Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4491] 
5.  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Why did the Government commission a review of the structure of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force by Don Hunn at a cost of $150000 to $170000 and then reject its major recommendations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Defence 
: The Government has not rejected the major recommendations of the review of accountabilities and structural arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force. 
Simon Power 
: Why when the Hunn review was completed on 30 September last year has the Government waited until now to slip the review out quietly hoping to bury it under news coverage of bombs falling on Baghdad? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Last September we had no idea that bombs would be falling on Baghdad this week. The Government has been working through these issues and it has released the document in its own good time. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will the Hunn review recommendations cause a complete change of administrative and structural direction within the defence sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The recommendations strongly reinforce the direction in which the sector ought to be going with things such as the establishment of the joint forces operational headquarters the establishment of the joint staff college the appointment of the Secretary of Defence as an associate member of the Chief of Staffs Committee and other matters designed to achieve the integration that the report points towards. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister argue that “There is no need to accept Hunn’s recommendation to change the Defence Act because the Government’s objectives could be achieved by ministerial directives.” when the very reason we have ended up blowing approximately $800 million on 105 LAVIIIs is that he personally overrode the recommendations of the then Chief of Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence—a decision he made because he personally believed that the LAVIIIs were outdated and unsafe—and how does that decision look now as we watch on CNN 24 hours a day the sight of M113s operating with the American armed forces in Iraq in combat as of this very minute? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of the three questions can be answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: None of those matters were dealt with in the Hunn report which is about the lack of coordination between the Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the Minister reply to the substantive question: why has his Government refused to adopt the key recommendation of the Hunn report which recognised the abject failure of the split between funder and operator when applied to defence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest that the member reads the report; in fact the report does not make a recommendation to recombine the two. The report concentrates and I quote on “transformational reform”. This is about a series of objectives not about the necessary particular mechanisms. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the Minister’s comment that the report was about better integration between the various arms of the defence service and picking up the point made by Mr Mark is the Government prepared to consider changing the existing policy to ensure that in future all major capital purchase items by the defence service are made by defence personnel within Cabinet guidelines and that it is not specifically the prerogative of Cabinet Ministers to make those final decisions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Final decisions on capital purchases of that size as with any other capital purchase of that size are made by Cabinet not by individual Ministers. 
Simon Power 
: When the only recommendation the Government has chosen to follow from the Hunn report is to move to more jointness within the defence forces why has it decided to adopt a policy of disjointedness with our traditional friends and allies over Iraq? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of this particular question but the honourable Minister may comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have an enormous number of traditional friends who share our opinions on Iraq including for example France and Canada. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister reread the paragraph under the scope of the review that says that Hunn was directed by the Minister that the review should be forward-looking not preoccupied with past sins of omission or commission and also says: “Consequently this review does not address the question of accountability for failures in the current system whether these have arisen from system weakness or individual action.” and could that not be interpreted by the public as being the means and mechanism by which this Government managed to remove its fingerprints from its inappropriate involvement with senior Army officers in the run up to the 1999 election? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was far too long. The member has had his go. The Minister can comment briefly. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The report was about the kinds of structural changes required to achieve better integration of defence forces not about what happened in terms of the member’s obsession with the fact that there might have been conversations between members of defence forces and members of the Opposition. I am sure those conversations continue.