NZDF General discussion thread

[Shanesworld]

What are the reasons? Eg not getting enough training/operational opportunities because of covid MIQ tasks?

Ironically is the Army still being funded to build up their personnel numbers?

Relentless covid taskings yes, usual battalion bs was another suggestion.
But just my speculation is that everyone is pretending that everythings fine but its not. And the squaddies smell the rot.
Its been years maybe even a decade of battalions not being battalion capable. Struggling to put more than a couple of companies together. Still planning to get rid of 30 lavs. We originally needed 156.
We're now including carl gustavs for reserves and talking about countering enemy btr's. That signifies a change of environment. Yet at a political level its still no change from "benign strategic environment.". Pretty hard to commit to a country that doesnt commit to you.

 

[ASSAIL]

Actually we do have an association with the PNG. We have trained their military and we were involved in Bougainville Civil War Truce and subsequent peace negotiations. In fact the Accord was negotiated and signed at Burnham Military Camp about 30 minutes down the road from my home.

Yes we do have the cultural wherewithal and capability to deal with PNG, more so than Australia. It's how NZDF approaches the PNGDF, or other South Pacific militaries and local populations, that makes the difference.

It definitely is a concept that has to be unpacked and thought through.

Formal Australian administration of Papua, ex British NewGuinea began in 1906 and German NewGuinea became a League of Nations Australian Mandated Territory after the Treaty of Versailles in 1920, the year my Grandfather started working for the new administration.
Australia administered the combined Territories until independence in 1975 and thousands of Australians left the legacy both public and private for 70 years.
Even today Australia contributes over AUD 600 million annually to PNG, by far the largest part of the PNG governments budget
My family still have a huge connection, my uncle married a local lady and had 6 mixed race children, a fact repeated hundreds of times so, yes there is a strong cultural, family and administrative connection between our two countries which is unequalled.
Regarding WW2, there are nearly 5,000 Australian servicemen buried in Commonwealth War Graves at Bomana near Port Moresby and Bitapaka near Rabaul and my grandfather died at sea along with 1100 other POWs from Rabaul while being transported in the Japanese ship Montevideo Maru in early 1942.

 

[ngatimozart]

Formal Australian administration of Papua, ex British NewGuinea began in 1906 and German NewGuinea became a League of Nations Australian Mandated Territory after the Treaty of Versailles in 1920, the year my Grandfather started working for the new administration.
Australia administered the combined Territories until independence in 1975 and thousands of Australians left the legacy both public and private for 70 years.
Even today Australia contributes over AUD 600 million annually to PNG, by far the largest part of the PNG governments budget
My family still have a huge connection, my uncle married a local lady and had 6 mixed race children, a fact repeated hundreds of times so, yes there is a strong cultural, family and administrative connection between our two countries which is unequalled.
Regarding WW2, there are nearly 5,000 Australian servicemen buried in Commonwealth War Graves at Bomana near Port Moresby and Bitapaka near Rabaul and my grandfather died at sea along with 1100 other POWs from Rabaul while being transported in the Japanese ship Montevideo Maru in early 1942.

I understand the history and am very aware of the WW2 history, but I am talking about a cultural approach that is different to an Australian approach. The Australians are seen as the colonisers and have that colonial history there. We don't and we don't go in with the white man knows best attitude anymore. Australia hasn't reached that stage yet although it is on the journey, but it has a long way to go. NZ still has a ways to travel on that journey as well, but we use our Māori cultural values and culture to guide us. NZDF is very much steeped in Māori culture and that has made a positive difference and made it easier to break down barriers with other cultures. It worked in Bougainville, East Timor, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Māori name for the NZ Army translates as the tribe of the god of war. Quite appropriate for an army.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia's problem in PNG is that it is too close. Between Government, governance, mining, and other historical artifacts, interests and concerns there is a lot of history there. Complex history.

While NZ is way more culturally sensitive, it also tends to be way more distant. Does PNG register in the NZ populace? It isn't like there is a significant PNG population there, unlike many of the other pacific nations, and NZ has fleetingly few interests there. Even compared to other much smaller nations in the region. Does NZ resonate in PNG? How often does NZ have people on the ground in PNG?

How much aid does NZ contribute to PNG? $26m a year? Australia gives $608 M and has been by far the biggest donor for decades.
How much trade does NZ do with NZ? Australia imports $4billion from PNG. Australia accounts for over 1/3rd of all imports and 1/5th of all exports.
PNG has $1.1b invested in Australia and Australia $16b in PNG.
Australia does $77m in education travel with PNG.
Pretty much all the military aid, equipment comes from Australia.

PNG is one of those places that Australia exists as almost a hyper power, eclipsing all other powers, possibly eclipsing PNG own government. Australia is about 5 times larger than NZ by population/Economy. But Australia's regional influence, is many times larger than that population difference implies. Australia gives near 24 times more aid than NZ. Trade is just hundreds of times greater, reflective of all that long term Australian investment.

