UKNDA (UK National Defence Association)
To campaign for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded Armed Forces that the United Kingdom needs to defend effectively this Country, its people, their vital interests and security at home and throughout the world.
Read more
Members Section
(To be activated soon - all members will be advised when this site is ready)
UKNDA
FOR THE UKNDA TO CAMPAIGN EFFECTIVELY FOR
SUFFICIENT, APPROPRIATE &
FULLY FUNDED ARMED FORCES
WE NEED TO DO THREE THINGS
To promote our MESSAGE
To acquire MANY MORE MEMBERS
To gather in MORE MONEY
To support our
"SUPPORT OUR ARMED FORCES CAMPAIGN"
JOIN US NOW
NEW ZEALAND ARMED FORCES
By the CEO UKNDA: I whole heartedly commend this report to our readers. The challenges being faced by the Armed Forces of New Zealand in so many ways mirror what is happening in the UK that it's frightening. Let us learn from their experiences and misfortunates before it is too late. Now, please do read on.
THE PRESIDENT’S REPORT TO THE 16TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE DEFENCE ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND 27 MARCH 2008
During 2007 the Steering Committee of The Defence Association of New Zealand (DANZ) has held nine meetings. There has been robust discussion of matters in all three Armed Services. To keep abreast of the changing nature of the Defence forces members have consulted Hansard, national and foreign websites, the press, relevant Bills before Parliament, and received publications from the Navy, the Army and the Australian Department of Defence Sea Power Centre. Correspondence with Members of Parliament, particularly the Minister of Defence, Ron Mark, Peter Dunn, the Maori party, Wayne Mapp and Hon Georgina Te Heuheu has been ongoing.
Correspondence with the Minister dealt with the funding of the Territorial Force, use of the LAVIIIs, the availability of the two Boeing 757-200s, the operational status of HMNZS Te Mana and the personnel levels of the NZDF. The President’s Report for 2007 was forwarded to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Chiefs of Defence.
English is infinitely inventive. Among its recent acquisitions are “factoids” and “spin”. Factoids being assertions that if repeated often enough are accepted as facts. Spin is what can be accomplished as a narrative with factoids by highly paid bureaucrats.
How do these observations bear on the President’s Report to the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the Defence Association of NZ?
Among the factoids established by the governments led by Helen Clark is the understanding that such governments have and are spending liberally on defence. In response to any question on defence of a factually testing nature, the spokespeople for the Clark administration consistently contend that under her government she is, albeit judiciously, pouring money into defence.
A striking example of factoid/spin is to be found in the sober chronicle of HANSARD 59 for 24.10.2007: “Since 1999 the Government has committed some $7.4 billion under the Defence Long Term Development Plan (LTDP) and the Defence Sustainability Initiative (DSI) to transforming the New Zealand Defence Force.“
Much of this funding is reminiscent of holy scrip. “It cometh in the morning”. It is to be spent over 10 to15 years! Meantime the Association notes Kevin Rudd’s observation to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute shortly before he became Prime Minister: “the (Howard) Government has not delivered to our troops the capabilities promised to them in previous budgets.”
The reality is that over the period since World War II to 1989 the country spent about 1.8 to 2.1 percent of its GDP on defence. Currently we are spending about 0.91 percent of GDP on defence (“Defending NZ”, published by the Royal NZRSA, April 2005, Appendix 1 and the NZ International Review Jan/Feb 2007 pp 22-24 Z. Alack).
Therefore DANZ nodded in agreement when Winston Peters was reported in the 2 Oct. 07 Press saying the government of which he is Foreign Minister is “skimping on defence”. Two days later Major General Lou Gardiner, Chief of Army, was reported as asserting: “The Government has given us considerable resources in the last few years…we’ve got to get the maximum out of what we get and that is what we are about.”
Evidently the Chief of Army is out of touch with Mrs Rowena Gattsche who was published in the Press on 8.10.2007 saying: “Minimum wage? My 21 year old son’s payslip from the Army (He’s in the Territorials) for four hours work was $36.17 before tax, way below the minimum wage. If the government is serious about recruiting and retention in the Armed Forces the first place to start is to pay them at least a fair wage.”
Implicitly, the Chief of Defence, Lt General Mateparae, in speaking to the parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade as reported in the Press, agreed with Mrs Gattsche rather than General Gardiner when he said: “We are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit the right numbers and the right technical tradespeople for the army, navy and air force.” He went on to say, “On the other side is retention. We are anticipating that …December to March 2008 which traditionally is a period of higher attrition…we are going to see that.” Nevertheless despite the depleted ranks of the NZDF, Mateparae said there were 1756 personnel committed to operational tasks at home and abroad.
