NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart M]

It looks like there is a further awakening in the government about the changing strategic situation in the Pacific, The Foreign Ministry has publish the following document stating that, "the future looks grim and there is a possibility of conflict in the region.
I wonder If this will get the pollies moving?

MSN

I doubt it

This is from National Leader Chris Luxon on the 757's

"The reality for New Zealand is we have unreliable aircraft, we can't afford new ones in the middle of a recession. There are other priorities for New Zealand.

"So, the reality, whether you like it or not is that we should be travelling commercially."

He called the current aircraft "ancient" and said, "they shouldn't be flying".

"They're well past their use-by date. We are now in a recession and this will not be a priority in my Government.

Christopher Luxon would look at commercial options over 'ancient' Air Force planes that 'shouldn't be flying' if PM | Newshub

Extrapolate this across defence with one eye on past National attitudes towards defence spending, even when the nation was doing reasonably well as it was under Key.
National may talk tough on defence but history shows that they don't deliver.

Nationals position is :

The office of the shadow defense minister, Tim van de Molen, told Breaking Defense that its priorities were to increase pay and living conditions, improve basic equipment and oppose any re-establishment of a combat air wing — called the Air Strike Force — in the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

New Zealand defense priorities could slow after resignation of PM Jacinda Ardern - Breaking Defense

NZ is not doing well economically and has a lot of domestic issues, and frankly National will be under pressure to deliver on other priorities if they regain the government benches.
Regardless of rhetoric, I expect that NZ under any government will double down on China and the self censorship to help fund fixing recent policy 'problems' under the usual guise of having an "Independent Foreign Policy."

 

[Rob c]

While you may be wright, I would point out that both of these statements were prior to this report.
I would also add from a personal perspective, What is more valuable to the country, it's economy or its sovereignty?
But in the case of Luxon probably the money

 

[Stuart M]

While you may be wright, I would point out that both of these statements were prior to this report.

What was the response after defence put out its reports that had the same sort of stuff in it?

*Labour crickets* * National tumbleweeds*

And frankly one doesn't need government reports to see what's happening, and how much has capacity/capability been increased, even when everyone else is gearing up for a scrap?

I would also add from a personal perspective, What is more valuable to the country, it's economy or its sovereignty?
But in the case of Luxon probably the money

For the last century and more, its been the economy; To this end NZ was a loyal imperial outpost, a supporter of the Arsenal of Democracy and believer in the western bloc, ardent anti-colonialist and opposer of apartheid. Now of course its why having an 'Independent Foreign Policy' and supporting a 'Rules Based International Order' means is never offending China by having an independent foreign policy while they undermine the rules based international order.
Its all about knowing which side of your bread is buttered, best summed up by Muldoon "Our foreign policy is trade".

 

[Rob c]

For the last century and more, its been the economy; To this end NZ was a loyal imperial outpost, a supporter of the Arsenal of Democracy and believer in the western bloc, ardent anti-colonialist and opposer of apartheid. Now of course its why having an 'Independent Foreign Policy' and supporting a 'Rules Based International Order' means is never offending China by having an independent foreign policy while they undermine the rules based international order.
Its all about knowing which side of your bread is buttered, best summed up by Muldoon "Our foreign policy is trade".

You are wright about this unfortunately, the only difference with this report is that it was from Foreign affairs Ministry which the minster would have been aware of. The Foreign affairs minister is far higher on the listings than the Defence minister, so this gives the report more substance, which including statements by the minster of defence give this more substance than previously. Whem the current Minister of defence was leader of the opposition he was going to cut defence spending. He has about faced on this point, unusual for a polly. Whether this will influence the government or on going governments is yet to be seen.
The message that our sovereignty is important needs to be expressed forcefully to our politicians
Unfortunately, both national and the greens, at this point are unlikely to agree to any increase in expenditure,

 

[ngatimozart]

This is the link to the original document. It's 40 pages. I suggest having a good read of it because that eliminates any media spin.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/About-us-Corporate/MFAT-strategies-and-frameworks/MFATs-2023-Strategic-Foreign-Policy-Assessment-Navigating-a-shifting-world-June-2023.pdf

And I have read it. I will post on it later but the outlook in it is grim.

 

[Stuart M]

You are wright about this unfortunately, the only difference with this report is that it was from Foreign affairs Ministry which the minster would have been aware of. The Foreign affairs minister is far higher on the listings than the Defence minister, so this gives the report more substance, which including statements by the minster of defence give this more substance than previously. Whem the current Minister of defence was leader of the opposition he was going to cut defence spending. He has about faced on this point, unusual for a polly. Whether this will influence the government or on going governments is yet to be seen.

