Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4165] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak about the Vote Defence budget for 2006-07. I have to say that it is a vast improvement on the level of defence expenditure over previous years. I refer particularly to the 1970s 1980s and 1990s when some of us in uniform were so poorly equipped under previous Governments—and I have to say under National Governments—that we were not able to be issued with blank ammunition and we spent our time running around on field exercises saying “bang bang” instead. I remember those days very very well. 
Much has been said about Labour’s expenditure on defence and I have to point out a couple of facts. It was Labour that bought the Mercedes truck fleets Labour that bought the V8 Land Rovers and Labour that bought the Scorpion tanks and the frigates. The only problem is that we should have bought more. In the very near future Labour will be introducing Project Protector which we had a briefing on. I do recall that National gave us the  
Charles 
Upham 
 and announced the purchase of heavy machine-guns—the .50 calibre Brownings—that were to be a new addition to our arsenal. The only problem was that those heavy machine-guns had been in service since World War II having been built in 1942 and had been used in Korea Malaya and Viet Nam. Max Bradford’s big hoo-ha that they were new weapons that had been introduced was exactly that—hoo-ha. 
Where Labour has got it wrong though is in disbanding the air combat capability—New Zealand First has always disagreed with that policy—and in particular in introducing the 105 LAVIIIs which were found to be too big too expensive and too cumbersome for the South Pacific. We note with interest that the M113s are still performing admirably in Iraq right now with the United States forces and that they were the first vehicles of the Australian forces to hit the ground in East Timor recently. They provided good muscle manoeuvrability and portability to the forces deployed there to bring peace back into that area. 
Where National got it horribly wrong was in pay and conditions. I recall standing in this House and challenging the National-led Government members led by Jenny Shipley about pay and conditions for service personnel—a challenge they dismissed. I brought to this House and tabled a document that showed that under National’s steerage a recruit soldier in Waiouru was earning $13000 a year. Labour to its credit took the message on board and after a lot of pressure from New Zealand First implemented a number of pay adjustments and adjustments to allowances for the time that personnel were deployed overseas. 
But there is still work to be done. I refer specifically to the New Zealand Special Air Service and the pay allowances and conditions of service for those personnel. Why is that unit important? It is because increasingly internationally it is special operations forces that are the sharp end; they are the point of the spear. In every initiative that takes place internationally in respect of bringing peace stability and conflict resolution it does not matter where we look around the world special forces are the leading edge. Right now we are finding that our special forces are far more effective in Afghanistan than our trying to deploy and maintain a battalion or a company-sized organisation. In fact they have been so effective that they have received a presidential citation. 
The problem is that we cannot ask questions about those forces. I raised with the Minister of Defence Phil Goff at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee hearing the issue of how difficult it was for the committee and for Parliament to do its job given the very nature of the SAS because security-wise it is a very sensitive unit and we cannot ask questions. But serious questions must be asked if we are to get to the real root of the problem in terms of pay remuneration and retention of highly specialised highly sought after Defence Force personnel such as these. The questions I would like to be able to ask publicly and get answers to are questions such as these. What are their numbers? How many SAS personnel do we have? How many Regular Force? How many Territorial Force? What are those numbers in comparison to 2 years ago 5 years ago 10 years ago? Does the Territorial Force element of the SAS exist or has it disappeared or become virtually non-existent? What are the SAS pay rates? What are its rank structures? Who gets paid what level of pay? How many of those people are in that rank structure? What are the problems with promotion inside such a small tight-knit organisation that is constrained by the very nature of its speciality? How many SAS personnel are badged each year? How many pass selection? How many go through cycle training and come out the other end as effective SAS troopers? 
We need to know that if we are to understand the sustainability supportability and effectiveness of that unit. But of course it is a secret unit and to give away such information publicly is to undermine its very capability. I understand that more than anyone else in this Parliament. But by not being able to ask those questions and get honest answers from the Government we are unable to address the very pressing need to reinforce and support those personnel and to make sure that they are remunerated appropriately and thereby attracted to stay in the service of the country in the SAS where we so desperately need them. What is the average experience level of those within the unit? Are we losing senior NCOs yes or no? How many senior NCOs on whom we absolutely depend inside the SAS for training the newly badged troops are staying on purely out of loyalty when they should or could be taking retirement? 
All of those questions are important because they help us to understand the specificities of the troopers’ case when it comes to pay and remuneration. I have asked questions of the Minister in the House about pay and conditions for the SAS. Specifically on 9 May I asked him what the hourly base rate of pay was for SAS personnel. He said that the base pay rate was $39000 to $93000 a year and that when deployed overseas they got benefits that kicked up their pay to $80000 to $140000 a year. But the truth I say to the Minister is that that is not exactly the case. The truth in overview is that a trooper gets paid a base salary of $39000 to $43000 a year which is half of what Special Tactics Group police officers receive for sitting on their backsides at home waiting for a call-out. These SAS people do considerably more. The keynote experience as I have experienced is that candidates join the rank at the range of private through to sergeant and therefore come in and remain on protected pay for some time. Lance corporals are on $45000 to $51000 corporals are on $51000 to $55000 and sergeants are on $57000 to $62000. Very few if any of those people get the $78000 that the Minister was talking about. I hope he is listening because he will have to answer me but he is talking to Katherine Rich so how can he possibly know what I am talking about? Very few of those people get even anywhere near what a Special Tactics Group operator gets and those who do get it have to deploy to Afghanistan where they get paid exactly the same remuneration rates as someone who is in a provincial reconstruction team and who is not deployed at the sharp end chasing down al-Qaeda. 
I say to the Minister to bear in mind also that when these lance corporals and corporals who are special in their nature go into the SAS they cannot be promoted further unlike line infantiers who stay in an infantry regiment who can rocket through the ranks if they are that good—and the SAS guys are; they are better—and get more pay. For the Minister to lump in all of the allowances the SAS personnel would get if they were in Afghanistan and to have this House believe that that is their base rate of pay is deceptive to say the least. I put on notice that I am standing for the SAS. I want its personnel to get a pay review. I want a better remuneration package for them. For us not to give them that is to leave them open to being poached by other armies that will pay them better. We know from the work they are doing that we cannot afford to lose these people. Indeed right now we are in danger of losing them to the police force because they can stay at home never leave their families enjoy all the luxuries and perks of life never get a call out for 6 months and get paid twice as much. 
On top of that SAS troops do not have just their black operational role—counter-terrorism—they also have conventional warfare responsibilities that entail them getting out with the battalions in normal peacetime and training for conventional war exercising their speciality alongside and with line infantry. I have a horrible feeling that in accepting some of the words of the officials who have had the Minister believe that every SAS soldier is getting paid $80000 a year which is rubbish we are missing the real value of these people. Without us being able to properly scrutinise them we are running for ourselves the risk of losing more of them and in time of their becoming an ineffective unit.