NZDF General discussion thread

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
12 serving NZDF personnel have taken the NZDF to court over its no jab no job policy. Their argument is that the CDF's directive infringes upon their individual rights to decide what medications to put in their bodies. Funny thing is that when they attested and swore the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, Her Heirs and Successors, they willing gave up some freedoms and rights. They also became subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1991 which will have some bearing on this if NZDF choose to invoke it.

12 of them involved in one Court case - that raises the possibility of charges of mutiny. It would definitely be something that I would seriously consider if I was in the position to do so. I would have to whether I liked it or not because if I didn’t and was in the position to do so I too could be in seriously trouble. The other thing to consider is how many others knew that they were going to do this? If any the others who knew didn’t inform their chain of command then they too are as liable for mutiny charges as the original 12.

I don't believe that these 12 individuals have truly thought through the consequences of their actions. At best they may just be discharged from NZDF without any disciplinary action. At worse, from memory mutiny carries a life sentence of imprisonment. Up until the AFDA 1991 took effect the maximum penalty was death. The NZDF will have to discipline these 12 because if it doesn't, it will undermine its own discipline and good order.

 

Shanesworld

Well-Known Member
12 serving NZDF personnel have taken the NZDF to court over its no jab no job policy. Their argument is that the CDF's directive infringes upon their individual rights to decide what medications to put in their bodies. Funny thing is that when they attested and swore the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, Her Heirs and Successors, they willing gave up some freedoms and rights. They also became subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1991 which will have some bearing on this if NZDF choose to invoke it.

12 of them involved in one Court case - that raises the possibility of charges of mutiny. It would definitely be something that I would seriously consider if I was in the position to do so. I would have to whether I liked it or not because if I didn’t and was in the position to do so I too could be in seriously trouble. The other thing to consider is how many others knew that they were going to do this? If any the others who knew didn’t inform their chain of command then they too are as liable for mutiny charges as the original 12.

I don't believe that these 12 individuals have truly thought through the consequences of their actions. At best they may just be discharged from NZDF without any disciplinary action. At worse, from memory mutiny carries a life sentence of imprisonment. Up until the AFDA 1991 took effect the maximum penalty was death. The NZDF will have to discipline these 12 because if it doesn't, it will undermine its own discipline and good order.

From the scuttle butt ive heard it might be 12 now but there are more that are not happy and they occupy very understaffed roles. I get the gist that for some its the straw on the domedary rather than a sole issue and they are generally just fed up with leadership, how they are treated and shape of defence force.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that these 12 individuals have truly thought through the consequences of their actions. At best they may just be discharged from NZDF without any disciplinary action.
At the very least they could be considered to be providing "restricted service" and administratively discharged following a "notice to show cause" process (if the NZDF has one similar to the ADF).
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
12 serving NZDF personnel have taken the NZDF to court over its no jab no job policy. Their argument is that the CDF's directive infringes upon their individual rights to decide what medications to put in their bodies. Funny thing is that when they attested and swore the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, Her Heirs and Successors, they willing gave up some freedoms and rights. They also became subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1991 which will have some bearing on this if NZDF choose to invoke it.
The operative word is SOME rights and freedoms. The AFDA71 and the DA90 also must be read (as outlined in the principle of s5 of the Interpretation Act 1999) in conjunction with the BORA90 and HRA93.

There is also the right for anyone in service to make application to the Court of Appeal following any court martial proceedings or BORA/HRA matter on a point of law, and from there go to the Supreme Court. With the lefty liberal activist Judges now being installed on the benches - they might get exonerated.

12 of them involved in one Court case - that raises the possibility of charges of mutiny. It would definitely be something that I would seriously consider if I was in the position to do so. I would have to whether I liked it or not because if I didn’t and was in the position to do so I too could be in seriously trouble. The other thing to consider is how many others knew that they were going to do this? If any the others who knew didn’t inform their chain of command then they too are as liable for mutiny charges as the original 12.
The is no chance of mutiny charges sticking here.

I don't believe that these 12 individuals have truly thought through the consequences of their actions. At best they may just be discharged from NZDF without any disciplinary action. At worse, from memory mutiny carries a life sentence of imprisonment. Up until the AFDA 1991 took effect the maximum penalty was death. The NZDF will have to discipline these 12 because if it doesn't, it will undermine its own discipline and good order.

Section 57A of the DA90 will likely be used - meaning that the CDF just gets rid of them (discharges) under 4-156 for endangering other members of the Defence Force.
 

CJohn

Active Member
A must listen part one of a podcast by Dr Simon Ewing-Jarvie on the Defense of New Zealand, concerns about New Zealand's defence needs and a brief insight into current shortfalls.