As DANZ has patiently pointed out over the years, the Clark government and many senior officials in the defence establishment are in a state of denial about the fragile state of NZ’s defence.
The elephant in the sitting room issue for NZ defence is Retention and Recruiting. When suitable people are recruited either to Regular or Territorial service, too few stay in long enough for the NZDF to efficiently discharge the tasks laid upon it by government. The current NZDF is undermanned, underfunded and overstretched. All three issues are political by definition and can only be solved at the political level.
The Controller and Auditor-General for NZ’s office is politically independent in that it reports to Parliament and not the Government or its Ministers and their compliant policy analysts. It was the Auditor General, for example, who made plain the profligate purchase of the 105 LAVIIIs by the Army.
The Auditor General among others signs off on the NZDF's Annual Reports and thereby confirms their figures. As between 2006 and 2007 the Auditor General agreed that the Army’s strength in Regulars had increased by 17, the Navy’s by 36 and the Air Force's by 49, an overall gain of 102. Meantime the strength of the army territorial force fell by 150 while that of territorial Air Force rose by 166 thanks to the expedient of counting in the volunteer/civilian members of the RNZAF band, air traffic controllers and university cadets.
The Defence Sustainability Review of May 2005 produced by Treasury, the State Services Commission, the Ministry of Defence and the NZDF asked: "How many people will NZDF recruit?" The answer was “The aim is to rebuild the NZDF gradually over time. The recruiting targets will fluctuate as personnel, recruiting and loss rates vary. Over the 10 year period of the LTDP and DSI, the NZDF could grow by 1500 to 2000.”
At the rate of increase (102) suggested by the 2006 and 2007 NZDF Annual Reports and assuming a dramatically improved retention rate it will take 15 years rather than 10, starting from 2007, to fit the NZDF for the tasks required of it by government. In the best retention and recruiting circumstances imaginable this brings NZDF up to 2022 rather than 2015 before satisfactory manning levels are achieved. That military planning dating from the early years of this century will remain relevant in 2022 seems unreasonably hopeful.
Given the retention and recruiting figures confirmed by the Auditor General for 2006-2007 it is astonishing to note the Minister of Defence telling Parliament (Hansard 59 for 24.10.2007 pp 12641-42) “…NZDF having declined in numbers through the 1990’s is now going in the opposite direction. There have been significant increases in the hundreds overall in the Defence Forces across all three services.” Evidently these “hundreds” were not visible to the Auditor General when he signed off the NZDF Annual Report for 2007. Similarly Hansard 32.11.2006 pp 6624-25 suggests the NZDF had gained 600 recruits where, as noted, the Auditor General counted 102 regulars.
Hansard 29 p 600 records a no tricks question put to the Acting Minister of Defence, Annette King. “What level of establishment (the numbers of soldiers it should have) must Defence Force units fall below to be deemed operationally ineffective and how many units are currently below that level of establishment?”
Annette King replied: “All employed units are 100 percent fit for purpose and equipped appropriately…I am sure the Member is also aware that the issue is also being addressed by the Government’s $4.6 billion Defence Sustainability Initiative.”
Ron Mark MP pressed for a reply, asking: “Can the Minister…report to the House and clarify the difference between the established strengths of units, the authorized strengths- that is the strengths that the Government has funded those units to - and the actual strengths as we need to clearly understand the difference between those strength levels?”
Annette King: “No, I am not able to provide the answer to the Member…in terms of the substantive question I could not provide the information at this time.”
In other words the Ministry of Defence was unable to provide the Minister with the number of people NZDF should have, the number they have and the number the taxpayer is providing for. In terms of competent administration the answer is an admission of ignorance where firm knowledge might reasonably be expected.
In the meantime we and Parliament must look to the Auditor General for facts and figures.
The Association notes that in recent times NZ’s military anniversaries and ceremonials are given a thorough PR milking by politicians for their photo-op possibilities. The prevailing rhetoric on these occasions dwells on the sacrifice and martyrdom of the fallen and wounded. It is deeply unfortunate that, these days, such thinking seems to extend to the realm of the current pay and conditions offered to the NZDF.
DANZ has been told often enough by officialdom that people do not join up for the money, although this line of thought does not apply to the policies used to recruit and retain nurses, police, firemen and teachers. Service in the armed forces, uniquely in the range of government paid jobs it must therefore be assumed, should be viewed as a vocation rather than market place employment.
