Burton Mark: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Burton Mark: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7692] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I just want to say it is a pleasure to join this debate and to acknowledge that the foundations for a secure long-term future for New Zealand have now been well bedded in over the last three Budgets by Dr Michael Cullen. I think now is a time for ensuring that we stay the course and work our way through. There are periods of uncertainty and we are in one now but I think we have a coherent and highly credible programme for 2003-04. The foundations are there and we have to build on them. 
I will take the time I have in this debate to talk about defence because over the last few days in what was once a credible national newspaper and more recently in comments made in this House by one or two members we have had what has passed for some sort of critique of defence policy. It is a critique that is appalling in its lack of quality substance and indeed accuracy. So I think it is about time we put the record straight a little. 
Before getting into the real detail of it I have to say that yesterday I was stunned to hear Dr Wayne Mapp claim that this Labour Government had cancelled the third frigate which I think is a good example of the complete lack of memory on the part of the National Party. That might have been a good decision but I think Dr Mapp must be suffering from severe amnesia. In 1998 the decision to axe the frigate was made by the National Party and it was well covered in the media. I can only assume that Dr Mapp was doing something else that month. I will quote him a little bit of his own party’s defence policy from 1999: “National will not be proceeding with the replacement of our last Leander-class frigate with a third Anzac frigate.” I think the member’s comment about the frigate is therefore about as credible as the National Party’s comments about it caring about personnel and pay rates. 
We need go no further than those in the National Party who do at least have some memory and I refer Dr Mapp to his colleague Simon Power the defence spokesperson for National. Mr Power said in a recent speech made only in the last few weeks— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not much firepower there. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No but at least he got this right: “A National-led Government did not allow defence spending to keep pace in the 1990s.” That is from a recent speech made by National’s current defence spokesperson. Perhaps if Dr Mapp is not satisfied with that if he wants an older wiser head he could go to Richard Worth—that well-known doyen of the legal profession and camel rider. He is a wise man and he spoke recently on National’s time. He said 9 years of neglect had left New Zealand’s Defence Force “perilously low in capability and short of the funds to correct this.” Clearly neither Mr Worth nor Mr Power suffers from amnesia. 
Anyway let me move on. As I said earlier in recent days accusations and assertions have been published in a once-credible newspaper. There has been a series of big articles based on selected bits of recycled questions. The newspaper calls it an investigation which I think is a grandiose term for a bit of recycled question material and self-interviewing. Let us have a few facts in this ill-informed debate. 
In 1999 this Government inherited a Defence Force that was by National’s own admission—and I have given quotes from Mr Worth and Mr Power—suffering from 9 years of neglect. It was Mr Worth said “perilously low in capability and short of the funds to correct this.” and he was right. As I said before Mr Power in his comments made recently in a well-publicised speech reinforced that. So by 1999 we had the Army Navy and Air Force actively competing against each other for the crumbs of what was left after 9 long years of neglect—neglect that dated back to the 1960s. Pay rates had lagged behind and there was a seemingly bleak future all-round. 
When we took office in 1999 we said the time had come for a new way to run defence issues in this country. Contrary to the sorts of nonsense that we have seen published for the first time a Government did what it said it would do. It was based on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. There had been plenty of opportunity for discussion and debate about setting a course. We said we would build a policy on that and we did. Within 6 months the defence policy framework had been published and released. Within a year we had a force structure document in place. It said: “Here’s the policy. This is the force structure that logically you need to implement that policy.” Last year before the election we released the long-term development plan which is the plan that will put into practice the equipment resources materials and tools for our men and women in the Defence Force to do the job we ask of them which is clearly laid out in that policy framework. We have committed $3 billion over the next decade. That plan was updated just last month. It is a continuing rolling-out document and there will be $3 billion over the next decade to put that plan into effect. In other words we defined the need we laid out the policy we looked at how it can be achieved and we are doing it which is the rarest thing of all. Unlike the National Government we are actually getting on and doing it. 
National has the gall to say that it is policy made on the run. It has been frustrating for me to have to take the time to do it but we have done it right and now we are rolling out the policy and Mr Power tries to call that running around with a shopping list. We have built an acquisition programme based on a clear policy framework and if that is running around with a shopping list then I am guilty because frankly what National is asking for is another white paper. Do National members know what another white paper will actually mean? It will mean a stop to the acquisitions a stop to the replacement of that old equipment which those members criticise daily just as they daily insult and offend the good men and women of our Defence Force. Do National members know why a lot of our equipment requires work on a regular basis? It is because of the pace of the work that our people are involved in. They are working hard. They are doing a lot of things with that equipment. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Unlike them. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Exactly. They do not get it; they just do not understand. On Monday I had the great privilege of getting out and greeting the men and women on  
Te Mana 
 as they arrived back in New Zealand. They came back second to none. They have the accolades of the international community. The Canadian commander who had command of that interdiction force said that they are second to none. They had the highest rate of operation of any ship in that force. Of course when operating in 45-degree heat they will have some maintenance issues that are quite unusual. Should we attack and criticise them or their equipment? No we should admire them. They have shown ingenuity and initiative of the sort that New Zealanders are famous for. 
 The thing that saddens me is to have a once-great newspaper wheeling out that claptrap for a whole week. It is absolute nonsense. It does not insult me and it does not affect me; it insults the men and women who are our Defence Force. It is an absolute affront. I get out and about and I talk to the NCOs people who have spent 25 or 27 years training some of the finest personnel in the world. They are now being told their training is useless. Well it is not; it is fine. They are the best people anywhere; they are second to none. When they go out they deserve to be properly equipped and that is what this Government is doing across all three services. 
We have committed $1 billion to upgrading the Air Force’s capabilities. I see Dr Cullen breaking out into a sweat even as I mention it. We have $120 million worth of new radio and communications equipment for the Army and Air Force. Why? Because I am not prepared to send out young people with 60lbs on their back with three radios because they cannot trust the old clapped-out radios in their packs to work when they need them. That is why we have made that commitment. That is why we are spending $600 million on up to date 21st century equipment to move them around. The old Vietnam War equipment served us well but its day is done. That is why Project Protector will provide a fleet of modern and appropriate vessels to complement what we already have so that our Navy can do the roles alongside many other agencies that we require of it. That is why we are engaged in numerous other projects in the long-term development plan: so that the young men and women who are the current and future Defence Force of New Zealand are properly equipped and are properly supported to do the job that they are doing for us. 
I challenge the Opposition just once to stop whingeing to stop whining and to stop attacking those young men and women. When you do that when you slag them off when you attack the Government’s defence policy you are not hurting me and you are not hurting us; you are insulting them and they deserve better. They deserve better from this Parliament. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Do I need to explain this point of order? I do not think it is acceptable that the Minister of Defence spends his speech attacking the Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If I inadvertently used the second person I unreservedly apologise. My comments were directed entirely at the sort of nit-picking that member just engaged in which was a great example of not actually engaging the real issues.