THE PRESS FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1986. Defence and manufacturing

Press, 31 January 1986, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1986. Defence and manufacturing

If a number of New Zealand manufacturers are encouraged, after a seminar the Ministry of Defence plans to hold in March, to supply the New Zealand Defence Forces with some of the items of equipment that are now imported, one result will be some saving in overseas funds. The Government publication, “The Defence Question: a discussion paper,” raises the possibility of more defence equipment being supplied from within New Zealand.

Undef thb heading, “How much should we spend?” the paper says: "Consideration should be given to the development in New Zealand of a greater capacity to produce some .defence equipment. There wduld be savings iri foreign exchange add a contribution to lhe more self-reliant policy. In industrialised ’countries, opportunities for employment, technical development, and the exchange, of Skilled personnel between the forces and iridustry are al!-enhanced by defepce expenditure. In ’ New Zealand, by contrast, defence expenditure as particularly demanding because a sizeable, part, must bp in,overseas exchange.” • ♦ Being able to use the capacity of New Zealand-manufacturing to supply the defence forces- with a few items is a long way from ’ the establishment of a -defence industry and neither, the. Ministry of Defence nor anyone .else has '.the- establishment of- a- defence industry in mind'. .The defence forces- are. already supplied with a number of items. All. the-food is from New’Zealand and practically; all the • clothing. The radios . which have recently been installed in the Orion aircraft as part of their refurbishing corhe from New Zealand. The training aircraft used by the Air Force afe made in New Zealand. ' What the Ministry .of Defence appears tq be, trying to do . is to encourage New Zealand manufacturers to look.' to defence as' a continuing source of orders and to consider whether their , plant could be ■ adapted.'to produce goods to the precise specifications required for defence purposes. The radio that a New Zealand manufacturer builds may perform well for years on a shelf, or even perform well taken outside in good weather,

The radio that someone in the defence forces requires may have to stand up to a bath of mud and still work properly. For the manufacturer the specification is likely to produce problems. Any good manufacturer may be able to design a radio that would still function after being dragged through a river. Yet to carry out the research on the design, to build a prototype, and to plan for the production Of, such a .radib, would entail considerable’ expense. ‘Many

manufacturers would not care to undertake , the research and planning on* the off,-chance of picking up' a defence order.

. This probably, means that the New * Zealand manufacturer would* have to work in close co-operatiort . with, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry .would heed to he. sure of the quality of the workmanship hnd ,the "manufacturer would have to’have a, sense, of not working with a bureaucracy which simply tested and accepted or rejected items , without regard- for the means of the maker. The seminar, which is being held with the cooperation of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, should at least be a start io greater communication between the Ministry and local manufacturers.

The Defence Ministry spends about' $3OO j million a year on material. Even if‘New Zealand manufacturers got another T per’ cent or 2 per'cent of this market,' it woulcj still 'amount to some millions of dollars. Besides the supply of new equipment, there is considerable repair and refurbishing done to existing equipment. * New Zealand manufacturers might be persuaded to’ undertake some of this work. •

The proposed seminar should let New

Zealand’ manufacturers know of the opportunities;- New Zealand Spends very little' on defence compared with the spending of a ’ great many countries; but there is no' reason • why more of what it spends‘should not go to' New Zealand manpfacturers and their employees. The advantage is nbt simply more work, but some highly technical, specialised ’ work which Could help in manufacturingother items as well.'