 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Interesting news... Australia, United Kingdom, and United States announce major new AUKUS defence pact

Clearly NZ is never going to be able to move in these circles anyway so i wouldn't cry over NZ not being included. Without further detail it seems to me to be largely a platform based PACT (subs) and reflects a pragmatic approach to including only those countries that'll actually be at the sharp-end. Certainly a sensible way forward to counter growing concerns with China.

So what does this mean for NZ's defence outlook? We know Australia has moved way beyond the ballgame that NZ wants to play... so does that see (1) NZ twigs it needs to pull it's finger out... seeing the DCP be delivered as-is but with more depth....or (2) NZ throws in the towel as we can no longer play this game at our allies level... leading to a move away from any pretence of sharp-end capability?
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Interesting news... Australia, United Kingdom, and United States announce major new AUKUS defence pact

Clearly NZ is never going to be able to move in these circles anyway so i wouldn't cry over NZ not being included. Without further detail it seems to me to be largely a platform based PACT (subs) and reflects a pragmatic approach to including only those countries that'll actually be at the sharp-end. Certainly a sensible way forward to counter growing concerns with China.

So what does this mean for NZ's defence outlook? We know Australia has moved way beyond the ballgame that NZ wants to play... so does that see (1) NZ twigs it needs to pull it's finger out... seeing the DCP be delivered as-is but with more depth....or (2) NZ throws in the towel as we can no longer play this game at our allies level... leading to a move away from any pretence of sharp-end capability?
Another interesting aspect is that NZ msm coverage appears to be "positive" i.e. between neutral and understanding/supportive eg acknowledging the rising influence of CCP in the wider region hence these new strategic developments etc, even appearing to highlighting the fact that NZ is not being included! It's even made talkback radio and the callers so far are supportive and wanting NZ to be more proactive and to do more with our allies!

Left-field thought, probably make our govt crap its pants (but at the same time they could scramble to work something out and be seen as "doing something" in support of the Trans-Tasman alliance) .... which is ScoMo could offer our Dear PM some of the old Collins subs as an "NZ focused/ANZAC" contribution to defending the South Pacific and as an intelligence asset to keep an eye on CCP maritime activities in "our" wider region. It wouldn't work as a sale though (RNZN have no sub skillsets - Tresasury would sink it), it would have to be an Aussie led M.A.P. perhaps as a joint ANZAC force (eg manned by RAN and RNZN ... just like how the NZ Navy operated leading up to and into WW2). NZ could contribute the funds. NZ up's its combat force and the Aussies know their eastern flank is strengthened.

May not be techincally feasible (and another brickwall apart from NZG may be Ozzie perspective to look down on its poorer cousins say sort it yourself)!
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
So what does this mean for NZ's defence outlook? We know Australia has moved way beyond the ballgame that NZ wants to play... so does that see (1) NZ twigs it needs to pull it's finger out... seeing the DCP be delivered as-is but with more depth....or (2) NZ throws in the towel as we can no longer play this game at our allies level... leading to a move away from any pretence of sharp-end capability?
I'd say good luck with (2) that won't end well for NZ, and its pretensions of an independent foreign policy, but to be honest the current generation of rank stupidity at present in the NZ political elite have not being able to see past our external relations settings as nothing more than trade access, are likely to think that is a great option. That trade access to our "allies" in and around the Indo-Pacific might not be so easy going forward, and if the tempo of prescribed and targeted economic and trade sanctions are increased against the PRC, which have already started per Canada, US and the EU, over the PRC in areas such as Human Rights but moves into punishment over egregious behavior in the SCS et al, the whole trade silo mentality and "independent foreign policy" trope will implode on itself.

I think the public of New Zealand has to understand that the existential geo-strategic threat to peace in the Indo-Pacific is just as important as the challenges of climate change and the like. In my view more, because without a strong rules based international peace underpinning the Indo-Pacific and therefore globe, and any current flaws or failings whether that will be environmental, human rights, poverty and emancipation, cannot ever be addressed otherwise.

So essentially, it comes on down to (1). We should have pulled our finger out ten years ago because all the signs were there that the 2020's onwards were not going to be easy.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
I'd say good luck with (2) that won't end well for NZ, and its pretensions of an independent foreign policy, but to be honest the current generation of rank stupidity at present in the NZ political elite have not being able to see past our external relations settings as nothing more than trade access, are likely to think that is a great option. That trade access to our "allies" in and around the Indo-Pacific might not be so easy going forward, and if the tempo of prescribed and targeted economic and trade sanctions are increased against the PRC, which have already started per Canada, US and the EU, over the PRC in areas such as Human Rights but moves into punishment over egregious behavior in the SCS et al, the whole trade silo mentality and "independent foreign policy" trope will implode on itself.

I think the public of New Zealand has to understand that the existential geo-strategic threat to peace in the Indo-Pacific is just as important as the challenges of climate change and the like. In my view more, because without a strong rules based international peace underpinning the Indo-Pacific and therefore globe, and any current flaws or failings whether that will be environmental, human rights, poverty and emancipation, cannot ever be addressed otherwise.

