Defence Review Consultation Summary of Submissions
Responses to Submissions Form Questions (continued)
Q7: What is the best organisational structure for the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force?
Separate Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence
Eighty six submitters supported the existing organisational separation between the Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence. Most of those that supported the separate roles of the Defence Force and the Ministry saw no reason to change and some specifically valued the fact that the Ministry was outside of the Defence Force's chain of command and not beholden to particular Service interests. However, 26 of this group wanted to keep the separation in place but transfer the Ministry's acquisition role to the Defence Force.
"The present structure of the MoD and Defence Force appears to be robust and working satisfactorily. No change is envisaged."
"Keep current separation of MoD and NZDF. MoD should advise Minister on policy and resources for capabilities, it has a management role. NZDF should be responsible for operations and tactics, it has a leadership role."
Changing the structure for the Defence Force
While 48 submitters argued for the retention of the single Services, slightly more (53) supported merging the Services. Many of these submitters suggested that all three Services should be integrated into a single force, including a Marines type of structure incorporating land, sea and air capabilities. Another option was to merge the Navy and Air Force into a maritime force. Integrating or merging Services in some form was seen as having potential for increasing effectiveness as well as providing opportunity for cost savings. A few also suggested integrating with the Australian Defence Force.
"While the Joint Force environment is essential in streamlining the operational capabilities of NZ, each service needs to retain individuality, and a move to combine all three services would be extremely counter-productive, and ruin service pride."
"I believe that the NZDF should be organised as a Marine brigade, with naval and air support."
"Retain separate Service but have them operating under a joint command."
Thirty six submitters commented on changing the structure of the senior command of the Defence Force. Some believed that the existing command structure should be flatter and leaner. Others supported a combined Strategic Headquarters model that is commonly used by the Defence Forces of many other countries. Another suggestion was for overall command to reside in a joint 'executive team' that comprised the single Service chiefs and some civilians such as the Secretary of Defence and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
"Integration of civilian and military components can provide the only effective management of people and infrastructure. The 1990 defence Act was a mistake."
A smaller number of submitters also encouraged the merging or centralisation of all support services such as logistics, catering, and medical services. This was also seen as an opportunity to streamline cross-Service operations and to obtain cost savings from less management, bureaucracy and duplication. This issue is covered by more submitters in Question 9.
"Ministry of defence is not needed. No other central government function retains the 1980's model of contested advice from a ministry and an operational agency... No other allied nation uses this model."
"MOD needs to be a part of NZDF. The whole procurement issue should highlight the current problems with an agency that sits outside defence and appears to fail to understand how defence works."
Combining functions of the Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence
Thirty two submitters believed that the Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence should be merged, or that the Ministry's functions should be subsumed into the Defence Force. There are two main reasons mentioned in submissions. The most common reason (particularly amongst Defence Force personnel) is a belief that acquisition outcomes would be better if they were primarily managed by the Defence Force. Most of this group of submitters believed that the Defence Force should have a much greater role in acquisitions to ensure the most effective equipment is procured. They preferred to see the Ministry's role primarily as a policy agency that should be integrated into the Defence Force, but if not, then continue as a stand-alone agency or be merged into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
A smaller number of submitters believed that the separation of the two organisations had not delivered the wider benefits originally envisaged for this arrangement and consequently that this type of model was no longer useful. These submitters observed that the split between policy and operational functions was now less common in the public sector and that this arrangement is not used by any of New Zealand's allies for defence. For some, the organisational arrangements for the defence sector as used in Australia and the United Kingdom were preferred. A few also commented that the recommendations of the 2002 Hunn report in relation to merging the two organisations should still be implemented.
