KEY POINTS:
If their annual report to Parliament is any indication, the country's defence chiefs are to be complimented on their command of strategy. With an election campaign imminent, the New Zealand Defence Force's report painted a grim picture of "deficiencies that would impair [army] effectiveness"; "insufficient personnel" in an air force that was only "partially prepared" for complex maritime air operations; and a navy lamenting its inability to put to sea as often as planned because of a lack of personnel and "equipment and capability issues".
Of course, Defence Force Chief Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae and his colleagues were unlikely to have produced a document saying anything else. As public servants, they can sniff the political wind and recognise the possibility that the next Budget will be signed in a different economic climate - and possibly by a new Minister of Finance. As sworn servants of the Crown, they are above politics, but they would be derelict in their duty if they did not attempt to get the best deal for the services under their control.
National's defence spokesman Wayne Mapp responded just as they had hoped, lambasting Defence Minister Phil Goff's "Pollyanna view of his portfolio" and lamenting the "internationally embarrassing" state of our "critically ill-resourced" defence force. He was a good deal vaguer on what precisely he as minister would do about the matter, proposing only a White Paper that would make it a priority to redress the problems of recruitment and retention.
But a White Paper is not needed to explain what any employer already knows: recruiting and retaining staff has proved difficult everywhere in recent years with the economy buoyant and unemployment low. Mateparae acknowledges that high private-sector wages have lured recruits with technical training away from the forces. Armed service traditionally attracts more recruits in times of recession and the medium-term economic outlook suggests that the pressure on staff will begin to ease.
Goff points out that the Labour-led Government has committed more than $8 billion to defence since it came to power. The forces' chiefs will always argue that they need more but the amount that this small nation can afford to earmark for defence is always going to be limited - particularly, it is worth adding, if the coming election becomes an auction as to which of the major parties will offer the greater tax cuts.
The remark in the report that "our resources are finite, and we are facing a situation where we will not have the capacity to continue to do everything we would like to do" is intended to apply to the Defence Force - and to imply a need for greater funding - but it applies to the country as well.
The NZDF's remit includes a responsibility to defend the country "against external threat". Goff rightly says that no one is "remotely interested" in invading this country and even if he were wrong, it is inconceivable that we could develop a military preparedness to resist conventional invasion unless we wanted to divert spending on health, for example, or education into buying a state-of-the-art air combat wing.
We must, in short, cut our defence coat according to our cloth, protecting our exclusive economic zone and continuing to provide the distinguished support we give to multinational forces in places like Timor Leste and Afghanistan.
Whatever electioneering politicians may try to say, this is not a defence force in crisis. It is the force of a small country doing what it can afford - and, to the credit of the forces, doing it very well indeed.
