Editorial: Labour running scared on defence

If a symbolic gesture were required to illustrate this country's lack of defence preparedness, the Air Force's home-based Hercules this week supplied it.

All four of the aged aircraft were out of action, delaying the airlift of military gear to the Solomon Islands. And if an example of the lack of reality that permeates defence official-speak were required, a squadron leader provided it. The problems with the Hercules were, he said, just down to bad luck. Never mind that most of the planes are almost 40 years old, and that equipment failures happen with frightening regularity, sometimes in circumstances that put lives at risk.

The Hercules' plight dovetailed neatly with a Herald investigation into defence issues. That series, entitled "In the National Interest", revealed a Defence Force utterly unequipped to confront the new challenges of a dangerous global environment. So thinly stretched has the military become in meeting even the peacekeeping role thrust upon it by the Government that perilous options have had to be adopted. During the Timor emergency, for instance, engineers and other personnel not meant to fight had to be sent as foot-soldiers. The upshot, once again, was heightened risk.

Equally, the Herald series revealed the Government's desire to keep a lid on defence issues. Defence Minister Mark Burton, for example, rejected Official Information Act requests for advice given to Labour ministers by a former Chief of Defence Force, Air Marshal Carey Adamson. His flakey reasoning: release would hinder the process of "free and frank advice".

Worse still, Mr Burton is refusing to issue a new defence white paper to update the public on Government policy. His excuse - that it would mean putting on hold a small number of planned acquisitions - is nonsensical. As ridiculous, in fact, as continuing to put the blame for defence shortcomings on past National administrations. This is a Government well into its second term, and a Government that scrapped the Air Force's combat wing, rather than update it, as its National predecessor planned to do.

Mr Burton suggests that a defence policy framework released in June 2000 still represents the Government's stance. If so, it is as though September 11 never occurred, and as though the Pacific's "arc of instability" has not become progressively more troublesome.

Indeed, the Government seems to be suggesting that nothing has changed. The reality, at best, is that policy is being done on the run. At worst, there is a policy vacuum, the origins of which lie in a simplistic and untenable view of the world. If it does have some understanding of the deficiencies of its approach and its inadequate defence spending, the Government must know that these would be exposed should public debate erupt.

If no such debate occurs, the outlook for the Defence Force is dire. Likely, it will come to resemble that of a Pacific nation, such as Fiji - an Army trained in peacekeeping but not other essential military or high-tech skills, supported by a Navy composed mainly of patrol boats and an Air Force of largely obsolete and unarmed aircraft. Thus the Army will always be vulnerable and reliant on other countries for support. It is a long way from the balanced Defence Force we require, particularly if the Government seeks to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Australia released a Defence Strategy Update in February, and its defence spending is expected to climb. In tandem with the Australians, New Zealand is sure to become more involved in the Pacific. Yet the Government appears to have undertaken no reassessment. Instead, it stays mum, hoping against hope there will be no price to pay for its ongoing folly. Only retired military leaders dare to raise their heads above the parapet. Instantly, they are derided as "geriatric generals", and the danger passes. Defence is too important an issue to be dismissed that way. The Government must produce a comprehensive and realistic white paper. We dare it.