Any sort of pacific regiment would have to address issues of funding, what would they do, opportunities for them in and out of it, who calls the shots, etc. While NZ may be well placed culturally, all those other aspects is something they would struggle with. Would they be useful as a singular unit, or are we better just further joint operations between all regional parties. Where they get to keep more of their identity. PNG is a classic case of just because you label it on a map, doesn't make it a single unified culture and people. Doing that doesn't also ensure unity.

 

[ngatimozart]

There are four reports on Operation Burnham published on the MOD website this morning. Plus the MIA Defence Minister held a press briefing.

Publications | Ministry of Defence website

www.defence.govt.nz

There are nine recommendations made by the Review Committee and I have posted them in full here without comment because I haven’t completed reading the full report.

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Minister of Defence direct the Secretary of Defence and Chief of Defence Force to strengthen integration between the NZDF and Ministry of Defence throughout the deployment lifecycle and at all levels of both organisations. As part of this direction, the Chief of Defence Force’s terms of reference and the Secretary of Defence’s performance expectations should state that the statutory term “major matters of defence policy” includes complex military operations that impact on national or international security.

Recommendation 2: We recommend the NZDF and Ministry of Defence strengthen integration throughout the deployment lifecycle and at all levels of both organisations. In particular, we recommend: 2.1 the Vice Chief of Defence Force and Deputy Secretary Policy and Planning, in consultation with other national security agencies, develop and document an integrated deployment lifecycle with clear accountabilities and participation rights for NZDF and the Ministry of Defence across the whole deployment
2.2 the Secretary of Defence and Chief of Defence Force, together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, institutionalise the use of senior reference groups for complex and extended deployments to strengthen interagency cooperation and knowledge sharing across relevant government agencies throughout the deployment lifecycle
2.3 the Secretary of Defence and Chief of Defence Force: • work together to ensure measures of success are included in advice to Cabinet on the mandate for complex operational deployments put in place post-deployment reviews to evaluate performance against these measures
2.4 the Chief of Defence Force ensure a senior Ministry of Defence representative is appointed to the Strategic Risk Assessment Board and representatives of other national security agencies as appropriate.

Recommendation 3: We recommend the Secretary of Defence and Chief of Defence Force work together to develop the capability required to embed the integrated deployment lifecycle. In particular, we recommend the:
3.1 Secretary of Defence work with the Chief of Defence Force to build a policy adviser (POLAD) capability, including agreeing clear accountabilities, reporting lines and required skill sets. Other national security agencies could be involved in growing this capability
3.2 Chief of Defence Force mandate exposure to the broader policy context as part of a structured training and development programme for NZDF future leaders, including through secondments to other government agencies, the Office of the Minister of Defence and the Office of Chief of Defence Force
3.3 Commander Joint Forces New Zealand, NZDF Strategic Commitments and Engagements Branch and Ministry of Defence identify opportunities to test the effectiveness of integrated working arrangements, including the POLAD function.

Recommendation 4: We recommend the Chief of Defence Force, in consultation with the Secretary of Defence, review the suitability of particular elements of Headquarters NZDF for the future. As part of this review, we recommend the Chief of Defence Force:
4.1 establish with the Secretary of Defence an integrated strategic military and policy function that provides for the end-to-end strategic management of operations
4.2 reduce the span of control of the Office of Chief of Defence Force and prioritise its core functions, including those related to the Chief of Defence Force’s operational and strategic responsibilities and external accountabilities for democratic oversight
4.3 direct that NZDF Public Affairs Strategy 25 be revised to reflect key accountability relationships and position NZDF communications to meet contemporary accountability and transparency expectations.

Recommendation 5: We recommend the Chief of Defence Force ensure that steps continue to be taken to integrate the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) into the wider NZDF and national security sector. In particular, we recommend the Chief of Defence Force:
5.1 integrate one or more Special Operations staff officer roles into the strategic military and policy function (see Recommendation 4) to enable appropriate transparency, oversight, assurance and strategic awareness of Special Operations
5.2 facilitate, in consultation with the Secretary of Defence, a broader discussion with other New Zealand defence, security and foreign affairs agencies about the role of the NZSAS in modern warfare and national security and its contribution to government priorities now and in the future
5.3 take a strategic and proactive approach to developing NZSAS leadership capability for the future and regularly monitor the leadership climate created by NZSAS leaders; in particular, by providing current commanders and high-potential personnel with opportunities to develop political acumen and a better understanding of the wider government authorising environment, including policy advice processes, the importance of democratic oversight and how to develop networks across the national security sector.

