NZ DEFENSE REPORT REVEALS SHORTCOMINGS, CREATES DEBATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 WELLINGTON 000310 SIPDIS SENSITIVE STATE FOR STATE FOR EAP/ANP PACOM FOR J01E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV MARR EFIN NZ SUBJECT: NZ DEFENSE REPORT REVEALS SHORTCOMINGS, CREATES DEBATE WELLINGTON 00000310 001.2 OF 003 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. The publication of the 2008 New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) Annual Report created recent media controversy as it revealed shortfalls in the country's military preparedness. The NZ Defense Chief and Defense Minister defended the status of the NZ military. A subsequent report reinforced concerns that the NZDF faced serious manpower, procurement and capacity challenges. The opposition National Party tried (without success) to gain political advantage out of the reports but defense issues do not factor into the November 8 election for the majority of the general public. End Summary. New Zealand Defense Force Release Status Report -------------- -- ¶2. (SBU) The GNZ released the 2008 New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) Annual Report on September 3, which quickly prompted questions about the state of the country's military preparedness. The New Zealand Ministry of Defense-generated report revealed that the NZDF is currently ill-prepared to perform any mission beyond a low-level confrontation and faces numerous personnel, equipment and capacity challenges across the services. One major newspaper used broadsheet style banner headlines to sum up the NZDF's state of readiness: "Can't Sail, Can't Fly, Can't Fight." Problems Facing All Services -------------- ¶3. (U) According to the report, all three services of the NZDF - Army, Navy and Air Force - are facing challenges. For the Army, the report stated that land forces were only "partially" prepared for low-level conflicts, and it was not equipped to meet higher threats. The report further stated that "deficiencies in command and control, firepower, and compatible protection and mobility for combat service support elements would impair effectiveness in conventional military operations, and the more challenging peace support operations." ¶4. (U) The Air Force was reported as having "insufficient personnel" to meet air and ground crew levels and being only "partially prepared" for complex maritime air operations. It was also revealed that essential air transport and helicopter assets were restricted by technical problems or crew shortages. The report stated that few of the Navy's ships managed to get to sea as much as planned due to both a lack of personnel and "equipment and capability issues." The Navy also did not receive two offshore patrol vessels and four inshore patrol vessels during the year in question, when these had been expected. ¶5. (U) The report stated that NZ's Special Operations Forces are "maintained at a high state of readiness in order to meet short notice special operations in support of land combat operations, counter-terrorist operations, and the disposal of improvised explosive devices." However, it conceded that their ability to contribute beyond current operations is "very limited." Another Negative Report follows Annual Report -------------- ¶6. (SBU) A subsequent report only served to buttress the perception that the NZDF has considerable equipment and staffing issues. The Ministry of Defense and the NZDF commissioned John Coles, formally Chief Executive of the UK Ministry of Defense's Warship Support Agency, to independently review the acquisition and introduction into service of the HMNZS Canterbury, the New Zealand Navy's recently acquired yet troubled multi-role ship. The subsequent Coles Report revealed that an extra NZD 20 million funding is needed to address vessel safety issues and make it seaworthy. The report found no fault with Ministry of Defense procurement officials for purchasing a NZD 177 million ship vessel. Nonetheless, the Ministry's former Acquisition Chief Bruce Green, who was involved in the original procurement of the vessel, criticized the Canterbury's crew whose inexperience with multi-role ship, he argued, directly led to the subsequent damage to the ship in heavy seas. The report identified a number of material and training shortcomings, but judged that there is no correlation between the death of a crew member on October 5 2007 - during a maneuver at sea to deploy a rigid hull inflatable boat - and the intrinsic safety of vessel. Defense Chief says Standards not Compromised -------------- ¶7. (SBU) In the 2008 Annual Report, Defense Force Chief Lieutenant General Jerry Mataparae acknowledged the high staff attrition rate - more than 15 per cent - and the loss of trained staff to the civilian sector. However, he noted that the New Zealand Military maintains high WELLINGTON 00000310 002.2 OF 003 standards at home and abroad despite the struggle to retain staff. Mataparae said in the report that new equipment and new employment strategies would help with the problems. Defense Minister