There's what's said and what's done, and for the last two years there has not been anything done to improve NZs defence capacity or capability other than a payrise to avert a rather embarrassing collapse of NZDF.
Moreover NZgov is more than capable of saying one thing and doing another and these reports could well be part of that.

The message that our sovereignty is important needs to be expressed forcefully to our politicians

I quite agree, but in my experience they won't do it, especially when there's a recession on.

Having said all of the above, NZ pollies will yet a shock if the CCP does go on the warpath, as NZ won't have a trade relationship with China once the USN slaps a blockade on them and starts sinking all of their shipping.

 

[OldTex]

My biggest hope is the Govt of the day pursues the GA MQ-9 Sea Guardian which will supplement the P-8’s. If we had these in Cyclone Gabrielle and they were fitted with REAP Pod they could have provided the much needed communications link that was cut and first responders would have had a reliable communications link and we would have had a consistent eye in the sky.

An ACN (Airborne Communications Network) capability is really a must now and that could be done on the B757 and / or its VIP replacement. The argument for an ACN is supported by the Cyclone Gabrielle experience and other disasters, such as the Christchurch earthquakes. It would be a dual use system with both military and HADR usages.

The REAP system is effectively an airborne retransmission site so it supports single channel radios/CNR. This does require the users to use RATEL procedures. It also has limited data capability.

The ACN is a multichannel/wideband radio system and operates as an alternative to TACSAT or SATCOM systems. The platform does need to be at a high altitude and orbiting in a tight pattern while the terminals need to have broadbeam antennas , ortherwise a tracking antenna is needed. The other requirement for an effective ACN is endurance, typically greater than 24 hours. Platforms like the RQ-4 or Bombadier Global 6000 have been used to provide operational ACNs.

So an add-on to a drone or a VIP aircraft is not going to be useful nor likely to be available when needed.

 

[ngatimozart]

Our glorious leader being welcomed to the NATO Summit in Vilnius.

Newshub take on the MFAT 3 yearly policy assessment. They talk to Chris Seed, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

This is the conclusion from the MAFT: Navigating a shifting world document.

The future will not look like the recent past. The climate change crisis and response will be a defining feature and will increasingly shape all aspects of international relations. New Zealand will also face fundamental shifts in the international order through the three Big Shifts: ​

• Rules will give ground to relative power. ​

• Economic priorities will give ground to security concerns. ​

• Efficiency will give ground to resilience.​

​

The Big Shifts promise to test key elements of New Zealand’s foreign policy and have significant implications for New Zealand’s approach to international affairs in the period to 2035. Embedding a vibrant Te Ao Māori within foreign affairs, with a trusted partnership between the Crown and Māori as Treaty partners, will help to shape this approach and enable New Zealand to stand taller and have greater influence in the world. ​

​

Geopolitically, over the longer term, New Zealand may find significant opportunities in a more stable and functional multipolar world. However, in the short to medium term the future looks grim. The global strategic outlook will become more complex, while the Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions will be more contested and less stable. Globally, New Zealand will find it more difficult to advance some of the issues it cares deeply about, including peace and security, in what is becoming a fundamentally different world. ​

​

New Zealand will continue to work hard to remain relevant to its close partners and work smart to avoid situations that may have significant negative effects. This will include acknowledging and preparing for the possibility of further sustained inter-state conflict and the risk of conflict being more widespread, even as New Zealand also engages bilaterally and within the multilateral system to find diplomatic solutions. ​

​

Economically, the immediate period will be challenging. New Zealand will have to navigate a period of low (or even negative) global growth and difficult transitions for some of its exporters and importers. However, at some point new forms of global growth will emerge that offer the potential to be more sustainable and more equal. These will be driven by momentum in the climate transition and aided by technological advances, continued socio-economic development progress and new forms of international economic cooperation. The path will be difficult to follow at times and the economic outlook will not be immune to the broader risks of a more contested world, but New Zealand is well placed to engage across this new trade agenda. ​

​

New Zealand’s influence and mana in this shifting world will come from: ​

a. its ability to marshal its foreign policy efforts and resources behind the set of issues that really matter to New Zealand; ​

b. having the right people in the right places; and ​

c. amplifying its influence and impacts through engagement across the rules-based international system and working with international partners and regional and international institutions.​