Recommendation 6: We recommend the Chief of Defence Force improve the management of stored information by:
6.1 defining and identifying NZDF’s high-interest and high-value information and the records needed to support defence interests across all systems and locations (including legacy information)
6.2 prioritising the appraisal, declassification and disposal (as appropriate) of high-interest and high-value information.

Recommendation 7: We recommend the Chief of Defence Force reconsider the balance of leadership, accountabilities and responsibilities between the Chief Information Officer and Chief Data Officer to ensure they properly reflect the importance of information and knowledge.

Recommendation 8: We recommend the Chief of Defence Force direct the Vice Chief of Defence Force be given overall accountability and responsibility for the end-to-end stewardship of the flow and fidelity of operational knowledge of public and political interest across the NZDF. The information and knowledge management principles set out in this report (pages 68–69) are intended to aid the VCDF in exercising this stewardship role.

Recommendation 9: We recommend the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand identify opportunities to test information management systems and practices and knowledge flow, focusing on scenarios requiring the transfer of operational knowledge that is likely to be of public and political interest across multiple classifications and locations.

Report Of The Expert Group

Defence Minister's statement

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I just saw that and watched the media release etc... I haven't read it yet I will get around to it... maybe... lol

 

[ngatimozart]

I just saw that and watched the media release etc... I haven't read it yet I will get around to it... maybe... lol

No pictures so stokers and greenies will have a problem reading it.

 

[ddxx]

No pictures so stokers and greenies will have a problem reading it.

I know it’s tongue in cheek, however, does perpetuating such stereotypes help in achieving the desired outcomes?

To get support for change in any situation you ideally want all key stakeholders at the table, at least to an extent, whether them being at the table is public or otherwise. That’s a hard enough challenge as is without making it more difficult by cornering such types into a position where they have to choose between pragmatism and their ego in holding their ground.

Keeping the above in mind will go a long way. My expertise is in communications, brand, perception and strategy - and I’m certain on this logic.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know it’s tongue in cheek, however, does perpetuating such stereotypes help in achieving the desired outcomes?

It's not tongue in cheek. It's a statement of fact. My GI taught me that and a Chief Petty Officer Gunnery Instructor who lives in the Gunners Mess is never wrong about important matters such as that. It's called tradition and the RNZN like the RAN and the parent service, the RN is very strong on tradition.

 

[DDG38]

My expertise is in communications, brand, perception and strategy - and I’m certain on this logic.

Then maybe you should add culture to that list, then you'd realise it's also an important cornerstone to Navy life particularly at sea (where many important "stakeholders" live and work).

 

[CJohn]

Professor Robert Ayson looks at New Zealand's deteriorating security environment and the Ministry of Defence’s thinking as it prepares a new Defence Assessment.

More on Threats, Less about Risks: New Zealand's Changing National Security Calculus

Author Robert Ayson It takes a lot for me to get focused on questions of methodology. But my interest was piqued by this week’s media coverage of the Ministry of Defence’s thinking as it...

www.incline.org.nz

 

[spoz]

It's beginning to look like NZ might be beginning to wake from the dream land it has been inhabiting for the last 30 or so years. Let's hope so and that it continues. A New Zealand with a realistic understanding of the way the world is evolving and able to contribute to the maintenance of the democratic tradition (the real one, not the PDR type) can only be for the collective good.

 

[John Fedup]

It's beginning to look like NZ might be beginning to wake from the dream land it has been inhabiting for the last 30 or so years. Let's hope so and that it continues. A New Zealand with a realistic understanding of the way the world is evolving and able to contribute to the maintenance of the democratic tradition (the real one, not the PDR type) can only be for the collective good.

I await a similar understanding from our government. I realize our defence expenditures are marginally better than NZ’s but they are lacking compared to Australia and the US. Granted, our threat environment is somewhat less but a collective increase in defence expenditures is needed.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's beginning to look like NZ might be beginning to wake from the dream land it has been inhabiting for the last 30 or so years. Let's hope so and that it continues. A New Zealand with a realistic understanding of the way the world is evolving and able to contribute to the maintenance of the democratic tradition (the real one, not the PDR type) can only be for the collective good.

I certainly hope so, but it will be interesting to see if the government is willing to put its money where its mouth is. The $20 billion that they have budgeted in the DCP 2019 is nowhere near enough and in order to restore NZDF lost capabilites and create a modern capable force, they would need to double that amount.

 

[John Fedup]

I certainly hope so, but it will be interesting to see if the government is willing to put its money where its mouth is. The $20 billion that they have budgeted in the DCP 2019 is nowhere near enough and in order to restore NZDF lost capabilites and create a modern capable force, they would need to double that amount.

Xi may well provide the incentive to double but serious commitment is required now and that applies to others as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I await a similar understanding from our government. I realize our defence expenditures are marginally better than NZ’s but they are lacking compared to Australia and the US. Granted, our threat environment is somewhat less but a collective increase in defence expenditures is needed.

