Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5489] 
2.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he confident that the purchasing of 105 light armoured vehicles has resulted in value for money for New Zealand’s defence needs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. The Army advises me that the vehicles have met all operational expectations and in fact it is very pleased with their performance. 
Ron Mark 
: Why is one of the $7 million - light armoured vehicles purchased by the Government currently gathering dust in a warehouse in Canada for use by the manufacturer as a “reference vehicle”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am advised that that is a standard practice. We have one of our light operational vehicles the Pinzgauer also with the manufacturer for the same reason. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen concerning the level of protection provided to soldiers in a combat situation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In regard to the light armoured vehicles they provide a very high level of protection. Although we fortunately have not had to engage those vehicles in combat the Stryker vehicle which is the US equivalent has been involved in combat in Iraq. The commander of the brigade there stated that in 10 suicide bomb attacks on the vehicles not a single soldier’s life limb or eyesight was lost. The US Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker has described the Stryker—which I repeat is the same as the light armoured vehicle in most respects—as the most survivable vehicle in Iraq today. 
Ron Mark 
: What great difference is there particularly given his last answer between the standard Canadian light armoured vehicle and the New Zealand variant that justifies the New Zealand taxpayer funding a $7 million reference model for the Canadian manufacturers which have produced thousands of almost identical vehicles in the past? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I pointed out before it is a standard procedure to leave one particular vehicle with the manufacturer for testing and other purposes. I could also point out to the member that we in fact have 105 light armoured vehicles. Because they are not currently deployed overseas that vehicle would not be needed in use in New Zealand today. 
Shane Jones 
: How have the New Zealand light armoured vehicles compared in joint exercises with Australian light armoured vehicles? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We deployed a company group of LAVIIIs to exercise with the Australians in northern Australia at the end of 2004. The Australian brigade commander described the LAVIII compared with his own vehicles as his vehicle of choice. They proved to be more capable than the Australian vehicles—both the M113s and the ASLAV2s. They were quieter faster better protected and had better gunnery systems. So all round they were a superior vehicle. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the decision to leave one of the light operational vehicles with the manufacturer in Canada—and now as we know one of the light armoured vehicles as a reference vehicle—been taken for other prior or existing Defence Force purchase agreements; for example is the Government planning to leave one of the NH90 helicopters or one each of the three different types of vessels comprising Project Protector with their manufacturers and do we have a stray Anzac frigate lying around somewhere that we do not know about? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a little hard to take that question seriously. Of course one would not leave one of two frigates or even one of eight NH90s with the manufacturer. In this case the LAVIII given that it is not in immediate need of use in New Zealand is considered by the New Zealand Defence Force to be more useful in Canada for testing purposes than in New Zealand. 
Shane Jones 
: In what sort of circumstance would the LAVIII be deployed overseas? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think everybody in this House would prefer New Zealand not to be involved in the level of combat where an LAVIII would be required. But one buys one’s defence equipment to cater for a worst-case scenario. If we were in a situation such as we were in Bosnia back in the 1990s we would find the LAVIIIs to be of critical importance because of their mobility and their ability to do convoy escorts. If the situation were to seriously deteriorate—and we hope it will not—in Timor Afghanistan or the Solomon Islands then the LAVIIIs would obviously be applicable in any one of those environments.