Cosgrove Clayton: Defence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Defence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:859] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from that member who made quite a good contribution towards the end. He ran down a whole series of potential pressure points and if you will futuristic hot spots in our region. I turned to a colleague and I said— 
John Hayes 
: What’s your electorate? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is all right I am trying to praise you. I know this is difficult; nobody has in here but give me a go. He actually made a valid point. I know this is a unique thing in Mr Hayes’ existence. But would it not be nice—would it not be appropriate therefore—given all the illustration of the potential threats that our region may face that we had a viable Defence Force? Would not that be the case? 
I was reflecting on when I came into this place in 1999 and I made a speech along with others around the Defence Force. I recall the same sorts of issues coming up. If you look at the history of our country you see that bizarrely even though Labour was the party made up in its original times of the odd conscientious objector and what would perhaps now be called a peacenik or whatever it has always been throughout our history Labour Governments not those who pontificate and the conservatives on the other side that have put resources into our military. I know that is sort of a strange concept for Mr Hayes to reflect on but in 1999 for instance when we came to Government I recall speeches in this House about a Defence Force that we inherited. 
They served in Bosnia—M113 are the personnel carriers that were in Bosnia. The National Government had depleted the Defence Force budget so badly that we had the indignity of going to our allies the Australians—I think “Sir Les Patterson” was still in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade at that time—and asking the Australians whether we could borrow some armour-plate to weld it on to the personnel carriers which could not keep up with the British trucks they were supposed to defend in Bosnia. Then to cap it all off Mr Hayes’ Government had the indignity of cutting it off with oxyacetylene torches to give it back to the Australians. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you please clarify with the speaker whether Mr Hayes and Sir Les Patterson are the same person? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; that is misusing a point of order to score a political point. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry it is a point of order because if it is the same person I am going to lay a complaint against him and ask him to withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would invite Mr Hayes perhaps to watch a wee bit of contemporary television; he can draw his own conclusions. The other person I was thinking of in my mind was Captain Mainwaring but that was a different show. Mr Hayes of course does not like it; he likes to dish it out but when the old feet are put to the fire he does not like it. 
The thing that Mr Hayes has to realise about the history of his party as I was saying is that we had to borrow the armour-plate from the Aussies and weld it on. The personnel carriers could not keep up with the British trucks and then we had to cut the armour-plate off and give it back to the Aussies. We inherited a Defence Force whose radios were not interoperable. 
We inherited a navy where those geniuses in Mr Hayes’ Government—remember the  
Charles Upham 
? 
The ship I mean—not to be confused with the great man in case Mr Hayes is having a bit of a mind block. That was a great disaster from the National Government. It bought a ship with the great man’s name—his body resides in Papanui at the Papanui RSA—that ended up carrying oranges lemons or both around Spain. That is the history of the National Party which every time it comes into Government talks tough about the Defence Force: how patriotic it is how it stands by them. 
In this bill the Defence Amendment Bill you have a deficiency in capability and it is a National Government that comes in and makes the cuts. Mr Hayes made an interesting point. He used the old slogan: “We’re going to get rid of all these back-office flunkeys and we’re going to promote the front line—bolster up the front line.” Well here is Mr Hayes’ problem. Of the 495 people made redundant last year as my colleague Mr Goff said 295 were uniformed staff—soldiers. I say to Mr Hayes that not one person was cut from the back office the front office the basement or the attic of the Ministry of Defence headquarters—not one; not one of these so-called pen pushers these back-office people whom Mr Hayes talks about. 
So as usual this is the sort of bill that talks about capability talks about efficiency and talks about some lofty goals. But when the rubber hits the road Governments of course—it is Governments—send men and women out into harm’s way. Very rarely do we in this House get in harm’s way although judging by Mr Hayes’ demeanour I think he may have been in harm’s way quite recently. Governments send the men and women in our Defence Force into conflict zones. What those men and women ask is two things: that the cause is honourable and secondly that Governments that send them into harm’s way give them the men and women the equipment and resources they need to protect themselves to protect their comrades and to defend our country. 
I remember with other colleagues in 1999 making a speech very similar to this after we inherited a National Government’s cuts—slash and burn—and after it had underfunded and cut the military. I just invite Mr Hayes—he might want to take another call and his Minister might want to get up and make another contribution or have another speaker do it—to look at the redundancy plan. Not one person a so-called alleged pen-pusher from head office in the Ministry of Defence has been made redundant; it has been front-line capability. 
As for the Territorial Force I know as every member of this Parliament will know the greater difficulty that it is now for employers to put resource aside to allow their staff to engage in Territorial duties. I pay tribute to the armed forces who have put a hell of a lot of effort in the last number of years into promoting the Territorial Force working with employers explaining to employers the wonderful skills that those men and women if they are exposed to Territorial engagement will bring back to businesses to the entities and to the workplaces where they work. Now of course that is all up for grabs. 
I notice that the balloon across the way has popped and gone silent. So I invite Mr Hayes who does have some experience I believe in foreign affairs matters from when he was a diplomat as he outlined the potential and futuristic threats that our region may have to illustrate for us where these cuts are going to be extended to. 
National members of course use the term “savings”. They say it is savings. That sounds quite a positive term does it not? But what savings actually means is that you take resource from one part of an entity and redeploy it within that entity in another part. In this case they are taking resource directly out of the front-line staff the soldiers those whom they will send over to the conflict zones in the future to protect this country and to protect this country’s interests. 
So I invite Mr Hayes to reflect on that and I invite him to reflect on how he is going to get the $400 million cut—and let us call it what it is; it is not a saving—by 2015 and at the same time sustain morale such as it is. We have the lowest morale rating in the Defence Force survey as Mr Goff said since its inception. And it will go lower given that these resources are to be taken away. 
Then the question is this. How are we going to encourage other New Zealanders younger New Zealanders people who are thinking of making a commitment to the Defence Force in the future? They may be thinking of making such a commitment today especially given that we have extremely high unemployment but even putting that aside they may want to make a contribution to the Defence Force. They may want to sign up put the uniform on do the training and go out and protect our country and serve our country. If I was a young person looking at this bill I would be scratching my head and going “There ain’t no future here.” when the resources are being stripped away by that Minister Jonathan Coleman by Mr Hayes and by this Government. 
This Government of course talks in some sort of nationalistic patriotic way about supporting our defence forces and what it will do to create efficiencies but we know the real rubber that hits the road which is masked by this bill are the savage cuts that National makes in our Defence Force every time it gets in—every time. Look at the history from 1990 to 1999. They did it they cut it—they cut the Defence Force to the bone. Now National is back in again and history is repeating itself as it has throughout the period every time a National Government has been in here. 
It was a Labour Government that increased the capability of the Defence Force and yes we made hard decisions and yes we made some controversial decisions which some did not agree with. But by God we put resource into the navy we put resource into the air force and we put resource into the Territorial Force and we put resource into the regular force. We did not come into the Parliament waving around a bill that says “How great thou art.” at the same time as we were slashing and burning defence personnel capability at the same time as we were asking men and women to go and serve their country and put themselves in harm’s way. 
So I say to Mr Hayes that he is following a fine but tragic National tradition of slashing and burning the Defence Force and I invite him to examine very very closely where the cuts are coming from what their frequency is how they will be achieved and how they will be achieved in the future. I look forward to him celebrating the cuts in the Ministry of Defence headquarters when he makes them.