I struggle with this mindset. I challenge it. I know this low threat belief isn't championed here by anyone, but I still find it frustrating.

I don't see how NZ or Canada's threat environment is less than say Australia or the US. It literally has to be the same or higher.
Across the spectrum of conflict.

Unless you think that the US and/or Australia and/or allies involved in a low/medium/high intensity conflict with a peer like China improves your threat environment? Or the loss of US (or AU local) primacy improves the global or local security outlook? Even if your very much on the pacifist spectrum, that an outright challenge of order or structure is likely to involve greater threats to everyone.

If anything, China plays a lot rougher with smaller weaker nations than it does with larger stronger ones.
If having a low military capability and appeasement resulted in reduced threat, then the Philippines would be the safest country in the region.

In countries like the US and Australia there is a solid bipartisan understanding that SHTF is going to be very bad anyway you cut it, even if your left entirely out of the main conflict or even in situations where there is a restrained conflict. We aren't talking wars of US adventurism in far away lands. This can come to you. To your backyard directly.

I guess what I find frustrating about NZ and Canada's stance, is it shows great detachment and isolation. Much of the decision and planning seems to still be about stalling, or pushing back any commitment or decision on improving the situation. There isn't even some sort of plan or attempt at looking at things differently or as a contingency. There are many small things they could do to improve the longer timeframe options for themselves.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, both Canada and NZ show great detachment from reality wrt defence. Being geographically attached to a superpower provides the Canadian socialist anti-defence types here an excuse to skimp on defence, they fool themselves that Americans will have our six no matter what. They don’t understand sovereignty or SLOC (or much else for that matter).

 

[ngatimozart]

I struggle with this mindset. I challenge it. I know this low threat belief isn't championed here by anyone, but I still find it frustrating.

I don't see how NZ or Canada's threat environment is less than say Australia or the US. It literally has to be the same or higher.
Across the spectrum of conflict.

Unless you think that the US and/or Australia and/or allies involved in a low/medium/high intensity conflict with a peer like China improves your threat environment? Or the loss of US (or AU local) primacy improves the global or local security outlook? Even if your very much on the pacifist spectrum, that an outright challenge of order or structure is likely to involve greater threats to everyone.

If anything, China plays a lot rougher with smaller weaker nations than it does with larger stronger ones.
If having a low military capability and appeasement resulted in reduced threat, then the Philippines would be the safest country in the region.

In countries like the US and Australia there is a solid bipartisan understanding that SHTF is going to be very bad anyway you cut it, even if your left entirely out of the main conflict or even in situations where there is a restrained conflict. We aren't talking wars of US adventurism in far away lands. This can come to you. To your backyard directly.

I guess what I find frustrating about NZ and Canada's stance, is it shows great detachment and isolation. Much of the decision and planning seems to still be about stalling, or pushing back any commitment or decision on improving the situation. There isn't even some sort of plan or attempt at looking at things differently or as a contingency. There are many small things they could do to improve the longer timeframe options for themselves.

Welcome to the club. Maybe a good psychology PhD for someone

 

[StingrayOZ]

Welcome to the club. Maybe a good psychology PhD for someone

Wouldn't wish it on anyone..

Agree, both Canada and NZ show great detachment from reality wrt defence. Being geographically attached to a superpower provides the Canadian socialist anti-defence types here an excuse to skimp on defence, they fool themselves that Americans will have our six no matter what. They don’t understand sovereignty or SLOC (or much else for that matter).

They must have a lot more confidence in America than some Americans I talk to. There is a real possibility that the US becomes effectively ungovernable mess or otherwise preoccupied with its own internal issues. There are plenty of scenarios where even if they are willing, that they aren't able. Even a global power needs to focus its resources elsewhere at times, and sometimes that can even lead to trying to usurp/redirect other nations resources and capabilities, as an ally against that nations own interests.

There are also a lot of scenarios at play beyond traditional ideas of sovereignty and SLOC. China's play is global, and focuses on weak targets. The world is no longer a benign environment and is likely heading towards a less stable future. Even if China(+Russia) was out of the picture, the magic crystal 8 ball isn't exactly predicting easy times ahead.

 

[KiwiRob]

Agree, both Canada and NZ show great detachment from reality wrt defence. Being geographically attached to a superpower provides the Canadian socialist anti-defence types here an excuse to skimp on defence, they fool themselves that Americans will have our six no matter what. They don’t understand sovereignty or SLOC (or much else for that matter).

To be fair who would threaten Canada, you're a member of NATO, the US is just across the border, you're somewhat isolated from everyone's perceived threat at the moment China. Any threat to Canadas SLOC would also be an issue for the US. Nobody is going to be invading you anytime soon, the only country that realistically could is the US.

I'd probably be more concerned with the US annexing you than anyone else.