Report On Warship Hammers Defence Chiefs
September 18th, 2008
Is HMNZS Canterbury another naval lemon, like the late HMNZS Charles Upham – or can it be suitably modified to fill its proper role? In announcing a $20m “get well” programme, Defence Minister Phil Goff thinks the answer is yes.
Few doubt the report prepared by British naval authority John Cole and his team represents one of the most damning in the post-war history of the NZ Defence Force. It says Defence under-estimated the project’s complexity, found shortcomings with the choice of design, the way the project was managed, a shortage of technical skills (including naval architecture) and the haste to get Canterbury into service.
The report aims more than a few barbs at the top end of the defence bureaucracy, saying there were major deficiencies in management by the Ministry of Defence and its project team, which were made worse by strained relations with NZDF and a “relentless determination to deliver to time despite evidence of likely performance shortfalls. There was, however, no explicit consideration of the risks of doing so.”
The problem for Goff is he resolutely defended Canterbury in the face of sustained criticism from National MPs (citing problems encountered during its delivery voyage), raising questions over the quality of advice being tendered by the Secretary of Defence (then Graham Fortune) and the Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae.
It’s been revealed the Project Director advised the Secretary to recommend acceptance citing the need to have the ship available for personnel and expressing concern delay could lead to “demoralisation and people leaving the service.”
The Cole report says Canterbury is intrinsically sound but remedial work is required to meet military functions. Some operating limitations will have to be accepted. The report says “Even a cursory examination of her design and operating profile should have raised questions over her suitability, once modified, for long operational patrols in the Southern Oceans. It is axiomatic that the hull form of a ship designed for short sea crossings may not be ideally suited as a solution to fulfil the full Functional Performance Specification for the MRV.”
Copyright © Trans Tasman Media Ltd
Duncan Cotterill