WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1993. Wigram Sir.-1 am very concerned, along with a lot of other people, about what they intend to do with the Wigram air force base. 1 think it is a shame to abandon it when it can be used for training: etc. It has all the facilities there - barracks and accommodation. It is very useful for the RNZAF, as one of the main bases in the South Island, to train pilots, ATC and people for the air force, etc. Also, the Air Force Museum is very good, and is a tourist attraction that helps bring in revenue, along with the air shows that are held at Wigram. I think we should fight to keep it.-Yours, etc. (Miss) P. HUNT. March 7, 1993. Sir,-The Wigram Airfield Development Group is totally behind A. J. Chatfield's concerns (March 3). Yes, where indeed is local support? We have so far had plenty of negative, noncommittal comments (and in some instances total disinterest) from people in so-called "power." We finally accept it was a closedbook decision not to retain Wigram as a military air force base. Our group's aim is to see this historical landmark revert back to its original use - a civilian airfield. A small group does not nave a loud enough voice to be heard in political circles. Come on Canterbury! Help us make them siow down' and listen.- Yours, etc., P. J. BURNS. March 7, 1993. Sir,-"I am very surprised at the complete lack of condemnation by Christchurch people of the proposed closing of Wigram," says A. G. Chatfield, Renwick (March 5). Instead of a Chatfield reprimand we deserve to be court-martialled for dereliction of duty. I believe that most New Zealanders agree with his comment: "To lose a defence estab-. lishment to save $7 million, while the Government spends $400 million on consultants is an obscenity." Apparently all Governments are obsessed with costcutting. In 1923 the Government bought the Canterbury Aviation Company assets for defence purposes - but only after that astute benefactor, Henry Wigram, donated a third of the purchase price of £31,000. Seventy years on, not withstanding the ever greater need for military aviation, we are about to throw away this priceless asset. Because Cabinet lacks someone with the phenomenal vision of Sir Henry Wigram, we could be deprived of at least one more victory roll to celebrate winning the "Battle of Wigram."—Yours, etc.. J.K. MOIR. March 19, 1993. Wigram Sir,-Is Wigram just another land commodity, to be parcelled up and disposed of - a mere number of hectares and dollars? Aside from its history, it has great potential as a centre for aviation technology. The airfield and accommodation are ideal for advanced education and research - married with an industrial park on a living airfield. New Zealand can play an important part in the rapid growth of commerce and aviation around the Pacific. To be a centre player, even if on the rim and small in population, a readymade opportunity for a centre of excellence should not be missed. Airlines will obviously need a pool of suitable pilots; trained aeronautical engineers will also be in demand. But interdisciplinary aviation training is the key in the high technology industry of today; it is vital to qualify personnel for safe and effective management over a whole spectrum of aviationassociated businesses. As a frequent visitor here, I hope that the decision on Wigram can rise above its sacrifice to short-term expediency and, instead, allow it to service the enterprise and imagination that is common both to New Zealand and aviation.- Yours, etc., HARRY HOPKINS, Aviation consultant, Berkshire, UK. March 12, 1993. Sir,-The Wigram Airfield Development Support Group was formed some time ago with the intention of retaining Wigram as an airfield with aviation-based business providing Christchurch, and indeed the South Island, with a focus for aviation and employment. Millions of dollars have been spent to create Wigram, which is now a superb, readymade airfield, right on the doorstep of Christchurch, so our group is emphatic that the airfield must be retained. Wigram has a quite different function to Christchurch Airport. Wigram is a huge issue for Christchurch. Our group is worried that the powers-that-be seem surprisingly vague about its future and unaware of its huge potential for business, tourism and recreational activities. ne closing of Wigram is imminent Christchurch must wake up and retain this incredible asset before it is too late. Our group has constructive objectives and a petition has been organised to increase public awareness.—Yours. etc.. W. J. C. ROYDS. March 11, 1993. Sir, -While your editorial, "Wigram closing," was informa- Live and interesting, I feel that one point you made was based on a lack of information. You described the reaction to the closing of Wigram as muted. I can assure you that the 1600-plus people who signed the petition to save Wigram by the end of the Wings and Wheels day do not resemble a muted response. This response was achieved on one small stand at the end of the car park, with no publicity and only three pens. The feeling gained from people signing is that this operational air field is an asset to Constchurch, just like Hagley Park or Mona Vale, and we are not going to let it go. I predict that by the April 12 closing date we will have more than 10,000 signatures on the petition, and it would be a supremely arrogant Government that would try to rip up our $4.s million, three-yearold runway. This petition is avalable for signing in the Square.