I feel I can ask you this as a serious question. Without getting into a debate on this mutli-faceted issue itself, I'm wondering whether there are some unintended consequences bubbling under for the govt?
In NZ society there has been a shift in public opinion to support the NZDF over the years (despite the usual nay-sayer players but even the media can be positive (even in amongst the occassional negative publicity eg Metro/journo "expose" etc)).
Labour's trying to pull out the punches over these lay-off's (but unfortunately for them can't seem to get any traction ... in fact on anything, over the last three years, they're in an almost death spiral in terms of public tolerance for some reason), but mud sticks and people have short memories, plus lay-off's are lay-off's and I suspect this govt will be tainted somewhat. Eventually this may not bode well (for the govt) especially seeing there will be another couple of rounds of lay-off's in the next year or so, extending the uncertainty and negative defence publicity. Especially if flaws come out over time with structure (for example security, must be somewhat compromised, as civilian support will be in less secure downtown public service type rented accomodation. Not neccessarily on bases if more base accomodation is required for the "sharp end." Cheaper to rent elsewhere than build on base, unless absolutely required for the "sharp-end" on base etc). Over time these things might bite the govt's bum so to speak, especially in terms of public opinion.
The court of public opinion is extremely fickle, especially in an election year. Metro is an Auckland based magazine and is basically read by Aucklanders but since approx 1/3 of NZ population lives within Auckland, opinion there can carry a modicum of weight. IIRC it was a cabal of Aucklanders (Clark & co) who got rid of the ACF for ideological reasons, rather than the economic reasons given. Look at the costs since 2001 for A4's and AerMacchi's, for which RNZAF / NZDF have had no tangible, or intangible benefit. So IMHO it is a bit rich of Labour to do any public posturing over NZDF capability cut backs. Granted they bought new kit for NZ Army and RNZN, with some questionable (fiscally) upgrades for RNZAF kit. I think it will be interesting to see what happens in next years budget with regard to NZDF. On present polling National could govern outright on their own, if election was held today. However the Rugby World Cup is between now and the election, and the performance of the All Blacks, could have an impact upon the makeup of parliament post election night. It has be known for the fortunes of NZ elections to be swayed by the results of All Black tests close to election days.
Perhaps I'm also trying to say the govt, defence planners and consultants need to factor in other aspects or criteria (can't think of the right words here) that can't just be measured in monetary terms, but could have a seriously adverse effect when enabled or enacted. (Like we have had with natural disasters recently, or perhaps one day a security incident etc). If someone can crack this, it might help the NZDF out, seeing they are constantly scrutinised, and rules and accountabilities applied, as if they were a measureable civilian or commercial entity.
My own personal view is that sometimes too many consultants can get involved in a study, which leads to loss of focus, or muddies the waters, creating structural and corporate confusion. I think this is what has happened in defence, during the 4th Labour government of 1999 - 2008, combined with the dramatic ideological shift, during the first 6 or 7 years of the Clark government. It created a paradigm that sowed confusion, in both NZ foreign and defence policy, with seemingly large, almost random, swings in policy.
NZDF has had a plethora of consultants, States Services civil servants and Treasury, go over it and through it like the proverbial dose. IMHO some of those with agendas, that would not have been conducive to the continual betterment of NZDF. There is also the current right wing postmodernist economic philosophy, that everything has to run like a business. Whilst this is applicable to a lot of government entities, others like NZDF do not strictly fit the mould or criteria of a business. How does NZDF measure profit and loss? Do they list the number of enemy killed as a profit? A seemingly silly analogy but a logically valid argument.
I feel so much fat has been cut away over the last 20 years in defence that they are having to start cutting into the muscle nowadays (eg esp. ACF), in order to continually satisfy the bean counters. NZDF should be growing capability (like ADF), which ok they are but to a smaller extent (hard not to compared to 10-15 years ago) but as they grow they also shrink eg more is being done with less. Although they say things are being done smarter, yes they are, but still with less, as in less numbers.
I agree. They have now cut into the muscle and NZDF has been well and truly cut to the quick. IMHO it has got to a very dangerous point where basic capability and response is threatened. They have no replacements for the front line troops. For example for the RNZN, the RNZNVR was the backup, but now the RNZNVR has no boats, so very miniscule amounts of sea training is done. In my time we had an IPC and we got sea time and a good basic seamanship training.
This isn't the Cold War/ANZUS posturing and practicing, nor is it the benign 1990's, these are the times of big deployments (eg since Vietnam) and as Govt has said in DWP, the era of enduring warfare. But defence force size has been reducing.
The risk identified in DWP is defence not being sustainable, if the funding/force mix isn't right (sure, trying to be corrected but only ever so much or slight that something unexpected could cause problems). Really at the end of the day Defence need better support .. and funding. (Funding is increasing eg 2%? - better than reducing but still not enough to keep up with inflation nor the regular periods where big reinvestments are needed eg periodic capability replacements).
My thoughts exactly and well put. Here are my views. NZDF needs a one off basic recapitalisation for new kit as follows.
RNZAF:
Replacements for P3, C130 and B757. This has been previously discussed as to kit and mix. I would suggest that NZDF start the process now because it is something that takes time, so needs a good lead in.
Reestablishment of ACF. Basic flight and combat training done with RAAF. My choice of aircraft would be Typhoon because per unit cost lower than Shornet and more agile & capable than Shornet. RAF has demonstrated air-to-ground capability in Libya.
RNZN. 4 x ANZAC replacement preferably with ANZAC II to same specs as RAN. 4 x small boast for RNZNVR divisions to do basic seamanship and gunnery skills etc. Endeavour replaced with something that is new, mission capable and fully IMO certified. 2 maybe 3 extra OPV's of same class as present with better armament for EEZ patrol and anti piracy ops. Upgrade present OPV's to new ships capabilities.
NZ Army. Some better AAA like 20 or 25mm. Personally I would like the Steyr 5.56mm to be replaced with a 7.62mm weapon. I just think that the better punch and reach of the 7.62mm outweighs any perceived advantages of the 5.56mm.
NZDF. Combine NZDF and Ministry of Defence. Savings would be gained in one operation instead of the duplication in the present two. It used to be one. If they want to keep NZDF at arms length then that can be done within one organisation with CDF still directly reporting to PM and Minister. The Permanent Secretary would just have to build a bridge and get over it. Then ongoing funding has to be 2% GDP per annum adjusted for inflation. A rider has to be attached that if GDP falls funding cannot be dropped below the previous years.
But the big problem is that is how are we going to pay for all of this? The poli's will wriggle and squirm to avoid doing anything like this because of the cost when they don't see it as a priority until the proverbial hits the fan. By then it will be too late. Unfortunately those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. IMHO I would think it would make good economic and fiscal sense to make one outlay on new kit than spending large sums on that which is well past it's use by date. But then I am not a poli.
Use 'em also to report suspicious activity and similarly track them if being used for suspicious activity!
