5. DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
What new capabilities will the NH90 helicopters, which the Government signed a contract to purchase yesterday, bring to the New Zealand Defence Force?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
The NH90 medium-utility helicopter is state-of-the-art technology. Compared with the current Iroquois, the new NH90 carries more than twice the number of troops, is a third faster, has a range four times as great, and can lift nearly five times the weight. It will be an integral part of a new modernised and highly mobile defence force, which this Labour-led Government has rebuilt after the 9 years of neglect and the more than one-third cut in real expenditure by National, which only pretends to believe in defence.
What advantages does the NH90 have with regard to the work it will undertake in New Zealand and the Pacific?
At home, as well as the much greater versatility it brings for military deployment, police deployment, and counter-terrorism operations the NH90 offers huge advantages in civil defence, search and rescue, and border-control work. The NH90 has far greater reach; for example, it can travel out 800 kilometres, compared with the Iroquoi’s 180 kilometres. It can operate for extended periods—
Hon David CarterDavid Carter obviously does not like this. His Government did absolutely nothing for defence. The NH90 can work equally well in the day or at night, and it can work in all weathers. It can carry much greater loads; for example, in the event of a cyclone in the Pacific, where there are no port facilities and where there is a coral reef, the NH90 can lift the Pinzgauer vehicle off the deck of the multi-role vessel and on to the island. The other advantage is that this aircraft can self-deploy to the Pacific. It does not need a C130 to carry it, or, for that matter, a multi-role vessel.
Hon Marian HobbsI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In that last answer, my colleague Tau Henare did a non-stop commentary right the way through. This happens time and time again, and I cannot hear what is being said.
Madam SPEAKERI agree with the member. In fact, I am tempted to ask the Minister to repeat his answer but it was excessively long. The Hon Tau Henare is known for his contributions during the debates so I ask him to lower his tone—that would be appreciated—so the rest of us can hear the debates.
No, contrary to the assertions of the National spokesman, this purchase actually completes the last of eight core capabilities deemed necessary to avoid policy failure after National cut defence spending by more than a third. Those eight core purchases have been completed in 5 years, less than half the term of the 10-year long-term development plan. If the National Party has so much to say, perhaps its members would have the courage to ask a question.
Ron MarkHas the Minister received any criticisms on the NH90 purchase about cost blowouts and inappropriate spending; and what comments would he have in reply to those criticisms from Mr McCully of the National Party?
I would say that those criticism were a little bit rich, coming from a person who was a member of Government when the HMNZS Charles Upham was purchased. That Government spent $85 million on it and sold it for $8 million, and if I can quote from the annual report for the year ended June 1998, the boat was never used. It was at sea for 3 days after trial, and then it was used to ship lemons in the Mediterranean—an absolutely appropriate task for a ship that was a lemon and that was produced by a National Government that was absolutely incompetent, that did nothing for defence, and has no grounds for criticising this, or any other, Government, on what we have achieved.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but we could not hear the answer down this end. Could we have it repeated, please?
In summary, I would say that anyone, and I am talking about Murray McCully, who was responsible for purchasing such an appalling choice of sealift ship as the Charles Upham—a ship that National spent $38 million on and sold for $8 million, and was never used because the planning that went into that was so incompetent—has no right to criticise anybody else at all about incompetence.
Hon Tau HenareI seek leave of the House to table the report whereby the defence spokesperson for New Zealand First, Ron Mark, supported the purchase of HMNZS Charles Upham.
I just remind members that the ruling on questions does not apply to interruptions during points of order.
I seek a bit of guidance. If Mr Henare is unable to table a document that proves what he has just told the House, what recourse is there for a member of the House?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I think it is inevitable as a consequence of your ruling that standards in the House will deteriorate, but the hand-sign I just saw from Ron Mark was grossly offensive, and I think it is something that you, as Speaker, should not allow within the House. Otherwise we truly are going to turn this into a crude Chamber.
I saw no hand movement or anything, except from other benches in this House, which I also took offence at.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I pass friendly waves to an old friend and colleague Tau Henare, the problem is that I was not even a member of the House at the time the Upham was purchased. Mr Henare knows that full well.
Would the member please be seated. [ Interruption] Ron Mark would you please be seated, or you will leave the Chamber. [] Phil Connelly, you were talking. Will you please leave the Chamber.
Dr Wayne MappI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, along with most members on this side of the House, saw Ron Mark give what was frankly an obscene one-finger gesture. Mr Ron Mark knows perfectly well he did that, because he was making light of it. That is intolerable behaviour in this House, and you should bring the House into order on that issue.