Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18460] 
6.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does he stand by his statement that the “current Cabinet is much more involved in the process” with reference to Cabinet oversight of major defence acquisitions; if so why does the Auditor-General’s report state that he saw no evidence that Cabinet was advised of a change in the operational use of the light armoured vehicles? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes that is what the  
Defence Long-term Development Plan 
 process provides for. As for the member’s second question Cabinet originally required that the Army “should have the ability to deploy and sustain a motorised light infantry battalion group” expecting the capacity to sustain a between 600 and 900-person commitment for a year and/or a 900 to 1200-sized battalion for 6 months. That has not changed. I would note that the Auditor-General also states: “We have no reason to doubt that the Army’s distribution plan is appropriate.” 
John Carter 
: Will the Minister acknowledge that the original operation plan for the light armoured vehicles as outlined in August 2000 is different from the current intended operational use and can he explain why he thought that that major operational change with all the implications outlined in the report did not need to go to Cabinet? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have just indicated to the member the key issue here is whether the policy and the Government’s requirement changed and the answer is no they did not. The operational implementation of that policy is properly a matter for professional defence personnel. That is what is happening. 
Jill Pettis 
: Could the Minister outline to the House any other recommendations the Auditor-General may have made? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Auditor-General made some nine recommendations in total relating to a range of areas including personnel life cycle costing the capability management framework independent review and logistics support. It is pleasing to note that the report’s recommendations have either been implemented through the process under the capability management framework or specific actions are under way regarding the introduction into service of the light armoured vehicles. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is not the real problem here contained in the statement in the original question that the “current Cabinet is much more involved in the process” when in fact a better way to proceed would be for the New Zealand Defence Force to be able to make its capital purchases based on its assessment of its needs within approved budget parameters by the Government rather than Cabinet making those decisions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the balance we have now struck is the best of both those worlds. It is through the  
Defence Long-term Development Plan 
 which involves the proper involvement of the three defence services in a collaborative way but with appropriate Cabinet oversight at each of the milestones of each project. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it is not a fact that this Government received advice from New Zealand First in August 2000 and subsequent advice in about August 2003 that the Government should not make that purchase that the Government also received advice from the then Chief of Defence Force Carey Adamson and the current Secretary of Defence not to purchase 105 but 50 vehicles and that if the Government—it is in the Cabinet paper—sought to buy the full 105 light armoured vehicles it should buy them in two tranches of 50; is not the real problem the fact that the Minister chose to ignore all that quality advice and to listen to Major General Dodson in his office—to make a quite separate decision altogether? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is a very multifaceted question. But in summary I had a range of advice. The advice that is frequently referred to from the Secretary of Defence is incorrect. But in the end on the range of options that were put up the Treasury advice was that if 105 light armoured vehicles were to be purchased—[ 
Interruption 
] yes as one of the options—then they were better to be purchased in one tranche. That was by far the most fiscally responsible way of proceeding. 
John Carter 
: Is one of the points of difference between the Minister and the Auditor-General as acknowledged this morning on National Radio the fact that the Auditor-General believes that it “is important that Cabinet is informed of changes in regard to major capital purchase that are made subsequent to Cabinet giving approval in principle for that purchase.”; if so does that mean he did not think he needed to tell Cabinet about the changes in operational use of the 105 light armoured vehicles that cost $677 million? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is certainly not understanding the situation clearly. There is no difference between the Auditor-General and me in terms of the belief that should there be a major change to a capital acquisition of course that goes to Cabinet as it does through the long-term development plan. However if as I indicated to the member in the principal answer the operational requirement is to be met and Cabinet’s policy requirement is to be met it is properly the business of the defence professionals to manage those resources to appropriately meet the Government’s policy requirements. 
John Carter 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that he cannot blame that report on anyone else but himself and that as a consequence we have a shambles that he should accept responsibility for—that he should just resign? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I did not author the report so I cannot take responsibility for the content of it. I say to the member that as I said in my official response to it I think that all in all most of the report is helpful. A number of very useful recommendations were made. In one respect the Auditor-General’s staff and I simply disagree. I note that the country’s most senior military and defence advisers also disagree with that part of the Auditor-General’s staff’s report. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister remember the former Chief of Defence Force Carey Adamson advising him in 2000 that only 50 LAVIII’s should be bought not 105; and can he confirm that if he had followed the Chief of Defence Force’s advice the unspent money would have been sufficient to buy and bring into service two brand new C130J Hercules aircraft thereby avoiding the embarrassment of the breakdowns and more particularly being able to get lifesaving humanitarian aid to the tsunami victims much more quickly? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot confirm all of that no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One shows that under this Minister there was a blowout of over half a billion dollars on that purchase and the second one demonstrates that for every trained LAVIII crew member there are two LAVIIIs. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that for each of the LAVIIIs there are almost three trained crew members. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table evidence that although three trained crew members are required for each LAVIII there are only 45 who are trained and that there are over 100 vehicles so that makes more than two vehicles for each trained member. 
Document not tabled.