So essentially, it comes on down to (1). We should have pulled our finger out ten years ago because all the signs were there that the 2020's onwards were not going to be easy.

Yep totally agree... the ignorance of the NZ political elite (oxy-moron if ever there was one!) and media is astounding.... see Defence as nothing but an expensive way of cuddling up to allies... something they seem to think is done just for the old-boys club! It's going to be very, very interesting to see what this supposedly updated defence assessment states when it's finally seen...that'll really tell us whether the current Govt is coming to any semblance of understanding or not! I won't hold my breath! It's not just this current bunch either!
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Another interesting aspect is that NZ msm coverage appears to be "positive" i.e. between neutral and understanding/supportive eg acknowledging the rising influence of CCP in the wider region hence these new strategic developments etc, even appearing to highlighting the fact that NZ is not being included! It's even made talkback radio and the callers so far are supportive and wanting NZ to be more proactive and to do more with our allies!
Imagine though if this was started by Trump. NZ aligns itself much more easily with a Democrat president than with a republican one.

Left-field thought, probably make our govt crap its pants (but at the same time they could scramble to work something out and be seen as "doing something" in support of the Trans-Tasman alliance) .... which is ScoMo could offer our Dear PM some of the old Collins subs as an "NZ focused/ANZAC" contribution to defending the South Pacific and as an intelligence asset to keep an eye on CCP maritime activities in "our" wider region. It wouldn't work as a sale though (RNZN have no sub skillsets - Tresasury would sink it), it would have to be an Aussie led M.A.P. perhaps as a joint ANZAC force (eg manned by RAN and RNZN ... just like how the NZ Navy operated leading up to and into WW2). NZ could contribute the funds. NZ up's its combat force and the Aussies know their eastern flank is strengthened.
We can do much more by ramping up areas which have been left to atrophy in the Air and Maritime domains, speed up the Space domain roll-out would be the first touchstones to explore. Submarines are a very distant concept, when there is so much more that can and should be done. That would be the message that Canberra would probably think would be more helpful.

May not be techincally feasible (and another brickwall apart from NZG may be Ozzie perspective to look down on its poorer cousins say sort it yourself)!
At an OZ government level it has been more frustration than looking down their noses. Frustration in that the additional strategic weight that NZ could add if it could get off its arse and contribute more than anything else.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member

Jacindarella is saying that "NZ opted out" but then says she discussed the arrangement with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison last night. So how does that work? It does not. She only found out about it last night - so how on earth could we opt in.

New Zealand had made an extraordinary investment in assets within the Defence Force, Ardern said, and she "pushes back" on any sentiment that New Zealand is doing anything less that "its bit". What bovine excrement.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Jacindarella is saying that "NZ opted out" but then says she discussed the arrangement with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison last night. So how does that work? It does not. She only found out about it last night - so how on earth could we opt in.
This type of statement is to be expected from a political class known for their incompetence in understanding geo-political changes.

By investing in the ADF, the Australians are taking steps to ensure that they are adapting to geo-political change.
 
Last edited:

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
I think it is even more dangerous if the statement that we 'opted-out' is true rather than we were not invited.
Defence and Trade are linked, Australia is pushing ahead with trade with India while we have given up. We offer nothing of value to India so why would they.
The reality is that this will influence our region and we will need to make choices. This feels like we are moving closer to actually needing to demonstrate which camp we are in and sitting on the fence is no longer a viable option.
The capabilities mentioned, AI, Cyber and Space are exactly the ones that we need to be focusing on, in some respects, we are under attack now. Just look out the bank outages this week due to cyberattacks.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think it is even more dangerous if the statement that we 'opted-out' is true rather than we were not invited. Defence and Trade are linked, Australia is pushing ahead with trade with India while we have given up. We offer nothing of value to India so why would they.
I would not say we offer nothing to India - we do in some niche areas. But you are right about the current ability of this government to achieve anything other than their one trick lock-down pony. On the trade front they have not managed to sign an FTA with the UK and the India deal has gone no where.

The reality is that this will influence our region and we will need to make choices. This feels like we are moving closer to actually needing to demonstrate which camp we are in and sitting on the fence is no longer a viable option.
The capabilities mentioned, AI, Cyber and Space are exactly the ones that we need to be focusing on, in some respects, we are under attack now. Just look out the bank outages this week due to cyberattacks.
My view is that the Australian government has done NZ a favour in that it will force the current NZ government to do something. It wont happen overnight because it will have to shape the narrative of the great uninterested unwashed.
 

Jellybeen

New Member
I would not say we offer nothing to India - we do in some niche areas. But you are right about the current ability of this government to achieve anything other than their one trick lock-down pony. On the trade front they have not managed to sign an FTA with the UK and the India deal has gone no where.