It is interesting, therefore, to study (Press 12 March 2008 p B8) the Hudson Work Force Survey under the headline “Half NZ Workers Want a New Job”. No doubt the Defence authorities would remark to the effect, “There you are then, the NZDF’s attrition rate is in line with the market”. However, the Report goes on to note: “However the government sector has one of the lowest rates of active job hunting with 10 percent looking for new jobs.“ Evidently, well paid civil service employment is the significant rival to the NZDF’s recruiters and while the government continues to increase civil service numbers this will be a constant factor.
The Hudson Report remarked of the present employment market: “It is almost a do or die situation for some employers who were ignoring jobseekers needs and wants…”
The point the Association has to make is that employment in the NZDF cannot be successful as long as those who manage it entertain themselves with the fancy that is not powerfully influenced by the prevailing conditions in the general employment market.
In this vein two political opinions touching defence employment merit attention in passing. Firstly Winston Peters long held intention of bringing back or introducing some form of national service to improve the socialization of the country’s wayward youth. Secondly John Key’s stated support for army style “boot camps” for similar reasons.
As the NZDF is currently only marginally capable of sustaining its own training regimes it could not muster the numbers of instructors required for such projects.
To judge from an article in Army News 380 of 11 September 2007 by Land Component Commander Brigadier Rhys Jones: “The biggest problem facing us all is the lack of manpower at the junior leadership level: Corporals, Sergeants, Captains and Majors - the ranks historically that have held the Army together…it will take a long time to rebuild the Army from its current hollow structure.” And later: “The third issue facing us is the operational tempo (NZDF-speak for overseas deployments and unforeseen contingencies such as the death of the King of Tonga) that means we are too busy preparing for our deployments to do things that maintain our long term effectiveness.” Evidently the Brigadier is in agreement with the 2007 NZDF Annual Report where the observation is made that the Army is unable to meet the requirement for: “The provision of an infantry battalion to meet lower end operational spectrum contingencies which is unachievable given the extent of current operational commitments.”
The point to emphasise here is that overseas deployments apparently do not affect the trained readiness of the forces. This matter was brought home to DANZ by the Minister of Defence on 22.08.2007 in replying to questions from the Association in which, inter alia, we asked why the LAVIIIs were not taken on the Solomons and East Timor deployments so that some of the army gained some experience in using this gear. In part, the Minister replied: “both of the deployments …are operational rather than training exercises. I do not believe it is advisable to blur the distinction between the two.”
This being the official stance when does the undermanned NZDF have the opportunity to rebuild its numbers and train its junior ranks?
On March 25 2008, the military affairs website StrategyPage noted in an item headed "Pay to Play": "The U.S. Department of Defense periodically calculates the average annual pay of its enlisted troops and officers, compared to civilians (of the same age and education).
Currently, enlisted troops make $5,400 more than their civilian counterparts, while officers make $6000 more. A new government study suggests that various tax breaks actually increase that to $10,600 for enlisted troops and $17,800 for officers. Housing has been upgraded and Congress has increased life insurance benefits. All this is done for the same reasons civilian organizations do it in a tough labour market. You raise pay to keep jobs filled. The Department of Defense has borrowed these analytical techniques and pay policies to keep the ranks full during wartime, the first time that has ever been achieved."
Similarly, “The Volunteer Army: Who Fights and Why?” (M. Massing New York Review of Books 3 April 2008 Vol LV No 5) notes “Many if not most new American soldiers join up in order to qualify for substantial financial support through their future college education. They join up to get ahead.”
The Parliamentary Select Committee for Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade was told by the Chief of Defence in late 2007 that of its total Regular and Territorial strength (11297) “some 1756 personnel were committed to operational tasks at home and abroad” and therefore, following the advice of the Minister, not in training.
As, apparently, the Government is not willing to treat retention and recruiting (or pay and conditions) for the NZDF as issues of pressing urgency in need of funding, the Association should perhaps call for a moratorium by NZ on the overseas deployments of its forces to allow the NZDF a breathing space in which to recover its professional poise. Clearly while much of its depleted strength is dispersed in penny packets on overseas deployments, however worthy, the need to rebuild will not be met. The SAS seems to remain at a ready-to-go level of fully manned and trained readiness and therefore could be the exception to the pause.
Finally the Association draws attention to the observation made by D K Hunn in his "Review of Accountabilities and Structural Arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force" (30.09.2002).
In paragraph 6.28 Mr Hunn remarked that virtually none of the New Zealand Minister of Defence’s comparable overseas counterparts are burdened with multiple cabinet portfolios. DANZ is bold enough to contemplate that a Minister of sufficient caucus seniority holding a single cabinet portfolio for defence might rescue the NZDF from its present grid locked state.
S.F. Newman
President,
New Zealand Defence Association
28 March 2008