Endorse State of NZ Military -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Defense Minister Phil Goff defended the state of the NZDF and expressed confidence in its ability to carry out its mission. Goff noted that armed forces worldwide face a challenge to attract and retain staff and yet New Zealand's total number of defense force personnel was at its highest level in seven years. He said that despite the challenges currently facing the armed forces the reputation of the NZDF remains high and noted that the company operating in Bamian province is regarded as the "the best PRT in Afghanistan." Goff asserted that any claim that the NZDF is not fit for combat on the basis on the 2008 Annual report is without foundation. Labour-led Government Committed to Building up NZDF -------------- -------------- ¶9. (SBU) When Helen Clark's Labour Party defeated the then National Government in 1999, the NZDF was largely under-funded and beset by chronic staff loss and obsolete equipment. The incoming Labour-led government committed itself to build and maintain a modern, well trained, well equipped defense force. Goff argued that 2008 Annual Report was a progress report on rebuilding and modernising the NZDF from a similar 1999 status report which underscored the sorry state of the defense force at the time. Goff stressed that since 1999, successive Labour-led governments have sought to redress the funding - NZD 8 billion to date - and staffing shortfall in a ten-year plan that has not yet run its course. Since 2002, Goff asserted, the Government has injected NZD 4 billion to replace outdated equipment in all three arms of the NZDF, making it "the best equipped it had ever been." ¶10. (SBU) In the 2008 Budget of May 23, the Government allocated NZD 276.4 million over the next four years to grow and retain existing defense service personnel in a tight New Zealand labor market. This funding is out of the NZD 4.6 billion Defense Sustainability initiative started by the government in 2005. This represents approximately 1.4% of GDP, which is not dissimilar to the 1999 level of 1.3% (Note: Defense spending in NZ peaked at about 3% of GDP in the 1950s, and declined to an average of around 1.7% over the next three decades before falling sharply to around 1% of GDP during the 1990s. End Note). Goff has stated that the current levels of defense spending reflect the reality that "no-one is remotely interested in invading New Zealand". Opposition Criticizes Government over Findings -------------- - ¶11. (U) The findings of the 2008 report were immediately pounced upon by the opposition National Party. Led by its defense spokesman, Dr. Wayne Mapp, National highlighted the NZDF's "appalling state of affairs" under Labour and condemned Goff's assertion the NZDF is "the best-equipped it's ever been." Mapp stated that a National-led government would immediately commission a Defense White Paper to address the problems facing the NZDF. The National Party's attempt to garner media attention over this issue largely failed, as defense issues do not factor into the list of voter concerns for the November elections. Experts say Funding and Career Development Main Problems -------------- -------------- ¶12. (SBU) Two of New Zealand's leading defense experts believe that until the NZDF receive adequate funding and address career development, problems will remain for the country's defense force. Air Vice Marshall Robin Klitscher (ret.) welcomed the Government's plan to re-equip the defense force, but questioned whether it would be enough to restore troops' combat readiness to a reasonable level. Klitscher also said New Zealand's defense policies leaned too heavily on its allies to protect NZ troops when deployed. Former NZ Secretary of Defense, and former NZ Ambassador to the US, Denis McLean said the retention problem stemmed from New Zealand's defense strategy. McLean argued that many NZ servicemen and women do not see a career in the armed forces to be as attractive as in other countries because the NZ military is under-resourced and operationally limited. Comment -------------- WELLINGTON 00000310 003.2 OF 003 ¶13. (SBU) The problems outlined in both the NZDF and Cole reports mirror what many MOD officials have pointed out over the past several years. New Zealand's military is funded and organized to be a largely peace time military with limited capability geared towards the occasional security problem in the Pacific. It is inadequate for multiple, multi-year deployments such as those New Zealand is committed to in Timor-Leste, the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan -- where some troops have undergone multiple deployments to the same location. This has led to the retention problem at the mid-ranks, which is most worrisome to MOD leadership, primarily because security issues in the Pacific and New Zealand's commitments to the UN are unlikely to diminish. Until the NZ political leadership is willing to pay for a NZDF that can handle multiple deployments over the medium to long term, the NZDF will continue to work under stress.