NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Todj - don't make the mistake of extrapolating idiotic comments on the Stuff website to reality. It is after all the low information persons twitter. Those without reality don't reflect reality.

My first motto, based off years observing human nature and the human condition, and backed up with personal and professional experience in both IT/tech support, HADR and EMS, is that, "people are stupid."

In terms of extrapolation, it is not based just upon the comments following that article or on the site itself but also comments and articles elsewhere, as well as policy statements and releases which have been made over the years.

 

[Todjaeger]

NZG opted for 1% GDP defence allowance because the NZDF exists notionally, by NZ (and the ADF) as an isolated entity.
Sure it trains with allies, like its biggest- Australia, but it's mission is not intrinsic to anyone else but itself, because its allowed to be so.

In the wider geopolitical context it's not answerable to any defined standard, so they settle for 1%.

I accept economies of scale effects, but defence sector/ industries can also provide a return to its economy too, it's not a one-way flush of cash is it?

Two key points. The NZDF, since it is the New Zealand Defence Force, is an isolated entity with everything (budgeting, policy, etc.) set by the NZG. For it to be any other way would be a loss of sovereignty on the part of New Zealand.

For example, how could AusGov force the NZG to spend more than 1% GDP on defence? How could Australia force the NZG to spend on specific areas/capabilities within the NZDF?

Realistically, even if there was an agreement between the two nations on maintaining defence funding at certain levels, no real mechanism exists which would enable one nation to set the defence priorities for another nation. Australia could invade if funding levels were not met, or there could be a diplomatic spat damaging or cutting ties between the two nations diplomatically and/or economically, or direct defence ties could be severed or reduced so that things like joint training/exercises and ship visits ceased. Even if any/all this were to happen, it would still not necessarily force the NZG to meet a particular funding requirement.

The second is that economies of scale are particularly applicable for the defence sector. With a nation as small as NZ in terms of population and industrial base, as well as the size of the defence budget, there is not much to sustain any significant defence industry. Even nations that with significantly larger economies and industrial bases like Australia, Canada, or even the UK, have run into problems maintaining core defence capabilities like aircraft production or naval shipbuilding.

 

[Wombat000]

In terms of joint operations, the two forces can and do work together, but absent a more common perspective, it will be difficult for two nations to agree upon what could be considered a military pressure where a joint response is appropriate, or even just a single nation's response wit the other providing a capability coverage elsewhere

Thanks for your reply.
I made the observation earlier that I believe most reasoned ppl in either nation would expect a response to either Aust or NZ effected militarily. Think this holds true.

I think they would also expect their military effort to be structured in the most efficient manner possible, so *perhaps* there might be scope for wider population acceptance of a more co-ordinated (and expensive) defence regime than what was deemed adequate previously? If they were given the opportunity to understand why it's logical to do this for the benefit of everyone.

In terms of defining triggers for joint ops, I suggest that comensurate capability requirements would only be significant to allow the commander to bring a larger than a single nation effect to bear - So if Aust or NZ were directly threatened forcing a united reply. In actual practical terms I do think it will be self evident.
A nation embarking on an expeditionary venture would typically do so if it's own capability allowed.
Remembering also that we are all signatories to ANZUS, so there is a legal mechanism/justification too.

Anyway, until it's fixed somehow to give NZDF a more relevant game to play the status quo of two intrinsically linked close allies fielding disjointed capabilities will persist and we should all be grateful the NZG provides whatever it does for its defence effort.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for your reply.
I made the observation earlier that I believe most reasoned ppl in either nation would expect a response to either Aust or NZ effected militarily. Think this holds true.

I think they would also expect their military effort to be structured in the most efficient manner possible, so *perhaps* there might be scope for wider population acceptance of a more co-ordinated (and expensive) defence regime than what was deemed adequate previously? If they were given the opportunity to understand why it's logical to do this for the benefit of everyone.

In terms of defining triggers for joint ops, I suggest that comensurate capability requirements would only be significant to allow the commander to bring a larger than a single nation effect to bear - So if Aust or NZ were directly threatened forcing a united reply. In actual practical terms I do think it will be self evident.
A nation embarking on an expeditionary venture would typically do so if it's own capability allowed.
Remembering also that we are all signatories to ANZUS, so there is a legal mechanism/justification too.

Anyway, until it's fixed somehow to give NZDF a more relevant game to play the status quo of two intrinsically linked close allies fielding disjointed capabilities will persist and we should all be grateful the NZG provides whatever it does for its defence effort.

