NZDF General discussion thread

[Boardgamer88]

TVNZ Q and A Jack Tame short interview with Def Min. Its pretty short

Talks of reducing ship types down from 6

Little sounds like he is open to drones: "I certainly see a role for drones in ISR ... we can make more use of that. In terms of combat [armed drones] I don't have a view about that"

He expects an increase in % of GDP spend on defence over time, over the next few budgets.

Little states we havent had a good public debate about defence in a long time, "lets have the debate" etc.

The video in question, for those interested.

 

[Rob c]

Its all a question of priorities; ACT, for example, maybe able to pressure Luxon, but they are the smaller party so they will have to decide which of their priorities they press National on, and defence may fall by the wayside

Yep you are right about this and we have had a party in the past that use to have a stronger defence policy, but Winston never delivered on it. However in this case the review may give the ACT policy more clout. We shall have to what and see. I am wondering if Labour may see Luxons approach to defence as a weakness and start plugging the review as part of their election campaign, given Andrew Littles comments regarding the need for good debate.

 

[Gracie1234]

We have never had this level of visibility before, it also means that the govt can not hide behind not doing anything like they used to. The government talks about the tragedy of the Christchurch Terror attack but more people died due to the cyber attack on Wakaito Hospital.
These papers enable the govt to prioritise funding and talk about the reasons why and the impacts of not doing it while before they did not have the option. Our country's finances are in good shape so there is plenty of cash no matter who gets elected. I did find it interesting that India was mentioned as a Partner, that will definitely be a trade and defence is linked conversation.
China also has less influence now than it used to as it is running into significant economic issues that can not be easily fixed. Fonterra just dropped their milk price due to their weak demand.

 

[Stuart M]

We have never had this level of visibility before, it also means that the govt can not hide behind not doing anything like they used to. The government talks about the tragedy of the Christchurch Terror attack but more people died due to the cyber attack on Wakaito Hospital.
These papers enable the govt to prioritise funding and talk about the reasons why and the impacts of not doing it while before they did not have the option. Our country's finances are in good shape so there is plenty of cash no matter who gets elected. I did find it interesting that India was mentioned as a Partner, that will definitely be a trade and defence is linked conversation.
China also has less influence now than it used to as it is running into significant economic issues that can not be easily fixed. Fonterra just dropped their milk price due to their weak demand.

It's also possible that the government may just be talking a line for the sake of certain foreign audiences,but has no intention of the kind of investment defence needs to get to the level the papers imply. Whilst I think more money will go defences way, it could just be a case of beef soup with no beef.
Remember the history of the two main parties is not the best, and a lot of the people who underinvested in defence are still there .

 

[swerve]

...China also has less influence now than it used to as it is running into significant economic issues that can not be easily fixed. Fonterra just dropped their milk price due to their weak demand.

With Xi pushing for more grain to be grown at the expense of higher-earning but lower calorie output uses of farmland, Chinese dairy production may drop - but given that his plans could result in lower incomes, demand for imports to make up for reduced domestic production may not materialise.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

At the current time I think that Labour is more likely to move on this at this time. The reports would have gone though cabinet before release and the defence ministers comments would have been approved prior to his public announcement so they have some solid backing. ACT is calling for the defence budget to be raised to 2% GDP in 3 years which could put pressure on Luxon.
The greens could be a sticking point for labour, however their policy is not as bad as I first thought, though not great either.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/be...-Peacekeeping-Policy-2011-2023.pdf?1682560097

not as bad as you first thought... it is worse than I thought...

It basically takes away any teeth the NZDF has left...


Actions
1.2. The roles of the NZDF should not include participation in the ANZUS Treaty, the Five Power Defence Arrangement or the UK/USA intelligence agreement (See our Global Affairs and Privacy and Security Services policies for additional information).

Capability
Actions
2.3. Avoid the development of offensive combat capabilities, such as overseas military exercises and launching military hardware into space.

So no training with in any overseas military exercise

2.4. Phase out and oppose the purchase or development of equipment that is not appropriate for, or is excess to, the purposes and capacities specified above,
including:
2.4.1. Replacing the ANZAC frigates with more appropriate equipment;

They probably want just OPV's but with less teeth than the current... (which going by the rest of what they say have can such a vessel do any sort of protection...

2.4.2. Opposing the purchase and the installation of specialist anti-submarine detection and fighting capability on our maritime surveillance aeroplanes;

They don't believe submarines can and are a threat to international shipping lanes which we rely on... they also don't believe they come this far south which I can tell you that have and still do...

2.4.3. Rejecting the development or use of weapons that create particular long lasting risks to civilian populations and/or the environment, such as nuclear, cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons, landmines, biological and chemical weapons; and

To be fair I agree however the wording ... such as means it it is open to interpretation on the day... and any weapon can have a long lasting risk to civilian populations. Are they wanting to arm the NZDF with Nerf guns?

2.4.4. Reviewing policy on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

When push comes to shove, there are times it is going to be needed... as long as you are not purposefully targeting civilians as we are seeing in a certain conflict, it is an unfortunate thing of a conflict/war that you fight the enemy

2.7. Investigate the development of civilian-based defence in which some citizens are trained to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation and by active non-cooperation rather than military force.

