In the national interest: Former defence chiefs refuse to go quietly

By FRAN O'SULLIVAN

Former defence top brass did not reckon on becoming casualties when they set out to engage their countrymen in a debate on New Zealand's security needs.

A high-powered group led by former Secretary of Defence Gerald Hensley first entered the public fray in 2001, contesting the Labour Government's plans to axe the Air Force's combat wing and scale back plans for a third Anzac frigate.

They have since stolen the Government's thunder by publishing a Green Paper of their own: "Choice or Chance? New Zealanders thinking about Defence Policy."

Their attempt to fill a policy vacuum has earned a response: name-calling and charges that they are National Party stooges.

The "balance of forces" the former chiefs promote runs directly counter to the Government's focus on paring back New Zealand's heavy-duty fighting capabilities in favour of other functions such as peace-keeping and nation-building.

But the former chiefs say the time for mud-slinging has passed.

Says Hensley: "The problem for New Zealand is [that] because we can't predict what we are doing next and what we need, we feel this is an argument for a balance of forces so, if the job calls for maritime power you have got the sea; if airpower, you have that; or infantry.

"The Government has said repeatedly that the Army is what we did best and what we should specialise in, but it's the Government that is deploying Te Kaha and Te Mana in rotation in the Gulf and the Government that is deploying a rotation of Orions in the Gulf."

Other former defence high-flyers who put their names to the Green Paper were Vice-Admiral Sir Somerford Teagle, Air Marshal Sir Ewan Jamieson, Air Marshal Sir Richard Bolt, Air Vice-Marshal Robin Klitscher and former Secretary of Defence Denis McLean.

Hensley is adamant the Government now needs to develop a national security strategy.

"Chasing the headlines is pointless and leads to strategic futility."

It is no small irony that public debate is still being led by the former top brass, rather than today's defence hierarchy.

The Labour Government lost trust after the Army was caught out waging an unauthorised PR war to wrestle scarce funds away from competing naval and air services.

The Government exerts a strong influence through the State Services Commission, which now controls all top service appointments.

An oath of allegiance to the Government - not just the Crown - has been introduced.

Says Teagle: "I think there was some dirty pool being played and it was a good thing it got cleaned out.

"But everything I have read has been a whitewash, quite frankly, or an excuse for the State Services Commission to take over.

"Current defence players may privately chafe at tight Government funding policies but they do not put their heads up publicly.

"No one in their right mind would contemplate a debate on health and education without allowing doctors and teachers to have a view.

"But those who understand the mechanics of the defence business are forbidden to speak."

When their Green Paper was released on July 2 last year, it immediately bombed. Teagle concedes it was badly timed.

"It bounced out just right before the election - we felt it unfortunate but we were already committed to publish it then."

There were other consequences. One of the report's sponsors was Wellington's Brevet Club, a social bunch of old flyers who lunch together monthly.

Mick Dillon, who helped to orchestrate the report's public release, reveals that Air Force spokesman John Seward - who had recently been elected club president - missed the meeting at which members decided to "put $250 into this and demand an acknowledgment".

"Just after it came out, John rang me very distressed and said he had no option but to resign from the Brevet Club as president as this was 'anti the ministry'.

"I said, 'How could you possibly regard Bolt and Jamieson and Teagle and co as subversives? They're very much pro-New Zealand'.

"He said, 'I can't talk about that - it's been made clear to me this has to happen'."

Says Teagle: "No Government relishes being criticised. But I gave a speech in 1994 where some of my criticism was quite trenchant, although hopefully balanced by some positives. It was about the amount of money not being spent - why couldn't we make decisions about capital equipment and how we bloody well ought to get on with it - the usual sort of rant."

The former chiefs believe a close analysis of Treasury figures would also reveal a different picture from the one the Government "works hard to present on defence".

The Government promotes large figures like "$2 billion for defence over the next 10 years" and a possibility of "up to an additional $1 billion over the next 10 years" .

But the former chiefs note that much of the $2 billion will be funded from accumulating depreciation.

Engendering public debate on defence issues is a risky strategy.

Hensley and his colleagues were demonised when they sent an open letter to national newspapers in 2001 protesting at the Government's decision to axe the Air Force's combat wing.

"We resurrected [former Prime Minister] David Lange's 'geriatric generals'," said Teagle. "It degenerated in a flash into personal abuse and, again, that was given extensive coverage.

"If that had been ignored and the press had said, 'Look, don't give us that crap, what's your answer to the comments they make?', then we might actually have made some progress.

"But there seemed then to be a huge focus on the name-calling, which is unfortunate, to put it mildly."

There have been other mechanisms to shut down debate.

A ministry subsidy for the Defence Quarterly was axed. The magazine - which used to provide a useful outlet for wide-ranging views - has since closed.

Funding for the Wellington-based Centre for Strategic Studies was also slashed. Its then executive director, David Dickens, had openly advocated the retention of the Air Force strike wing and expansion of the Anzac frigate fleet. The centre downsized. Dickens walked.

The Herald has spoken to a raft of younger defence players. Unlike the former top brass, many of them are reluctant to be quoted. Some working alongside bidders for various defence projects fear they could jeopardise potential contracts.

This astonishes the defence players' more feisty brethren across the Tasman. Australian efforts to get a Kiwi version of that country's powerful defence association started here foundered when its proponents ran up against that most unmilitary characteristic: fear.