"The government's position was that we have frigates that have got a useful life until 2006. There is no necessity for us to make final decisions until 2002"
About this Quote
Bureaucratic calm can be its own form of argument, and Jenny Shipley leans hard on it here. The line is built to sound like pure logistics: service-life dates, decision windows, necessity. But the intent is political anesthesia. By translating a defence question into a timetable, she drains it of urgency and, with it, of controversy.
The subtext is classic executive triage: nothing is wrong, because the spreadsheet says nothing is due. “Useful life until 2006” isn’t just an engineering assessment; it’s a rhetorical shield. If the ships are still “useful,” then critics demanding faster procurement can be framed as impulsive, opportunistic, or fiscally reckless. The “no necessity” phrase is doing heavy lifting too: it’s not that the government won’t decide, it’s that reality itself supposedly doesn’t require a decision. That’s a subtle inversion of accountability, repositioning leadership as the party patiently obeying facts.
Contextually, this belongs to the familiar late-20th-century dance around defence spending in smaller democracies: public appetite for new hardware is limited, budgets are contested, and every procurement carries the whiff of waste or militarism. Shipley’s phrasing aims to hold the centre by promising prudence without admitting delay. The timeline (2006, 2002) also signals a bet on political weather: push the truly expensive, arguable choice beyond the immediate cycle, keep options open, and avoid making yourself the government that “chose wrong” before you have to.
The subtext is classic executive triage: nothing is wrong, because the spreadsheet says nothing is due. “Useful life until 2006” isn’t just an engineering assessment; it’s a rhetorical shield. If the ships are still “useful,” then critics demanding faster procurement can be framed as impulsive, opportunistic, or fiscally reckless. The “no necessity” phrase is doing heavy lifting too: it’s not that the government won’t decide, it’s that reality itself supposedly doesn’t require a decision. That’s a subtle inversion of accountability, repositioning leadership as the party patiently obeying facts.
Contextually, this belongs to the familiar late-20th-century dance around defence spending in smaller democracies: public appetite for new hardware is limited, budgets are contested, and every procurement carries the whiff of waste or militarism. Shipley’s phrasing aims to hold the centre by promising prudence without admitting delay. The timeline (2006, 2002) also signals a bet on political weather: push the truly expensive, arguable choice beyond the immediate cycle, keep options open, and avoid making yourself the government that “chose wrong” before you have to.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Jenny
Add to List