My view is that the Australian government has done NZ a favour in that it will force the current NZ government to do something. It wont happen overnight because it will have to shape the narrative of the great uninterested unwashed.
We as a nation are now sailing into dangerous waters
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Good write up on Newshub examining new AUKUS pact on NZ and its place in (this part of) the world.

(Also clears up some of the misreporting by NZ Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young, who gets it wrong again by claiming NZ "opted out" etc).


At this stage NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's are viewing the new pact and RAN planned nuclear submarine acquisition via the lens of NZ's anti-nuclear posture, as it is.

But I would like to see NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's examining the practicality nowadays of a 35 year-old piece of legislation that was for a different time and different strategic environment. (Because clearly both major NZ political parties Labour and National won't ... unless pressure is applied to them).

Particularly when NZ's closest neighbor and to quote our own politicians "NZ's important and only formal defence ally" will have a capability that in theory won't be able to interact with the NZDF (within NZ waters). Is this wise, in these uncertain times?

I also take note and agree with Mr C's comments in the RAN thread that "As for subs there really is no tangible strategic reason for them to visit nor really the Carriers. It really is not an issue". I agree, it would make no sense for the RAN (nuc sub) to make a visit to a NZ port and expose the whereabouts of a high-value strategic asset (especially when such subs are relatively close to their own home nation - why stop again when only a couple of thousand miles away, when going on a long-range deployment etc).

But NZ's old and outdated legislation potentially puts NZ at odds with it's closest economic and defence partner, Australia, and could be viewed as somewhat insulting (and impractical) by our neighbour. I'm sure NZ's defence analyst's could put up some good arguments to amend the legislation, that would force NZ politicians to review and make changes.

Let alone recognition of the changing strategic environment that NZ is in now, compared to the 1980's, in which protagonists entirely operate in NZ's wider backyard.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good write up on Newshub examining new AUKUS pact on NZ and its place in (this part of) the world.

(Also clears up some of the misreporting by NZ Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young, who gets it wrong again by claiming NZ "opted out" etc).


At this stage NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's are viewing the new pact and RAN planned nuclear submarine acquisition via the lens of NZ's anti-nuclear posture, as it is.

But I would like to see NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's examining the practicality nowadays of a 35 year-old piece of legislation that was for a different time and different strategic environment. (Because clearly both major NZ political parties Labour and National won't ... unless pressure is applied to them).

Particularly when NZ's closest neighbor and to quote our own politicians "NZ's important and only formal defence ally" will have a capability that in theory won't be able to interact with the NZDF (within NZ waters). Is this wise, in these uncertain times?

I also take note and agree with Mr C's comments in the RAN thread that "As for subs there really is no tangible strategic reason for them to visit nor really the Carriers. It really is not an issue". I agree, it would make no sense for the RAN (nuc sub) to make a visit to a NZ port and expose the whereabouts of a high-value strategic asset (especially when such subs are relatively close to their own home nation - why stop again when only a couple of thousand miles away, when going on a long-range deployment etc).

But NZ's old and outdated legislation potentially puts NZ at odds with it's closest economic and defence partner, Australia, and could be viewed as somewhat insulting (and impractical) by our neighbour. I'm sure NZ's defence analyst's could put up some good arguments to amend the legislation, that would force NZ politicians to review and make changes.

Let alone recognition of the changing strategic environment that NZ is in now, compared to the 1980's, in which protagonists entirely operate in NZ's wider backyard.
I think that any Kiwi politician or Party who campaigned on repealing the antinuke legislation would be committing political suicide, even today. There are two people who we have to thank for that Geoffrey Palmer and George Schultz. Lange was in the UK at the time doing his famous Oxford debate - "Come closer. I can smell the uranium on your breath" quip came from there. Palmer was acting PM. When the US submitted the USS Buchanan visit request Palmer asked if it was nuclear powered or armed. Under US policy they refused to confirm nor deny so Palmer refused the request without any further consideration.

Any fool could've told Palmer that the Buchanan was a DD and not nuclear powered and nor was it nuclear armed but he wasn't prepared to listen. Schultz was the US Secretary of State and he went right off and sanctioned NZ. That's the worst thing to do to Kiwis because most of the population were pro US before Schultz nutted off and the antinuke legislation didn't have a lot of support amongst the wider population. Schultz's nutting off changed all that in one rant. Getting back to Lange, he was working the back channels with the Reagan Administration in order to reduce the damage of the legislation and to organise some work arounds. Palmer knew this and deliberately scuttled any such deals by his actions.

The only real reason that Lange, Palmer, Douglas, Prebble and Co were in charge at the time was because the country had grown absolutely tired of the shenanigans of the poisoned dwarf, Piggy Muldoon and threw him out in the 1984 election.
 
Top