​

In progressing New Zealand’s foreign policy in this period, the Ministry will need to adjust to the shifting world as it acts to build a “safer, more prosperous and more sustainable future for New Zealanders”. A safer world will need reinvigorated defence and security relationships, tools to manage regional tensions, and rules and norms to address new and emerging technology challenges. A more prosperous world will be one in which New Zealand’s importers, exporters, investors, supply chains, markets and economy are all well positioned for changing markets and more resilient to shocks. It will also be one in which local, regional and multilateral governance arrangements can make real, positive and lasting differences to human rights and human security within the context of urgent measures for a sustainable world, addressing climate change and environmental degradation."​

MAFT: Navigating a shifting world, PP38 - 39.​

​

The three main points it makes are:

• Rules will give ground to relative power. ​

• Economic priorities will give ground to security concerns. ​

• Efficiency will give ground to resilience.​

All three mean shifts in NZ foreign, trade and defence policies over the medium term. It is good to see them moving away from the strictly trade foreign policy, but they are being dragged kicking and screaming doing it. However, the ultimate decisions are made by pollies in Cabinet and that has always been NZ's achilles heel, WRT defence and security. How seriously the govt will take it will be shown in the DPR which is being released shortly.

The interesting thing about this is that after the 1998 election, both the NZ Labour Party and National have avoided, like the plague, any discussions to do with defence during an election year, and the election is only 3 months away. We now have this MFAT policy assessment being publicly released, which is a first, and the DPR release being brought forward by at least 6 months. This may mean that the pollies in govt are starting to be very concerned about the wider world and its impacts upon NZ future security. Time will tell.

 

[recce.k1]

Professor David Capie's take on the MFAT review:

Closer to home, the Assessment uses pointed language to note the Pacific is no longer “strategically benign”, adding that the “risk of a shift in the strategic balance in the Pacific is now a present and serious concern”. This, it says, not only threatens Pacific countries’ ability to make their own choices – it also presents a risk to “New Zealand’s own security”.

Surely that'll have former PM Helen Clark (that of "we live in a benign startegic environment" infamy) furiously tweeting soon against this narrative (like she did a few months ago when there were mere murmurs of looking at restoring an ACF - "it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" her tweet roared ... um that's basically the entire US defense budget luv).

Also:

The economic picture is equally gloomy. It warns “New Zealand can no longer rely on the durability of continuing trade liberalisation and international cooperation, which have been the foundation of its foreign, trade and economic policies for decades.” The globalising era of seemingly ever deeper integration has come to an end. States are increasingly turning towards protectionism and industrial policy to manage strategic risk and respond to a series of problems such as climate change. This means “New Zealand will be less able to prioritise economic priorities” and will need to “devote more energy and resources to defence and security imperatives, including to shore up economic resilience”.

The MFAT review also touches on some of Stuart's concerns, that of trade dependency and seeking new markets, but noting even the likes of the EU and US are hindering those efforts to some extent so no easy short term solutions. Also economic and industrial resilience and supply chains etc feature. Perhaps what we also need is something like what the Australians are doing (or working with them jointly where appropriate) eg ramping up sovereign industrial and weapon capabilities and resilience (including energy and restoring fuel refining etc). So under what portfolio does this come under (as it isn't strictly MFAT and Defence - although they can speak to it) and what are they doing about it? Are they out of their "silo" yet or has it not even dawned upon them that there is a bigger picture out there?

“We can’t be passive”: New Zealand’s changing tone about a more worrying world | Lowy Institute

A new foreign policy assessment sees the Pacific as no longer “strategically benign” – but the concern extends well beyond the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Note that Prof. Capie is on the Defence Policy Review's Ministerial Advisory Panel.

 

[John Fedup]

Professor David Capie's take on the MFAT review:

Closer to home, the Assessment uses pointed language to note the Pacific is no longer “strategically benign”, adding that the “risk of a shift in the strategic balance in the Pacific is now a present and serious concern”. This, it says, not only threatens Pacific countries’ ability to make their own choices – it also presents a risk to “New Zealand’s own security”.

Surely that'll have former PM Helen Clark (that of "we live in a benign startegic environment" infamy) furiously tweeting soon against this narrative (like she did a few months ago when there were mere murmurs of looking at restoring an ACF - "it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" her tweet roared ... um that's basically the entire US defense budget luv).

