. We have proved it in this House by quoting her own words back at her. I say that Government members should read what the Prime Minister has said, and vote for Mr Borrows’ amendment."

Events

2007 Defence Seminar Series

April 11 2007

Victoria Cruising Club

Westhaven

6pm

Tickets: $20 per person (light meal provided)

North Shore MP Wayne Mapp is holding a Defence Seminar Series in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch in April. Defence experts will present speeches on the important issue of defence and members of the public will have the opportunity to share their opinions.

Auckland Seminar speakers include:

David McGregor, a former Brigadier in the New Zealand army. He is one of Auckland's leading lawyers who brings a contemporary and informed view to defence issues.

Professor Steve Hoadley, an expert in foreign policy with particular emphasis on alliance relationships. Professor Hoadley gives many lectures to defence professionals on contemporary issues.

North Shore MP Wayne Mapp, National defence spokesperson, will speak of the challenges we currently face in defence and the issues we have to address.

Bookings can be made at Wayne Mapp's electorate office on 4860005 or office@waynemapp.co.nz

Information regarding Defence Seminars in Wellington and Christchurch will be posted online soon.

ENDS

© Scoop Media