The ANZAC frigate project was one of the most controversial major defence projects of recent times and the decision-making process long and tortuous. Indeed, when making the announcement about the decision to proceed with a two frigate purchase, Geoffrey Palmer said:
I can’t remember a decision which the Cabinet and the Caucus have gone into in greater detail and argued the merits of for longer or more extensively than this one. It is certain that these issues have been thrashed out in complete detail.[89]
History has proven the first assertion to be correct; undoubtedly the merits for and against were argued extensively. However a question mark was to remain over the second comment as will be examined in chapter 4, which focuses on the decision of whether or not to purchase a further ANZAC frigate.
In identifying key decision-making influences with regard to the purchase of the frigates, it is clear that the essential break-up of ANZUS and the need for closer relationships with Australia played a major part. Reflecting the pre-eminent place of external sources of influence, in his interview with Lange, Squadron Leader Forrest asked: ‘If they said jump, would we jump?’ Lange’s response was: ‘That’s right, and that’s the guts of it.’[90] However, Geoffrey Palmer disagreed, indicating both that he felt that the view of Australian pressure was overstated, and that there was a clear need for four frigates:
I was Prime Minister and I can tell you they did not lean on us. I had one telephone call from Bob Hawke. But I didn’t need any convincing. I felt then that we needed a four frigate Navy, and I still feel that now. I couldn’t have lived with myself if we hadn’t bought them. It never occurred to me that we’d not end up buying the four.[91]
Whilst it is apparent that the role of Australia was pivotal, how New Zealand saw its role in the world, public opinion, the judgement of political side effects and opportunity costs, and politics and political influence were also influential throughout the whole frigate debate and decision-making process. New Zealand’s role in the world was redefined by New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance and the subsequent ANZUS split. The refocusing of New Zealand’s Defence effort had to squarely face public opinion, which revolved around both the cost of the frigates, seen by some critics as obscenely expensive, and their warfighting potential which was strongly opposed by the peace movement. Taking account of politics and political influence, advocates such as Palmer were only too well aware of opposition among many in the Party to the purchase of the frigates. In undertaking its judgement of political side effects and opportunity costs, the New Zealand Government sought to make the decision more acceptable by emphasising the potential NZ$800 million worth of work which was forecast to come to New Zealand, and by highlighting the ‘fitted for but not with’ nature of the vessels. Other influencing elements which had a strong bearing were bureaucratic politics (evident particularly during the evaluation period, as the RNZN sought to maximise the utility of the vessels), whilst timing and political influence were acutely important as a final choice was made.
There were therefore a number of clearly identifiable factors that weighed in the decision to proceed with the purchase of the ANZAC frigates. Whether or not such factors were vital in other acquisition case study decisions will be explored in the following chapters.