Also:

The economic picture is equally gloomy. It warns “New Zealand can no longer rely on the durability of continuing trade liberalisation and international cooperation, which have been the foundation of its foreign, trade and economic policies for decades.” The globalising era of seemingly ever deeper integration has come to an end. States are increasingly turning towards protectionism and industrial policy to manage strategic risk and respond to a series of problems such as climate change. This means “New Zealand will be less able to prioritise economic priorities” and will need to “devote more energy and resources to defence and security imperatives, including to shore up economic resilience”.

The MFAT review also touches on some of Stuart's concerns, that of trade dependency and seeking new markets, but noting even the likes of the EU and US are hindering those efforts to some extent so no easy short term solutions. Also economic and industrial resilience and supply chains etc feature. Perhaps what we also need is something like what the Australians are doing (or working with them jointly where appropriate) eg ramping up sovereign industrial and weapon capabilities and resilience (including energy and restoring fuel refining etc). So under what portfolio does this come under (as it isn't strictly MFAT and Defence - although they can speak to it) and what are they doing about it? Are they out of their "silo" yet or has it not even dawned upon them that there is a bigger picture out there?

“We can’t be passive”: New Zealand’s changing tone about a more worrying world | Lowy Institute

A new foreign policy assessment sees the Pacific as no longer “strategically benign” – but the concern extends well beyond the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Note that Prof. Capie is on the Defence Policy Review's Ministerial Advisory Panel.

Has the NZ EU trade agreement been finalised?

 

[kiwi in exile]

[
• Economic priorities will give ground to security concerns.
• Efficiency will give ground to resilience.
/QUOTE]

I feel if Luxon gets in this will all be dismissed and trade prioritised.

 

[Rob c]

Has the NZ EU trade agreement been finalised?

It still needs to be ratified by the respective parliaments

 

[Stuart M]

snip

The interesting thing about this is that after the 1998 election, both the NZ Labour Party and National have avoided, like the plague, any discussions to do with defence during an election year, and the election is only 3 months away. We now have this MFAT policy assessment being publicly released, which is a first, and the DPR release being brought forward by at least 6 months. This may mean that the pollies in govt are starting to be very concerned about the wider world and its impacts upon NZ future security. Time will tell.

I think its necessary to point out that the civil service recognising how the worlds dynamics are shifting does not in anyway mean that pollies will shift defence policy in a way that we on this board think is desirable.

As much as I hate to write it, I can see both parties, in the face of a deteriorating situation, using reports like this to justify doubling down previous methodology or even straight out adopting a 'friend to all enemy to none' attitude in a vain attempt to stay out of it all and maintain NZ standard of living. This would be a bollocks response, but given the nature of NZ political culture its one I can see happening.

The global situation has been going to custard for years, other nations have belatedly recognised this and are responding by improving their armed forces, but not NZ and this does not bode well for the future.

 

[recce.k1]

Has the NZ EU trade agreement been finalised?

As Rob C states it still needs to be ratified but where I was coming from was the "conditions" imposed on NZ (usually by the French).

As one our geopolitics analysts says:

But the FTA was a disappointment for New Zealand’s main agricultural producers that make up the lion’s share of the country’s exports, around a third of New Zealand’s total exports by value.

Questions remain over whether New Zealand jumped too soon to accept a deal – rather than continuing to negotiate for something more commercially meaningful.

Under the arrangements, New Zealand will in seven years’ time be allowed to sell just over 11,000 tonnes of beef to the EU, which has a population of 450 million people.

This is only about the same amount of beef that New Zealand currently sells every year to Canada – population 38 million – and pales in comparison with the 200,000+ tonnes it sells to China annually.

A similarly restrictive quota of 15,000 tonnes will apply to New Zealand’s exports of milk powder into the EU. Even then, in-quota tariffs will continue to apply in both cases.

Geoffrey Miller: New Zealand gets ready to embrace NATO

Is New Zealand about to join ‘NATO+’? That seems to be the effective endgame, if reports ahead of New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ attendance at the NATO summit in Lithuania are anything to go by. Formally, the expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the Indo-P

democracyproject.nz

NZ farmers are not happy with the outcome (there has been heavy criticism domestically that NZ should not have been eager to sign and should have held off. OTOH other sectors will benefit so there are some positives).

It was reported here that Australian farmers are aghast and "are urging" their Govt to walk away from a similar EU- Australia FTA deal!

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

NZ does want to diversify its trade (and be less reliant on China) but there are no quick and easy fixes.

 

[Redlands18]

As Rob C states it still needs to be ratified but where I was coming from was the "conditions" imposed on NZ (usually by the French).