But what could or would be considered a defence/military caused effect upon either Australia or New Zealand, or something which could/would/should require a military response?

Would piracy meet this criteria? Using the situation off the coast of Somalia as an example, when piracy was particularly bad around 2008, the insurance costs for shipping through the area increased by about $100k per voyage, which would increase the overall cost of the voyage and therefore the shipping costs and all the follow-on costs associated with an increased cost to ship goods.

Currently, while piracy in the area has been significantly reduced (thanks to a large international naval presence), there has been a massively increased threat of AShM attack upon shipping off the coast of Yemen, which could impact any shipping using the Suez Canal. The SLOC between Australia/NZ and European markets fall within this area and the potential exists for vessels either flying the flag of Australia or New Zealand, or bound for or departing from an Oz or NZ port, to be subject to attack. If there were to happen, would there be an impact upon Australia, New Zealand, or both? Could or should either nation be able to deploy assets to prevent or respond to such an attack, or even just to keep the SLOC open?

What about if there were to be a terror attack or hijacking of an international Qantas or Air NZ flight? Should the ADF or NZDF respond? Would they be able to?

Realistically, every contingency cannot be accounted for or covered, there is just too wide a range of potential things which could happen. Due to a very different perspective though, NZ has had some very different defence priorities from Oz and unfortunately there is no way to force a change in perspective, though that fortunately now seems to be changing.

 

[MrConservative]

I think they would also expect their military effort to be structured in the most efficient manner possible, so *perhaps* there might be scope for wider population acceptance of a more co-ordinated (and expensive) defence regime than what was deemed adequate previously? If they were given the opportunity to understand why it's logical to do this for the benefit of everyone.

Well hopefully the fairly stark and blunt Strategic Policy document compared to previous efforts since DWP97 (the last old school DWP) will at last give the great unwashed public and politicians an opportunity to finally understand. The difference between this and DWP97 is that unlike back in 97 the vast majority of Kiwi's had no concept of terrorism and thought that all PRC citizens dressed like Mao, rode bicycles and did Tai Chi in public parks.

The truth that if the NZ Govt had bought the 3rd Anzac Class and the F-16's its reputation with respect to Defence over the last 15 years would have been somewhat more favourable, even with debacles such as the Protector fleet, doubling down on NZLAV's and the ill-advised C-130H upgrade.

 

[t68]

Well looking back when NZ were spending 2% was the last of the Cold War era 1990's with the USSR being the prime focus of attention. The strategic situation for AU/NZ was more entwined and the larger threat was being contained be the Soviet bloc and the domino theory. In that time there were a number of proxy war's against Soviet expansion/communism which they(USSR) used nationalist agenda to further there own needs.

Then with the collapse USSR and the peace dividend western countries felt the need to rein in defence spending its in the time that NZ has drastically scaled back the capability. With the rise of terrorism was a generational shift and a new definition of the proxy wars brought about fuelled by ideology of religion in which past alliances between state and non state actors broke down which then created a vacuum for which begins a resurgent new form of communism which is integrating within capitalism.

China ahs seen from history how a closed economy fair against an open economy and has learn from the USSR mistakes, Cold War 2.0 started 40 years ago China played the long game and is pursuing a new version of Reagan economics which crippled the USSR of outspending your adversaries.

We have yet to see the full extant of China's policy, China still has serious internal problems to overcome from overpopulation and the one child policy, I doubt very much we will see proxy wars likes of Korea/Vietnam. But the Pacific island nations are an area to cause strategic concern for AU/NZ and a possible way of isolating AU/NZ from the USA which would be looking at the bigger picture, how far would AU/NZ be prepared to go the keep these vital nations within or sphere of influence those are the regional strategic concerns for AU/NZ without even looking at the bigger picture of the SCS and the Indo-Pacific area.

Should NZ be preparing for gunboat diplomacy?

 

[ngatimozart]

Ron Mark (Minister of Defence) on TVNZ Q+A this morning. Two things to note; there will not be an increase in defence funding to 2% GDP, nor reconstitution of the ACF this term, because they aren't part of the coalition agreement. During the panel discussion, Russell Normans anti US bias was to the fore. Typical of the Kiwi left being fixated on how evil the US is.

 

[MrConservative]

Ron Mark (Minister of Defence) on TVNZ Q+A this morning. Two things to note; there will not be an increase in defence funding to 2% GDP, nor reconstitution of the ACF this term, because they aren't part of the coalition agreement. During the panel discussion, Russell Normans anti US bias was to the fore. Typical of the Kiwi left being fixated on how evil the US is.

