KEY POINTS:
Of the many follies sprinkled throughout the previous Government's defence policy, one of the most glaring was its wish to consolidate the Air Force at Ohakea. This meant vacating the air base at Whenuapai some time between 2014 and 2018, supposedly in the interests of efficiency gains, economic
benefit and the elimination of duplication. Whenuapai was to become either a housing estate, an industrial estate or Auckland's second commercial airport; the Government could not quite make up its mind. Encouragingly, its successor seems to possess a more definite view; one that would see the Air Force remaining at Whenuapai.
The Defence Minister, Wayne Mapp, says a Defence Force paper on the implications of this policy will go to the Cabinet next month. That would traverse the need for a multimillion-dollar upgrade at Whenuapai, particularly because the main runway had been allowed to deteriorate.
This expense, said Dr Mapp, could be balanced by the need to build hangars and accommodation at Ohakea.
Other factors aside from cost must also be considered, and these cement the case for Whenuapai's retention as an Air Force base. Most significantly, it is vital in terms of defence strategy. Placing the Air Force in one location, thereby rendering it vulnerable to attack, makes no sense. Base duplication is essential. Equally, it is nonsensical to remove the Air Force from the immediate area of Auckland, the likely location of any terrorist attack and the logical stepping-off point for operations in the Pacific and Asia. It is certainly not efficient to have aircraft flying from Ohakea, thereby increasing the time before that work can begin.
The issue of Whenuapai's future has been revived because of the Waitakere City Council's push to change its district plan to protect the base for airport purposes. Its case was due to be heard by independent commissioners, starting on February 9, but the hearings have now been deferred until a definite decision is made on the Air Force's future at Whenuapai. That delay is unfortunate. Given that the most logical future for the base lies in catering for both commercial and military aircraft, as is the case with many airports worldwide, the hearings should have proceeded as scheduled.
If the previous Government's decision to consolidate operations at Ohakea made any sense at all, it was because the abandonment of a strike wing substantially reduced the number of Air Force aircraft. The new Government has, regrettably, no intention of restoring a combat capability, so that situation will not change. This means that, while Whenuapai must be retained for strategic reasons, it will receive only limited military use even after substantial money has been spent upgrading it.
In this light, the case for a joint civil-military airport becomes totally compelling. That, indeed, has always been the outcome envisaged by infrastructure investor Infratil, which partnered the Waitakere City Council in an initial bid to buy the air base.
Now is a logical time to examine further that partnership's present project, a joint-use airport whose commercial operations, mainly of the budget-airline variety, would complement those at Mangere.
A hearing by independent commissioners is the ideal forum for this. It would have shed further light on the business plan for an airport, and its prospects for success, as well as allowing those opposed to an airport to put their cases. It would have helped shape the Government's final decision on the future of Whenuapai. That will certainly involve the Air Force. If the best use is to be made of the base, it should also involve commercial flights.