As one our geopolitics analysts says:

But the FTA was a disappointment for New Zealand’s main agricultural producers that make up the lion’s share of the country’s exports, around a third of New Zealand’s total exports by value.

Questions remain over whether New Zealand jumped too soon to accept a deal – rather than continuing to negotiate for something more commercially meaningful.

Under the arrangements, New Zealand will in seven years’ time be allowed to sell just over 11,000 tonnes of beef to the EU, which has a population of 450 million people.

This is only about the same amount of beef that New Zealand currently sells every year to Canada – population 38 million – and pales in comparison with the 200,000+ tonnes it sells to China annually.

A similarly restrictive quota of 15,000 tonnes will apply to New Zealand’s exports of milk powder into the EU. Even then, in-quota tariffs will continue to apply in both cases.

Geoffrey Miller: New Zealand gets ready to embrace NATO

Is New Zealand about to join ‘NATO+’? That seems to be the effective endgame, if reports ahead of New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ attendance at the NATO summit in Lithuania are anything to go by. Formally, the expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the Indo-P

democracyproject.nz

NZ farmers are not happy with the outcome (there has been heavy criticism domestically that NZ should not have been eager to sign and should have held off. OTOH other sectors will benefit so there are some positives).

It was reported here that Australian farmers are aghast and "are urging" their Govt to walk away from a similar EU- Australia FTA deal!

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

NZ does want to diversify its trade (and be less reliant on China) but there are no quick and easy fixes.

Australia and European Union fail to reach free trade deal despite visit to break deadlock - ABC News

Australia and the EU remain deadlocked on a FTA, despite the Trade Minister travelling to Brussels this week. One of the big sticking points is the EU refuse to allow Australian companies to use traditional names for goods, including prosseco, mozzarella, feta and parmesan.

 

[Gibbo]

I doubt it

This is from National Leader Chris Luxon on the 757's



Christopher Luxon would look at commercial options over 'ancient' Air Force planes that 'shouldn't be flying' if PM | Newshub

Extrapolate this across defence with one eye on past National attitudes towards defence spending, even when the nation was doing reasonably well as it was under Key.
National may talk tough on defence but history shows that they don't deliver.

Nationals position is :



New Zealand defense priorities could slow after resignation of PM Jacinda Ardern - Breaking Defense

NZ is not doing well economically and has a lot of domestic issues, and frankly National will be under pressure to deliver on other priorities if they regain the government benches.
Regardless of rhetoric, I expect that NZ under any government will double down on China and the self censorship to help fund fixing recent policy 'problems' under the usual guise of having an "Independent Foreign Policy."

Extrapolate this directly & we will merely see the RNZAF's transport fleet reduce to the 5 x C130J-30's on order... couched in swathes of rhetoric about the newbies being bigger aircraft (4.5m to be precise) with bigger range (marginally) & higher availability rates (for a while). This is the trouble I have with commentators, including some on here, constantly referring to the B757 as VIP aircarft... they do a hell of a lot more than just that and provide critical extra capacity for freight (which they do actually do by the way) but of course all that will be forgotten as an opportunity to avoid spending on a replacement gets trumpeted as fiscal responsibility.

Seeing as the post is about Luxon & the B757 I'll say one thing before the yellow card gets shown It's no secret a change of Govt will bring with it a siginifcant hunt for Govt spending cuts... the first cab of the rank will be the B757 & as it seems from Luxon's own comments we see here that'll be without replacement. If a couple extra C130J's were inlcuded as sweetener I'd cope... but forget that!

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia and European Union fail to reach free trade deal despite visit to break deadlock - ABC News

Australia and the EU remain deadlocked on a FTA, despite the Trade Minister travelling to Brussels this week. One of the big sticking points is the EU refuse to allow Australian companies to use traditional names for goods, including prosseco, mozzarella, feta and parmesan.

I think you fullas have just shot yourselves in the foot. NZ accepted the name change policy and eventually they will be give uniquely Kiwi names. No reason why Australia can't do the same. Is the name so important? Is it worth AU$100 billion to be stubborn about the names of products and agricultural imports into the EU? Our agricultural sector are still grumbling about missing out, but we have gained in other areas. Swings and roundabouts.

Seeing as the post is about Luxon & the B757 I'll say one thing before the yellow card gets shown It's no secret a change of Govt will bring with it a siginifcant hunt for Govt spending cuts... the first cab of the rank will be the B757 & as it seems from Luxon's own comments we see here that'll be without replacement. If a couple extra C130J's were inlcuded as sweetener I'd cope... but forget that!