The political scientist woman was OK but superficial, good old Fran O'Sullivan was reasonable and one of the few journalists who has at least an understanding - but Fran is Business reporter albeit a good one, but yes Wussel the Greenpeace talking head was a complete whinging waste of space. You'd think TVNZ would be able to rustle up at least one specialist in the Defence-International Relations area on TVNZ's flagship weekly political hour. You can understand why I hold them in such contempt.

 

[Wombat000]

Would piracy meet this criteria? Using the situation off the coast of Somalia as an example

Well, if piracy was to the level that the effected nation could deal with it, then probably no.
If the piracy was to a level that overwhelmed the resources of the effected nation then I presume they'd ask for help.
If the piracy was to the extent that it effected both nations, then its logical that there'd likely be a motivated joint response from the get-go.
So if piracy occurred in the South Pacific, that could not be handled by a RNZN OPV, then the implied response would fall to the ADF, wouldn't it?
Does anyone believe for a second that adverse impacts on NZ would be tolerated by Australia? Does anyone not think that piracy in the SthPac would be directly contrary to both Aust & NZ national interests?
If there was a Capability response MoU then perhaps the RNZN would have more than 2 frigate combatants to begin with and would not be left with ZERO whilst they're laid up.
So because we don't, because the ADF couldn't be bothered to account for joint capability responsibilities with the RNZN, why would NZ even bother to field anything more than simple Nth-Sth island defence, because of this the ADF would have to divert its resources as a first response.
Not very wise is it.
The example the terror attack is moot. Both nations have CT capability.
If further resources are required on the day, I'm sure it will be provided, as can happen today.

Why don't we ask ourselves instead:
if the RAN is deployed to the SCS, who's going to patrol the Tasman Sea? Who's gunna provide effective combatants to the SthPac?
SCS is of vital importance to both NZ and Aust.
So if the RAN goes Nth, is it reasonable to expect the RNZN to cover the RAN and patrol closer waters? If so, what with?
Who's gunna provide presence in the SthPac?
So, Why is there no accounting for NZDF presence?

 

[Stampede]

There is a fallacy here that needs to be addressed. Affordability. New Zealand can afford a high end military - full stop, end of story.

Comparatively, it has a vibrant, strong economy, that produces surpluses, has a low govt GDP debt ration of around 20% compared to Australia at 40% and dramatically less than Western Europe for example which have some countries over the 100% mark.

The issue is that for the last 25 years NZ has deliberately chosen a political baseline of around 1% of GDP on Defence. Sometimes a little more often a little less. Even with its $20B over 15 years spend up of the last Government to replace major items defence spending was going to track under 1% of GDP.

Todj - don't make the mistake of extrapolating idiotic comments on the Stuff website to reality. It is after all the low information persons twitter. Those without reality don't reflect reality.

Thanks Mr Conservative.

My comment was some what double edged.
One, to elicit a response re money spent on defence and the other to look at what is actually achievable if the defence financial status qua remains unchanged.
I often compare New Zealand to Denmark in terms of defence capability and expectation . To be fair the Danes have a slightly bigger population and GDP but at the same time are not an unrealistic comparison re the defence potential achieved by a small nation.
Yes New Zealand is not in Europe but the Danes have a dozen ships over 1500 t including 3 AWD.
So yes Mr C I'm aware of the potential, but at the same time are mindful of New Zealand's attitude to defence investment, and so this leaves the Kiwis with some difficult choices when making capital investment across the services.
For their Navy, unless they commit to more defence dollars long term, then large fleet units may not be realistic. I therefore do not see meaningful numbers of large frigates replacing the two ANZAC.
I'll shoot myself in the foot at this stage and acknowledge they are currently acquiring a new supply ship. For the life of me I just do not comprehend in any way shape or form this ship and it's capabilities for the New Zealand navy both for now or the future. It's a bizarre purchase.

For now and the future.
I'd suggest its more defence dollars or acknowledge they can only afford a constabulary navy.
If the latter is the case, then acquire appropriate vessels.

Regards S

 

[t68]

Ron Mark (Minister of Defence) on TVNZ Q+A this morning. Two things to note; there will not be an increase in defence funding to 2% GDP, nor reconstitution of the ACF this term, because they aren't part of the coalition agreement. During the panel discussion, Russell Normans anti US bias was to the fore. Typical of the Kiwi left being fixated on how evil the US is.

