11. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
What level of establishment must Defence Force units fall below to be deemed operationally ineffective, and how many units are currently below that level of establishment?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
I am advised that all deployed units are staffed at 100 percent, fit for purpose, and equipped appropriately. I am also advised that effectiveness is not measured solely by establishment numbers. However, the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review, presented in February 2005, shows that there are a number of areas where operational and organisational capabilities are below what is required by Government policy. In answer to a written question in 2005, a summary table of the then current average strength was provided. I have asked for an update for 2006 to be provided, but it was not available in time to answer this question today. I am sure the member is also aware that these issues are being directly addressed through the Government’s $4.6 billion Defence Sustainability Initiative.
How many of the units in New Zealand are currently operating under 80 percent of establishment, and can the Minister tell us the names of those units?
No, I am unable to tell the member that today, although I did seek that information before I could answer this question. As soon as I receive it I will make it available to the member.
Can the Minister undertake to also report to the House and clarify the difference between the established strengths of the units, the authorised strengths—that is, the strengths that the Government has funded those units to—and the actual strengths, as we need to clearly understand the difference between those strength levels?
On behalf of the Minister of Defence, no I am not able to provide the answer to the member. I am told, however, that in terms of establishment it is not the only measure of effectiveness and that we need also to look at readiness, combat viability, deployability, and sustainability. But in terms of the substantial question, I could not provide the information at this time.
Heather RoyDoes the Minister accept that full funding availability is a key element for defence units to maintain directed level of capability personnel numbers; if so, when does his Government intend to reimburse the Royal New Zealand Air Force the conservatively estimated $12 million it has cost it to date to run the air combat force disposal unit to maintain the decommissioned Skyhawk and Aermacchi fleets for a sale that looks likely never to happen?
Rodney HideIn fact, the first urgent injection of capital happened in 2000, with $1 billion being put in for capital equipment. Since then we have seen a commitment of $3.3 billion in terms of the long-term development plan, and a further $4.6 billion for the defence sustainability initiative, which includes provision for personnel, infrastructure, and organisation. So this Government has shown its commitment to defence in a way that no Government in the past has.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister failed to address any part of my question. The first part asked whether full funding availability was a key element for defence units to maintain directed level of capability status, and the second part asked when the Government, if the Minister agreed with that statement, would refund the Air Force the $12 million, which is a conservative estimate. She failed to address any part of that specific question.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister gave a long answer that addressed the question generally. Would she like to specifically address the Air Force?
I already outlined in my answer the money going into the defence forces of New Zealand, including into the Air Force. I said that I stand by our commitment to the defence forces of over $7 billion, going forward over 10 years, which includes money for the Air Force.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the Minister still has not specifically addressed the question, which was when this Government will refund the $12 million taken from the Air Force to maintain the Skyhawk and Aermacchi fleets for a sale that is never going to happen.