Dialogue: Government's defence policy a new approach

By MARK BURTON*

The Government has taken an important step towards establishing a more coherent and realistic view of our defence needs and the roles we can most effectively perform.

After years of ad hoc decision-making, a new approach to defence is a key Government policy.

The defence policy framework covers its goals and priorities, providing a coherent framework for future decisions about military capabilities, resources and funding.

Two supporting papers from Foreign Affairs and the External Assessments Bureau link the Government's foreign policy and defence policy and provide a more detailed analysis of our strategic circumstances.

Together, the three papers emphasise the key objectives of our defence policy.

These are: to defend New Zealand and protect its people, land and economic exclusion zone; to meet our shared alliance commitments with Australia; to fulfil our obligations in the South Pacific; to play an appropriate role in the maintenance of security in the wider Asia-Pacific region; and to contribute to global security through the United Nations and other peace support and humanitarian relief operations.

A key element of the approach is the recognition that New Zealand's defence and security policies will be based on our own assessment of what is in our best interests.

At the same time we recognise that we need to work with our partners, particularly Australia and this new framework recognises the strategic Anzac partnership.

Having established these objectives, the Government must ensure that the Defence Force has the range of capabilities to meet them. Priority will be given to investing in elements that are combat ready and combat capable.

There have been claims that the Government intends to reduce our Defence Force to mere peacekeepers. Every soldier that has served in East Timor can tell you that being a peacekeeper requires the full raft of skills developed through comprehensive military training, complemented by specialised training.

The Government will ensure our military personnel are equipped for and trained for combat. The special requirements that come with peacekeeping duties are additional skills; they do not replace combat training but enhance it.

Planning for defence is a long-term, high-cost, complex business. We could not start with a blank sheet of paper. As a Government we inherited a legacy of problems and underfunding.

For nine years we listened to the National Government talk big on defence while it systematically eroded spending and underestimated what was needed simply to retain capabilities.

In East Timor, this approach meant we had to put well-trained, highly professional military personnel into a dangerous and unpredictable environment without the certainty of modern, reliable equipment. It had been the same in Bosnia five years earlier.

The opportunity to act on the lessons learned from these deployments had been wasted.

Rebuilding the Defence Force will be neither easy nor quick. As a Government, we face serious levels of obsolescence of basic critical equipment; the increasing cost of technology; the increasing cost of military equipment; and domestic competition for funding.

Having clearly outlined the underlying policy, important decisions and choices remain. Establishing the appropriate balance requires decisions about operational requirements; recruitment, retention and training; capital reinvestment and priorities for new equipment.

Some of the choices we make will determine the shape and capability of the Defence Force for many years to come. It is important to get them right. Just providing more of the same, or taking turns among the three services steeped in traditional customs and practices, is not the way to achieve and maintain an effective Defence Force. We want to see the three services working jointly in a fully coordinated and structured way.

We will focus our investments on force elements that are appropriately trained and equipped for the most likely tasks we will face. At the moment our defence forces are spread too thinly. Spending new money where it is most needed will inevitably bring us down on the side of depth rather than breadth.

In a long list of things to do, the most pressing are to address the mobility and communications requirements of the Army and to provide an enhanced sea and air lift capacity to deploy it.

We also have to maintain effective maritime surveillance capabilities in the Air Force and Navy. We will be looking at different options for doing that.

More work is needed in some areas, such as the broad shape and structure of the Defence Force in relation to the tasks it will be given.

Likewise with the sealift requirements in the light of recent experiences in the South Pacific, including assessing whether a modified Charles Upham is now the best option. Similarly, more work will determine if the proposals for upgrading the maritime surveillance aircraft are the most appropriate to meet our needs and commitments.

But we do not intend to continue reviewing things ad nauseam. We need to begin the re-equipment process - in some cases urgently.

We expect to decide very soon on mobility and communications acquisitions for the Army. It is likely that this will involve a process of stepped acquisitions.

By following this policy framework, New Zealand will continue to have a high-quality Defence Force which keeps abreast of operational and technological developments, is affordable and can be sustained over the longer term.

* Mark Burton is the Minister of Defence.

Our national defence – Herald stories

Participate in our online forum.