So is it NZ 1st policy to get back to 2% and reconstructing an ACF?

id rather see NZ expand the air ASW/AEW overwatch capability than an ACF first but recognise to reconstruct a ACF needs to happen sooner rather than later if that is NZ 1st policy.

IMHO priority should be expanding over 20 years,
Navy
Frigate Force to 4x hulls (RN/RC built T26)
2x Endurance 170
2nd MCS ship
4x ice strengthened OPV (up to 2500t)
3x Damen 120 LST

Airforce
6x P8 (ideally 8, 4 is not enough when heavy maintenance kicks in)
4x 737-800QC (VIP/combi)
8x C130-30J (3x KC-130J & Harvest Hawk)
replace NH-90/ SH-2G(I) within 10 years
12x MH-60S (with 4x DAP kits 2x spare airframes for parts)
8x MH-60R
6x MH-47G (utility/SOF with inflight refuel probes)

Army
ideally id like to see an expansion to 2x MRCB and all under armour(tracked/wheeled /MBT)but that's double the current size, I have to think of this more.

 

[Wombat000]

Stampede,
Would it be accurate so suggest that the Danes have the fleet they do, because they exist in NATO?
NATO, an organisation that defined national capability through the combined national interests?
Denmark had an agreed mission statement and fielded capability accordingly?

In the absence of a regional NATO-esque, (for the want of a better term) ANZAC joint response mindset, yeah NZ probably will only bother to field a constabulary navy. Why not?
Any capability shortfall will have to absorbed by the ADF.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, if piracy was to the level that the effected nation could deal with it, then probably no.
If the piracy was to a level that overwhelmed the resources of the effected nation then I presume they'd ask for help.
If the piracy was to the extent that it effected both nations, then its logical that there'd likely be a motivated joint response from the get-go.
So if piracy occurred in the South Pacific, that could not be handled by a RNZN OPV, then the implied response would fall to the ADF, wouldn't it?
Does anyone believe for a second that adverse impacts on NZ would be tolerated by Australia? Does anyone not think that piracy in the SthPac would be directly contrary to both Aust & NZ national interests?
If there was a Capability response MoU then perhaps the RNZN would have more than 2 frigate combatants to begin with and would not be left with ZERO whilst they're laid up.
So because we don't, because the ADF couldn't be bothered to account for joint capability responsibilities with the RNZN, why would NZ even bother to field anything more than simple Nth-Sth island defence, because of this the ADF would have to divert its resources as a first response.
Not very wise is it.
The example the terror attack is moot. Both nations have CT capability.
If further resources are required on the day, I'm sure it will be provided, as can happen today.

Why don't we ask ourselves instead:
if the RAN is deployed to the SCS, who's going to patrol the Tasman Sea? Who's gunna provide effective combatants to the SthPac?
SCS is of vital importance to both NZ and Aust.
So if the RAN goes Nth, is it reasonable to expect the RNZN to cover the RAN and patrol closer waters? If so, what with?
Who's gunna provide presence in the SthPac?
So, Why is there no accounting for NZDF presence?

And you just highlighted a point I have raised repeatedly, albeit unwittingly I suspect.

Strategic threats and areas of interest to both Australia and New Zealand exist outside of the nation's respective home waters, EEZ areas, and the S. Pacific, but it does seem like within NZ circles for the last 20+ years, the defence influencers and decision-makers have only looked at a very small area of the world with respect to potential threats and areas of interest. For now, it seems like some within NZG are finally starting to look further out, while the world has become a much more interconnected and interdependent place. However, the NZDF is still stuck with the impact of decisions made almost a generation ago like when the options for two additional frigates were not exercised and then expired in 1997.

Even if there was a MOU between the ADF and NZDF about maintaining force levels, unless the NZG was willing to provide the necessary level of fund to support a force of a given size, any such MOU would be irrelevant. And if the sitting NZG saw no need for a defence budget of that size, because they failed to see any current or potential future threats, then the defence budget will get cut. And prior to this, the NZG examining the potential for threats to NZ would look at the situation and come to conclusions based upon their perspectives and whatever impact their ideology has. For long years, that has led the NZDF to development into a force more suited for comparatively low threat level int'l peacekeeping and local/regional HADR and constabulary work. Now though, it seems as though some Kiwis have started to realize that there are situations beyond Australia that can and will impact NZ. Unfortunately, it can take years to regenerate some of the capabilities which had been either let go or run down over the past decades.

