Let's have some analysis then. Rather than launch in to a diatribe about what views you seem to think I hold, perhaps you could start with the point that shifting DNB to another location wouldn't justify the capital outlay. If that option fails to meet an investment test, what options do you see as being viable to address salary and benefit challenges of living in Auckland? "Show me your working" as they say.
Recently I was reading an interesting paper by Allen Schick (1998) "Why most developing countries should not try NZs reforms". It discusses the NZ model of government by contract; it's impacts both beneficial and detrimental. One of the points that it makes is that this model has effectively reduced the ability of government ministers to rein in their departments if they get out of hand. Another text that I refer to now and again is Peter Greener's "Timing is Everything". If you haven't acquainted yourself with it, I suggest that you do. The reason that Roger Douglas and Co embarked upon neoliberal economic reforms in particular in 1984 was because Treasury introduced it to them and the rest is history. I do not argue against the need for immediate economic reforms in 1984 because they were an absolute necessity. What I argued against and still do, was the extremes that the reforms went to.
My first and foremost loyalty is to my brothers and sisters who are in uniform. They do not have the legal ability nor right to campaign or fight for their pay and conditions. Hence those of us who have served before have to do that for them. They are caught up in any rationalisation of NZDF and whilst the policy is that their interests are included, in reality that is usually only by senior officers within NZDF and then not by all of them. As Volkadov has pointed out those officers hands are tied as well if they want to progress. The point I am making is that any rationalisation is about far more than just figures on a balance sheet. It is also about people - he tangata, he tangata, he tangata (it is people, it is people, it is people).
The second point is what is good for the service. This works in multiple ways. The people within do have expectations and hopes, however at the end they have to be placed where it is best for the service. What locale would best be for the navy? DNB is becoming more of a hindrance as time goes by and it is my argument that it is time to think about other locations for the fleet. If it remains at some stage it will have to be replaced because of a natural hazard, climate change or anthropogenic factors, such as local politics and population pressure. The current base has no room for expansion as well. In the long term the cost of staying will far out weigh the cost of leaving.
Where to go? Vicinity of Picton? Maybe but there would be a large nimby factor there. I remember the fast ferry controversy with regard to the Tory Channel and the misinformation that the protesters put out about that. I saw and read the research that was done regarding the fast ferry wakes because I knew the people who did it. One of them was my mentor. I opt for two separate bases, one north and one south island because it gives the navy a wider geographical terrestrial footprint and that has to be good for recruitment and retention. It also will give the navy greater flexibility in fleet utilisation because it will not be spatiality tied. For example if there were fleet bases in both Lyttelton and Wanganui the navy would have an eastern and western base plus it would be close to army assets which is important in the context of the JATF.
I do suggest that you read up on some history because I did not write a tirade as you put it. Right after WW2 ended Treasury and the govt of the day reverted true to form and slashed defence funding without thought for the future. They hamstrung the Navy, Army and Air departments financially whilst they were winding down and demobbing sailors, soldiers and airmen from the war. Many were on make work programmes until their demob was actioned. The hierarchy of the three departments were not blameless either in the subsequent mutinies and after all of the demobs the attitudes from the govt and respective hierarchies didn't really change. They hadn't learned from the experiences. When your troops mutiny it means that you have serious problems, especially in a ABCNZ military where their is a common heritage, history, training, military culture and philosophy. The ADF, CF & NZDF all have the institutional memory inherited from the British military and those lessons are usually never forgotten. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the pollies and the public service. One point that Schick did make about NZ government management, was that now the public service institutional memory is becoming dessicated because of the contract system.
If one is willing to learn from here, all well and good however a robust discussion does need to be held and all views challenged. Funding policy around defence in NZ is pitiful from a defence point of view with short sighted policies creating expensive long term problems. There are Treasury papers that have been submitted to Cabinet that write defence policy. The real problem that I and others have is that from all appearances Treasury doesn't understand the basics about defence and that is costing the country dearly financially.
