Editorial: Defence plans put our nation in peril

Of all the decisions made or about to be made by this Government, probably none has greater ramifications than those concerning the Defence Force. Radical action taken in this area cannot be reversed overnight by flicking a figurative switch. It will endure well beyond the term of this Government, whether or not that encompasses more than one term in office. It is not about whether we buy this piece of equipment or that. It is about fundamentally altering defence capability. Take, for example, the Air Force's combat wing. Once, as is expected, the Skyhawks are scrapped, it will take many years to replicate and rejuvenate a strike capability. New aircraft will need to be ordered and delivered. More importantly, however, pilots will need to be trained to the high standard of present flyers.

It is in this context that the open letter from seven retired defence leaders criticising the Government's defence policy should be viewed. This was not, as the Prime Minister claimed, an outburst by men irked by the Army getting the lion's share of defence spending. To contend that was to ignore the signatures of Lieutenant-General Tony Birks and two former Defence Secretaries. And to contend that the defence chiefs were "chums" of the National Party was a shameful slighting of years of public service that gave rise to their justified sense of alarm that the very basis of our defence was being changed.

Other noises emanating from the Government were equally unconvincing. The Disarmament Minister claimed the debate sought by the former defence chiefs had taken place. He pointed to the inquiry undertaken between 1997 and 1999 by Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. Matt Robson might just as well have been talking of a review between 1957 and 1959, so much has the situation in the Asia-Pacific region changed in the past year or two. What was once an area of stability has become a neighbourhood of turmoil, real and potential. The reasoning that New Zealand's combat forces will most likely fight in faraway places, and only after months of preparation, is now hopelessly invalid. Australia has recognised that skimping on defence is no longer an option. Our Government, however, has forecast reduced spending.

The decision to concentrate spending in the Army's basket is underpinned by Derek Quigley's Defence Beyond 2000 report, which concluded that we could not afford a wide range of capabilities. The Government should, therefore, also be concerned that even he is unimpressed by some of its decisions. In particular, he wants more emphasis on regional defence and slotting in with Australia. Regional security requires partnership and trust, says Mr Quigley, and it is wrong for a small country to take an isolationist tack. That path would, of course, be confirmed if the Government were to scrap the Skyhawks and deprive the Air Force Orions of anti-submarine capability. And the trust of one's partners once lost also takes years to recoup.

The stakes, as the retired defence chiefs say, are too high not to take the greatest care. They want a debate before it is too late. The Government, for its part, plans to announce a defence spending package next month. That provides no time for consideration of the issues. The turbulence in the Asia-Pacific region suggests, in fact, that a wide-ranging defence review would be appropriate. That would surely point to the peril of walking away from operational links with our traditional allies. It would also confirm that the retired defence chiefs' worries over the risks inherent in the Government's policy are well founded.