 

[Wombat000]

Thanks for your excellent reply Todjaeger.
I accept national interests exist outside the EEZ.
Responses to those are expeditionary and perhaps affords more luxury to fashion a response within capability margins, as I guess occurs with Gulf deployments, and Somali pirate patrols. Vested nations talk, decide what to take.

The problem occurs when something then happens at home.
If the bulk happens to be pre-deployed, what happens then?
Can your ally cover your back?
If something happens anyway, can the 'home' nation respond to it at all? Is what they've got even adequately fit for the purpose?
Because someone will have to do it, and if your mate can't, then it will be you.

I suggest that NZ has had the luxury of existing in a placid bubble.
They've had the luxury of downsizing to the point of constabulary focus with bare minimum combatant capability, soon for a period they will have NONE!
They exist like this cos they've been ignored as a deployable capability by Australia. Left to their own focus, why wouldn't they!

I think we undersell the NZ population tho.
If they are given the opportunity to appreciate that they no longer exist in isolation, and there's a better way to deal with a more capable NZDF, then I think they will be open to bigger defence allowances, especially if there's some payback economic benefit to it.
In the end, I don't think they're too different from Australians, and we accept it.

 

[t68]

I think we undersell the NZ population tho.
If they are given the opportunity to appreciate that they no longer exist in isolation, and there's a better way to deal with a more capable NZDF, then I think they will be open to bigger defence allowances, especially if there's some payback economic benefit to it.
In the end, I don't think they're too different from Australians, and we accept it.

I think Rom Mark has the vision, but can he get the consensus?

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for your excellent reply Todjaeger.
I accept national interests exist outside the EEZ.
Responses to those are expeditionary and perhaps affords more luxury to fashion a response within capability margins, as I guess occurs with Gulf deployments, and Somali pirate patrols. Vested nations talk, decide what to take.

The problem occurs when something then happens at home.
If the bulk happens to be pre-deployed, what happens then?
Can your ally cover your back?
If something happens anyway, can the 'home' nation respond to it at all? Is what they've got even adequately fit for the purpose?
Because someone will have to do it, and if your mate can't, then it will be you.

I suggest that NZ has had the luxury of existing in a placid bubble.
They've had the luxury of downsizing to the point of constabulary focus with bare minimum combatant capability, soon for a period they will have NONE!
They exist like this cos they've been ignored as a deployable capability by Australia. Left to their own focus, why wouldn't they!

I think we undersell the NZ population tho.
If they are given the opportunity to appreciate that they no longer exist in isolation, and there's a better way to deal with a more capable NZDF, then I think they will be open to bigger defence allowances, especially if there's some payback economic benefit to it.
In the end, I don't think they're too different from Australians, and we accept it.

From my POV, the current state of the NZDF and how it got to be the way it is has little to do with Australia, and very much to do with a collection of Kiwis ideologues who now seemed to have 'aged out' of being politically active for the most part. As a result of ideology, they formulated a particular worldview and seemed to feel that NZ should be in a certain position with respect to world affairs. I make no claim to knowing what those involved actually thought or believed, but I have certainly been left with the impression that either they believed that NZ was isolated and therefore safe, despite the need for international trade, or that they at least wanted the average Kiwi to believe that. In many respects, it seems as though the desire was to have NZ become a non-aligned nation, neutral but friendly like Ireland.

I do not wish to get into the politics of the ideology, but elements of it still seem to remain among the population. That does now seem to be gradually changing, since the people AFAIK are no longer being advised by gov't that NZ is in "a benign strategic environment" and that NZ has a very different position in terms of trade routes, trading partners, and comparative regional power.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think Rom Mark has the vision, but can he get the consensus?

I believe that he can. The Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018 wouldn't have been approved by Cabinet, especially with it's wording, if he hadn't. He said a couple of weeks back that he has been working closely with the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and PM so I think that he has the numbers. Secondly some say that the Greens could kibosh it, but they can't because once Cabinet sign off on anything, all Cabinet members have collective responsibility for, and have to support that decision. So since Cabinet have signed off on and approved the Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018, the three Green Party Ministers can't go against that decision. Also IIRC the three green ministers are outside of Cabinet. I could be mistaken on that. Great isn't it.

 

[Wombat000]

From my POV, the current state of the NZDF and how it got to be the way it is has little to do with Australia, and very much to do with a collection of Kiwis ideologues

I’d dispute that.
Whilst both shouldve adressed the issue, its the utilmate responsibility of Australia as the inevitable senior(bigger) partner to embrace its smaller friends contribution.

