Editorial: Indefensible defence policy

The timing could not have been more wretched - or more telling. Within hours of the United States and Britain launching air strikes across Afghanistan, the Government was announcing the first wave of Air Force redundancies. The axe fell on 183 jobs, most made surplus to requirements by the scrapping of our air combat and ground attack capability. The undermining of this country's security continues, even in the face of the most explicit illustration of the world's unpredictability.

Contrast the Government's policy with those of the two main political parties across the Tasman. Prime Minister John Howard and Labor leader Kim Beazley seem to be trying to outdo each other with plans to strengthen Australia's armed forces and national security. Mr Beazley, for example, wants to spend $120 million on border protection, including a new coastguard that would release the Navy for military duties. Defence is not cheap but Australia, aware of the realities of a volatile world, has always been prepared to pay the cost. The terrorist attacks on the US have merely strengthened its resolve.

New Zealand is already seeing the consequences of our unwillingness to pay that price. Once we were regarded as a valued member of the international community, punching above our weight. Now, we are an irrelevance. It was evident in the fact that Tony Blair seemingly had no qualms about splintering the old Commonwealth when he acknowledged the commitment of Australia and Canada to the war against terrorism - and ignored New Zealand. Likewise, it is not coincidental that Australia and the US have negotiated a tax agreement which will make New Zealand less attractive to investors. That impact is not a deliberate slight; it is just that the consequences for New Zealand no longer merit consideration.

Now more than ever the Government must re-evaluate its defence policy and spending priorities. National security does not come cheaply, but the alternative is untenable.