Oh yes a card but not a yellow one. Maybe a green one.

Luxon is showing his ignorance of both foreign affairs and defence issues. After all he is similar to John Key in outlook, but lacking in ability. IF ACT get a good result and more seats than they currently hold, Luxon won't have it all hs way. ACT are very keen on increasing NZDF capabilities and they could make life difficult for Luxon if they want to. Having said that, there's still 3 months to the election and a lot can happen during that time. We should also be careful about any attempts to forecast the election outcome, because 2017 and 2020 threw up results that even surprised the pundits.

 

[jbc388]

I think you fullas have just shot yourselves in the foot. NZ accepted the name change policy and eventually they will be give uniquely Kiwi names. No reason why Australia can't do the same. Is the name so important? Is it worth AU$100 billion to be stubborn about the names of products and agricultural imports into the EU? Our agricultural sector are still grumbling about missing out, but we have gained in other areas. Swings and roundabouts.

Oh yes a card but not a yellow one. Maybe a green one.

Luxon is showing his ignorance of both foreign affairs and defence issues. After all he is similar to John Key in outlook, but lacking in ability. IF ACT get a good result and more seats than they currently hold, Luxon won't have it all hs way. ACT are very keen on increasing NZDF capabilities and they could make life difficult for Luxon if they want to. Having said that, there's still 3 months to the election and a lot can happen during that time. We should also be careful about any attempts to forecast the election outcome, because 2017 and 2020 threw up results that even surprised the pundits.

The problem New Zealand has is that both National and Labour have leaders lacking any ability to actually Lead and to lead well!!
The Labour's side of things is to talk up things but their ideas go nowhere fast!! On national's side of the coin they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all blows over when it comes to defence!

Both main political parties do not want to spend any decent amount of money on defence you only have to look back on recent decsions regarding the Southern Ocean Patrol ship etc, etc
And national's defence spokesperson on defence commenting that they want pay and conditions and basic equipment...so going on past form equals spending cuts again!

Both of the main political parties are hoping the problems in the Pacific are going to be taken care of by everybody else... leaving NZ to muddle on with no clear direction!

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem New Zealand has is that both National and Labour have leaders lacking any ability to actually Lead and to lead well!!
The Labour's side of things is to talk up things but their ideas go nowhere fast!! On national's side of the coin they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all blows over when it comes to defence!

Both main political parties do not want to spend any decent amount of money on defence you only have to look back on recent decsions regarding the Southern Ocean Patrol ship etc, etc
And national's defence spokesperson on defence commenting that they want pay and conditions and basic equipment...so going on past form equals spending cuts again!

Both of the main political parties are hoping the problems in the Pacific are going to be taken care of by everybody else... leaving NZ to muddle on with no clear direction!

You are dead right on that and it doesn't help when Treasury and the Minister of Finance are trying to block things as well.

Treasury warns of ‘unsustainable’ Defence Force staff costs, but govt. boosted wages anyway

Despite low pay forcing people to quit, Treasury said staff costs were 'unsustainable'.

www.nzherald.co.nz

The article is paywalled but this is the gist of it:

Officials at Treasury are frustrated at the spiralling costs of Defence Force salaries - despite the Force having a reputation for incredibly low wages.​

​

The Government acknowledged those low wages this year with a funding boost worth $419.6 million over four years. Historically, some Defence Force staff have been paid less than the minimum wage.​

​

But leading up to the announcement, Treasury and Finance Minister Grant Robertson were incredibly critical of the way the Force was funded - particularly when it came to the cost of staff.​

​

In a letter to former Defence Minister Peeni Henare from 9 November 2022, Robertson wrote, “[a]s I have said in the past I am concerned about the growth in personnel costs over time and I have not seen a clear approach to managing these costs presented to Ministers”.​

​

He went on to say that a “key finding of the 2019 Defence Baseline Review was that personnel expenditure has been persistently higher than agreed in the 2013 Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review (with full-time equivalents in 2018/19 being 2.0 per cent higher and average salaries 6.7 per cent higher than the planned track), and that the current trajectory was unsustainable”.​

​

He said the Defence Force had been asked to “prepare a Workforce Strategy to place personnel expenditure on a sustainable path over the medium to long term, balancing people capability requirements with risks and including an assessment of rank and trade mix”.​

​

Robertson said he “expected” that Workforce Strategy to “demonstrate that personnel cost increases could be largely funding through efficiency gains and prioritisation”, but despite his pleas, “this work has not yet been delivered”.​

​

Sometimes I think Treasury is the arch enemy of Defence and has done more to damage defence than any enemy that we have ever faced in war.