Frozen out of any sense of relevance in the bigger picture, successive NZGs contracted their views from significant post war defence capability to a more introverted understanding of their expectations. Is it even surprising that the population & Govt subsequently lost defence focus?
Of course there was a strong argument to cut funding.

If we had (for the want of a better term) an ANZAC type regional NATO arrangement, then there would have been a more strategic mission for the NZDF, they would now look very different to what they are today.

.....anyway, im obviously passionate about this.
Thats my $10 worth.
Cheers.

 

[ngatimozart]

So is it NZ 1st policy to get back to 2% and reconstructing an ACF?

id rather see NZ expand the air ASW/AEW overwatch capability than an ACF first but recognise to reconstruct a ACF needs to happen sooner rather than later if that is NZ 1st policy.

IMHO priority should be expanding over 20 years,
Navy
Frigate Force to 4x hulls (RN/RC built T26)

No. Three hulls and not the RN/RC built T26, just because of the cost. The Babcock Type 31e or similar would be better, especially if built in South Korea.

2x Endurance 170

One yes but two maybe a stretch to far.

2nd MCS ship

What MCS ship? We don't have one and by the looks of it won't have a dedicated MCS ship.

4x ice strengthened OPV (up to 2500t)

No, that's what the SOPV is for and with luck we might even get two if the treasury fairy waves its magic wand. That and 3 standard OPV would be ideal.

3x Damen 120 LST

We have no requirement or need for a LST.

Airforce
6x P8 (ideally 8, 4 is not enough when heavy maintenance kicks in)

You dreamin' mate? Definitely four and maybe five at the very long stretch.

4x 737-800QC (VIP/combi)

Why oh why? Not in a million years. If we go down that route, then maybe a couple of KC-767 0r KC-46. Actually Airbus might offer a good deal on KC-30 MRTT to go with the A400. Trouble is the A330 is a tad too large for our needs.

8x C130-30J (3x KC-130J & Harvest Hawk)

No. What is needed is 3 A400 or C2 and 4 C-130J or similar. If the A400 is acquired then we wouldn't need any KC-130s.

replace NH-90/ SH-2G(I) within 10 years

I think that the NH90 will do well in NZ service. The problem I have with it, is that they are about 3 shy and all of the NH90 fleet should be marinised. The SH-2G(I) are due for replacement in about 12 years.

12x MH-60S (with 4x DAP kits 2x spare airframes for parts)
8x MH-60R

By 2030 the MH-60 will be old technology and getting somewhat ancient. I would wait for another seven years before I firmly looked at what SH-2G(I) replacements are and what the NZCONOPS will be for the replacements.

6x MH-47G (utility/SOF with inflight refuel probes)

Personally I would like to see the RNZAF operate 4 marinised Chooks. 6 chooks is 2 to many. IIRC the ADF only have 7

Army
ideally id like to see an expansion to 2x MRCB and all under armour(tracked/wheeled /MBT)but that's double the current size, I have to think of this more.

Let's be somewhat realistic shall we. We don't have an unlimited pot of gold. The leprechaun that is in charge of that pot has gone AWOL since St Paddy's day 1990.

 

[oldsig127]

From my POV, the current state of the NZDF and how it got to be the way it is has little to do with Australia, and very much to do with a collection of Kiwis ideologues who now seemed to have 'aged out' of being politically active for the most part.

In the early 1980's I (at the time an Australian Serviceman) became much involved with the NZ armed forces through marrying one of them, who had two cousins then serving in the RNZN. I was back and forth often and it was notable even in 1981 that there was a growing anti-nuclear and isolationist feeling in the country.

In 1985 (?) the Lange government banned nuclear armed or powered ships from NZ waters leading to the near destruction of ANZUS as a Pacific a analog of NATO. The near contemporaneous bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland hardened the opposition to things military and naval. Aside from the in-laws directly serving I found it hard to find anyone with anything other than the attitude that NZ should wash its hands of the whole business of Defence and tell everyone else to p*ss off. No doubt they existed, but were lying low.

Thirty years later and my grown nephews and nieces and their own families can't see any reason NZ needs more than fishing patrols and enough SAR to save people who deserve it (in other words, not those who "brought it on themselves" unless they pay for it. All this despite their having uncles and cousins who served, and largely independent of career choices and political leanings.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that non-aligned isolationism seems to have started a long while ago and become, if not the default public position, a very widely held one.

oldsig