- Yours, etc., STEVEN GRAHAM. March 17, 1993. The decision by the Royal New Zealand Air Force to close Wigram by December, 1995; and relocate its ground training and support functions to Woodbourne was a textbook example of how to defuse local opposition. Carefully worded hints and broad indications that Wigram would go had been fed to the base personnel and the news media for some months leading up to the base rationalisation study results, which were released last week. In the event, what might have otherwise been a bombshell announcement met a muted reaction. Those figures merely confirmed what was already a matter of public record - that Wigram's operations would be cheaper to relocate than Woodbourne's, and that in these cost-conscious days, Defence would go for the option that best allowed it to live within its reduced means. That Wigram would be the casualty was anticipated from mid-1991, when the Budget reduced Defence spending by $112.5 million for the 1991/92 financial year, the cuts rising to $150 million in the following two years. The RNZAF promptly announced in the wake of the Budget cuts, that flying training would move from Wigram within two years, and even before last December's base rationalisation study, the shift of all flying training to Ohakea had been announced. Throughout all of this, there has been little real reaction from the Christchurch community. Compared to the outpouring of anger that greeted the demolition of the old Edmonds' factory in Ferry Road, or ongoing suggestions for future use of the former Government Buildings in the city, the gradual erosion of wigram's functions, and now the decision to close the base, has been greeted by a profound silence. Some disgruntled former RNZAF personnel have voiced opposition and a small community support group, formed encourage a usetul life after the Air Force quits Wigram, seems to be the extent of the community's concern for one of its oldest military institutions. Had the Air Force simply announced, without the months of preamble, that Wigram would close, the community's response might have been different, or at the very least more vocal than it has been to date. A silence of sorts also greeted the Army's decision to vacate and dispose of its property at King Edward Barracks. Like the Air Force, the Army is also evaluating its support activities and looking for savings that can be put into the sharp end, or operational side of the force's activities. In the case of the Air Force, it wishes to focus its activities around Auckland and Ohakea. It can afford only one support base and the rationalisation study indicated that relocating Woodbourne's facilities would cost twice as much as moving those of Wigram. Also, annual savings from closing Wigram would be $2.5 million more than by closing Woodbourne, and it would take five years at most to recoup the Wigram relocation costs, but 13 years to recover those from a woodbourne shift. Wigram Given that the study's terms of reference did not permit consideration of the social or personal factors inherent in such a radical decision as closing a large military base, it was inevitable that Wigram would lose. Neither was Wigram's role as the cradle of military flying in New Zealand, and therefore the spiritual home of the RNZAF, permitted to form any part in the purely economicdriven rationale of which would be the Air Force's support base. King Edward Barracks, too, has an historic link with the military, the site being used as a parade ground since 1864, and with the present barracks complex on the site since 1905. But where a strong case could be argued for Wigram's retention, especially as the base injects around $20 million a year Barracks was no longer a viable entity, especially given the proximity of Burnham Military Camp. These days the barracks, which sits on 8122 square metres of prime central city real estate and whose valuation is conservatively given at $3.4 million, is home to only 30 people and most of them administering Territorial Force units. It makes sense that these people move to Burnham, or to the Navy's base at HMNZS Pegasus in Montreal Street. Burnham Military Camp is also affected by the latest round of Defence infrastructural juggling. The camp lost around 160 people in role changes a year ago, but is to get back almost half that number by the relocation of Territorial Force headquarters from Auckland, as well as absorbing other functions. This is good if it ensures the long term survival of Burnham, but the public is right to wonder whether Defence is looking to the long term, or merely reacting to the latest funding crisis. People and functions were moved out of Burnham a year ago and now people and functions are being moved back in again. We need to be reassured that changes are necessary and that they reflect long-term planning objectives. Shifting people around the country has a significant personal and community impact, regardless oi any study's terms of reference. In the case of wigram, 235 people will be surplus to requirements when the base closes. These are not statistics, but people whose lives, and whose families' lives, will be radically altered by Defence's zeal to balance its books. At least 38 civilians at Wigram face redundancy while the Air Force privately hopes that around 200 uniformed personnel will resign, and thus eliminate the problem of what to do with 200 people for whom there are no jobs, in a service that has no redundancy provisions. Whether Wigram continues as a civilian aviation and tertiary education facility is unresolved, but the RNZAF is now committed to ending its association with Canterbury, a link that pre-dates the birth of the Air Force. Funding, rather than any strategic requirement, now dictates the geographical placement of our defence forces.