On the NATO front Sam Sachdeva wrote this story for Newsroom, which was published on 10/7/2023.

"New Zealand has already had a partnership agreement with the alliance since 2012, but the Nato official says work is underway on a new, individually tailored programme between the two partners that could be finished by the end of this year.​

​

The goal is not for New Zealand troops to be involved in Nato missions, or have Nato forces exercising in the Indo-Pacific, but to look at areas where the two sides want to work together, such as on emerging technologies and the security impacts of climate change.​

​

That is unlikely to placate critics who believe New Zealand should not be deepening ties with a military alliance that has a nuclear deterrent, and there are also mixed views in Europe about the wisdom of branching out beyond their immediate region."​

Nato balances Ukraine focus with Indo-Pacific interest

Chris Hipkins joins a Nato summit focused on the Ukraine war – but looking to the Indo-Pacific for shared security challenges.

www.newsroom.co.nz

​

The PRC Ambassador has warned NZ about "cosying up to the devil" (NATO):

China to NZ: Don't open door to the devil

China's man in Wellington makes it clear Beijing doesn't want New Zealand partnering Nato in any push to contain China in the Indo-Pacific

www.newsroom.co.nz

His comments were:

"The Chinese Ambassador to Wellington, Wang Xiaolong, issued a statement even before Hipkins had boarded his return flights from the summit venue, Vilnius in Lithuania, in which he warned New Zealand not to "open the door to the devil" by cosying up to any Nato bloc in the Asia-Pacific region.​

​

China accuses Nato, and by implication the United States, of attempting to establish an Indo-Pacific security bloc to contain China in the region.​

​

Wang's sharp words come a fortnight after Hipkins visit to Beijing and meeting with President Xi Jinping, which was generally regarded as a success in maintaining New Zealand's status as a "friend and partner" of China.​

​

The ambassador's statement says: "First and foremost, partnering with a warmongering military bloc is against both regional and global commitment to promoting peace and stability.​

​

"It is hoped that New Zealand, as a longstanding staunch supporter of regional peace and cooperation, will stay vigilant of Nato’s outreach in the Asia-Pacific region, refrain from opening the door to the devil and oppose any rhetoric or action that leads to inciting bloc confrontation in Asia Pacific."​

Wang's unusually strongly worded missive, sent to New Zealand media, prompted a robust response from Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta.​

​

She told Newsroom: "We welcome Nato’s engagement with its partners from the Indo-Pacific based on exchanging insights and addressing common security challenges. ...​

​

New Zealand had long connections to Nato.​

​

"Other countries’ bilateral relationships with Nato is a matter for them. New Zealand and NATO however have a long history of cooperation and share a strong commitment to the international-rules based system and established rules and norms."​

​

But Mahuta was having none of the ambassador's attempts to paint Nato involvement in this region as forming some kind of bloc targeted at China.​

​

"Its important to note that Nato has been clear that it is a Euro-Atlantic alliance and neither New Zealand nor Nato considers that Nato’s partners from the Indo-Pacific represent a new bloc or formal regional grouping," she told Newsroom."​

Unfortunately I can't find a copy of his statement but it's typical CCP/PRC bullying and interference in NZ domestic affairs.

 

[Stuart M]

You are dead right on that and it doesn't help when Treasury and the Minister of Finance are trying to block things as well.

Treasury warns of ‘unsustainable’ Defence Force staff costs, but govt. boosted wages anyway

Despite low pay forcing people to quit, Treasury said staff costs were 'unsustainable'.

www.nzherald.co.nz

The article is paywalled but this is the gist of it:

Officials at Treasury are frustrated at the spiralling costs of Defence Force salaries - despite the Force having a reputation for incredibly low wages.​

​

The Government acknowledged those low wages this year with a funding boost worth $419.6 million over four years. Historically, some Defence Force staff have been paid less than the minimum wage.​

​

But leading up to the announcement, Treasury and Finance Minister Grant Robertson were incredibly critical of the way the Force was funded - particularly when it came to the cost of staff.​

​

In a letter to former Defence Minister Peeni Henare from 9 November 2022, Robertson wrote, “[a]s I have said in the past I am concerned about the growth in personnel costs over time and I have not seen a clear approach to managing these costs presented to Ministers”.​

