Mark Burton: Forces plans couldn't be more explicit

A number of accusations and assertions about defence policy development, acquisitions and personnel have been made in the Herald's series. It is time for some facts to enter this ill-informed debate.

In 1999 the Government inherited a Defence Force that was, by the admission of National's Richard Worth, suffering from "nine years of neglect ... perilously low in capability, and short of the funds to correct this".

We had the Army, Navy and Air Force competing against each other for extremely limited funding, equipment dating from the 1960s, pay rates that lagged well behind the market and a seemingly bleak future.

When the Government took office, it was obvious the time had come to change the way New Zealand approached defence issues. Our foundation for a clear, focused policy was Defence Beyond 2000, a document released in 1999 by Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee.

The committee process had offered the opportunity for wide public involvement and debate on defence issues, and the resulting report gained considerable public and parliamentary support.

In June 2000 we released the Defence Policy Framework, which clearly defines the key elements of our approach. In May 2001 we released the Government Defence Statement, which outlined an appropriate force structure to match New Zealand's defence objectives.

Then in June last year we released the Defence Long-Term Development Plan, a tool that enables decisions on acquisitions to be based on the Government's policy objectives, the priority of projects and affordability. The plan, which provides for spending priorities of $3 billion over the next decade, was updated last month.

Thus we defined what we needed the Defence Force to do, outlined the most efficient force structure to do it, and put a plan in place to provide it with the necessary equipment. One could hardly describe this process - unprecedented in Defence Force history - as "on the run" decision-making.

This process also means that for the first time defence spending is based on meeting our long-term policy objectives, not on some simplistic percentage of gross domestic product.

In 2000 our first major decision was to invest $120 million in new tactical and mobile communications systems for the Army and Air Force, replacing their unreliable Vietnam-era systems.

Through the long-term plan we are able to assess our needs and to invest in acquisitions that meet these needs efficiently. This kind of detailed assessment is informing our purchases of such versatile equipment as the multi-role vessel, which will offer excellent value and functionality by performing a variety of tasks.

The development plan marked the end of ad-hoc spending for our Defence Force. The Government is re-equipping all three services. Since the plan's release, we have replaced both the Air Force's 727s with 757-200 aircraft and have announced a major 15-year life-extending upgrade of the five Hercules, a project to replace the Iroquois and Sioux helicopters, and tenders for the upgrade of our Orion fleet - projects worth about $1 billion to the Air Force alone.

Similarly, Project Protector will see the Navy replace the ageing frigate Canterbury with a new multi-role vessel and offshore and inshore patrol vessels - a $500 million investment. These ships will allow the Navy to patrol our exclusive economic zone more effectively as well as work more efficiently with Fisheries and Customs to protect our borders. They will also free up the frigates for more conventional tasks, if required.

Next month, the Army will receive the first of more than $600 million worth of LAVIIIs - a vehicle that will bring the infantry into the 21st century, with the high level of mobility, protection, flexibility and capability it needs to deploy effectively. Other projects have been approved, including the direct fire support and medium-range anti-armour weapons capabilities.

It is ironic that, having undergone the most thorough evaluation of our defence needs in more than a generation, there are now calls to halt this re-equipment process and to undertake yet another review.

The Defence Policy Framework clearly outlines our internal, regional and global defence objectives, as well as detailing the need for the Defence Force to be equipped and trained for both combat and peacekeeping.

These objectives have not fundamentally changed. Indeed, recent events have proved that our goal of easily deployable, well-equipped and highly trained troops is more necessary than ever.

This goal cannot be achieved without the acquisition programme outlined in the long-term development plan, and the Government will not irresponsibly put the crucial re-equipment of our troops on hold to undertake yet another review.

This year the Defence Force received its third Budget-funded pay rise in as many years - an illustration that addressing wider organisational retention issues is a priority.

We continue to work with the Chief of Defence Force to address the issue of market relativity for military personnel, and this work is showing good results. Recruitment rates are well up on 1999 levels, and attrition rates are dropping.

The Defence Force's greatest asset is its world-class personnel. They bore the brunt of National's nine years of neglect, yet at no time did they tarnish their international reputation for excellence.

Last year, the Air Force's 3 Squadron was honoured with Australia's Meritorious Unit Citation for its work in East Timor - the first non-Australian squadron to receive such a citation. The squadron was also named International Helicopter Squadron of the Year.

Neither award garnered much attention; there seems to be more interest in the few times missions are delayed because of the operational reality of equipment maintenance.

Defence Force personnel are known for their calm, efficient, co-operative style. This reputation has been gained through working alongside forces from around the world, and is illustrated by their range of experience in such diverse situations as the former Yugoslavia, Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomons.

These deployments have provided a level of operational experience not seen in two generations. Such achievements are largely ignored, and New Zealanders are left with an incomplete and often deficient picture of their Defence Force.

I am proud of their work, and pleased that I am part of a Government that does more than pay lip-service to investing in their future.