VZCZCXRO6501
RR RUEHDT RUEHPB
DE RUEHWL #0310/01 2630722
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 190722Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5439
INFO RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 1744
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 5264
RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 0722
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RUCNARF/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVE
RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 0758
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0064
RUEHDT/AMEMBASSY DILI 0034

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.