​

He went on to say that a “key finding of the 2019 Defence Baseline Review was that personnel expenditure has been persistently higher than agreed in the 2013 Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review (with full-time equivalents in 2018/19 being 2.0 per cent higher and average salaries 6.7 per cent higher than the planned track), and that the current trajectory was unsustainable”.​

​

He said the Defence Force had been asked to “prepare a Workforce Strategy to place personnel expenditure on a sustainable path over the medium to long term, balancing people capability requirements with risks and including an assessment of rank and trade mix”.​

​

Robertson said he “expected” that Workforce Strategy to “demonstrate that personnel cost increases could be largely funding through efficiency gains and prioritisation”, but despite his pleas, “this work has not yet been delivered”.​

​

Sometimes I think Treasury is the arch enemy of Defence and has done more to damage defence than any enemy that we have ever faced in war.

On the NATO front Sam Sachdeva wrote this story for Newsroom, which was published on 10/7/2023.

"New Zealand has already had a partnership agreement with the alliance since 2012, but the Nato official says work is underway on a new, individually tailored programme between the two partners that could be finished by the end of this year.​

​

The goal is not for New Zealand troops to be involved in Nato missions, or have Nato forces exercising in the Indo-Pacific, but to look at areas where the two sides want to work together, such as on emerging technologies and the security impacts of climate change.​

​

That is unlikely to placate critics who believe New Zealand should not be deepening ties with a military alliance that has a nuclear deterrent, and there are also mixed views in Europe about the wisdom of branching out beyond their immediate region."​

Nato balances Ukraine focus with Indo-Pacific interest

Chris Hipkins joins a Nato summit focused on the Ukraine war – but looking to the Indo-Pacific for shared security challenges.

www.newsroom.co.nz

​

The PRC Ambassador has warned NZ about "cosying up to the devil" (NATO):

China to NZ: Don't open door to the devil

China's man in Wellington makes it clear Beijing doesn't want New Zealand partnering Nato in any push to contain China in the Indo-Pacific

www.newsroom.co.nz

His comments were:

"The Chinese Ambassador to Wellington, Wang Xiaolong, issued a statement even before Hipkins had boarded his return flights from the summit venue, Vilnius in Lithuania, in which he warned New Zealand not to "open the door to the devil" by cosying up to any Nato bloc in the Asia-Pacific region.​

​

China accuses Nato, and by implication the United States, of attempting to establish an Indo-Pacific security bloc to contain China in the region.​

​

Wang's sharp words come a fortnight after Hipkins visit to Beijing and meeting with President Xi Jinping, which was generally regarded as a success in maintaining New Zealand's status as a "friend and partner" of China.​

​

The ambassador's statement says: "First and foremost, partnering with a warmongering military bloc is against both regional and global commitment to promoting peace and stability.​

​

"It is hoped that New Zealand, as a longstanding staunch supporter of regional peace and cooperation, will stay vigilant of Nato’s outreach in the Asia-Pacific region, refrain from opening the door to the devil and oppose any rhetoric or action that leads to inciting bloc confrontation in Asia Pacific."​

Wang's unusually strongly worded missive, sent to New Zealand media, prompted a robust response from Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta.​

​

She told Newsroom: "We welcome Nato’s engagement with its partners from the Indo-Pacific based on exchanging insights and addressing common security challenges. ...​

​

New Zealand had long connections to Nato.​

​

"Other countries’ bilateral relationships with Nato is a matter for them. New Zealand and NATO however have a long history of cooperation and share a strong commitment to the international-rules based system and established rules and norms."​

​

But Mahuta was having none of the ambassador's attempts to paint Nato involvement in this region as forming some kind of bloc targeted at China.​

​

"Its important to note that Nato has been clear that it is a Euro-Atlantic alliance and neither New Zealand nor Nato considers that Nato’s partners from the Indo-Pacific represent a new bloc or formal regional grouping," she told Newsroom."​

Unfortunately I can't find a copy of his statement but it's typical CCP/PRC bullying and interference in NZ domestic affairs.

And despite China's actions, Treasury clearly wants to cut capacity and or capability because personal wanted to be paid properly, their lack of perspective never fails to amaze.
As for the treasurer himself, there should be no surprise, he's Labour, they hate the armed forces and have done since their founding.
Unfortunately it won't be better with National as they just don't give a damn about the armed forces.