Isn't that what the NZDF and NZ Police are? As in they are citizens are trained to resist aggression with the NZDF having a little more clout than the NZ Police?

 

[kiwi in exile]

2.7. Investigate the development of civilian-based defence in which some citizens are trained to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation and by active non-cooperation rather than military force.
Isn't that what the NZDF and NZ Police are? As in they are citizens are trained to resist aggression with the NZDF having a little more clout than the NZ Police?

They mean employing Valereie Morse and peace action Wellington as a branch of NZDF. When the commies invade or bomb us they can stage a peaceful sit in. Any amphibious landings will be foreced to shoot them, run them over sail back to where they came from. Maybe someone should suggest this to Zelensky...

 

[Rob c]

not as bad as you first thought... it is worse than I thought...

I was under the impression that the were going to eliminate the defence force altogether. I did not read the last page, So my mistake.

2.7. Investigate the development of civilian-based defence in which some citizens are trained to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation and by active non-cooperation rather than military force.

This bit is in fairy land, I don't think they have though this through at all. The consequences of this are unreal,
First of all, invaders are not nice people they don't usually obey your rules, They will eliminate any non cooperative person.
2. They will will not keep any of our social services going, so anyone on benefits or pensions will starve and eventually there will be a large number of deaths from this.
3. They will not pay for the health system to continue to function so if you cannot pay you die.
4. What would happen to the prison population, would they be eliminated or simply released back into the general public? They probably would not pay for them to be fed.
The list goes on.

 

[Gibbo]

I was under the impression that the were going to eliminate the defence force altogether. I did not read the last page, So my mistake.

This bit is in fairy land, I don't think they have though this through at all. The consequences of this are unreal,
First of all, invaders are not nice people they don't usually obey your rules, They will eliminate any non cooperative person.
2. They will will not keep any of our social services going, so anyone on benefits or pensions will starve and eventually there will be a large number of deaths from this.
3. They will not pay for the health system to continue to function so if you cannot pay you die.
4. What would happen to the prison population, would they be eliminated or simply released back into the general public? They probably would not pay for them to be fed.
The list goes on.

The biggest indicator that the Greens don't have any understanding of Defence is their astoundingly naive apparent belief that active non-cooperation is actually going to have a beneficial outcome and should be encouraged... history has centuries of evidence to show all that leads to is brutal retalitory suppression... you kill one of there's and a whole village of your's gets slaughtered! These idiots spend all their time smoking dope & hugging trees rather than observing what history has taught mankind and what is currently happening around the globe...dangerous!

 

[kiwi in exile]

The biggest indicator that the Greens don't have any understanding of Defence is their astoundingly naive apparent belief that active non-cooperation is actually going to have a beneficial outcome and should be encouraged... history has centuries of evidence to show all that leads to is brutal retalitory suppression

The Greens often cite Parihaka.

back to Little... the change in retoric supported by 3 official documents is encouraging. But it will all depend on actual delivery of funding and capability. i am broadly in favour opf the path set out in the 2019 DCP- I just want it all to happen faster, (and ANZAC frigate replacement leading to more combat vessels).

i think we need to move away from "its time to replace platform x- how many of the next gen platforms do we need" to what capabilities are needed for the current and future emerging stategic/tactical environment

 

[ngatimozart]

The Greens often cite Parihaka.

And what did happen at Parihaka? It didn't work out to well for the locals.

 

[Rob c]

And what did happen at Parihaka? It didn't work out to well for the locals.

History is full of stupidity and un warranted aggression against a local population. It is interesting that prior to this in 1838 the same tribe went to the Chatham Islands and the result there did not work out well for the locals. My personal opinion is while we need to know our history, to hang on to it to hard will make it more difficult to move into the future.

 

[Rob c]

i think we need to move away from "its time to replace platform x- how many of the next gen platforms do we need" to what capabilities are needed for the current and future emerging stategic/tactical environment

Agreed, IMO, we need to start with the basics and move out from there. By this I mean, first of all you need to protect NZ from aggression, then help defend island territories in the South Pacific, assist Australia, and help protect trade routes. So you start with what is needed to protect NZ and move from there. most of what is needed to protect NZ will also be useful in the other roles. Most of what is needed for the primary role would also be useful in other roles such as disaster relief and peace keeping. However if you start equipping for the secondary roles first which of late has been the case, then you become ill equipped to carry out the primary defence role.

 

[recce.k1]

Prof. Alexander Gillespie gives us his views on the new defence and security assessment and sounds a warning.

While peaceful cooperation in areas of shared interest is deemed desirable, China is also recognised as being major driver of geopolitical change, especially in its willingness to be more assertive and willing to challenge existing international rules and norms.

Finally, aspects of China’s operations in the Pacific threaten to fundamentally alter the regional strategic balance. New Zealand must plan and be prepared for this.

NZ’s first national security strategy signals a ‘turning point’ and the end of old certainties

New Zealand faces “more geostrategic challenges than we have had in decades”, according to the defence minister. A broad defence and security reset aims to prepare the country for what may be ahead.

theconversation.com

In terms of NZ planning changing and being prepared to meet these new threats, defence corespondent Tim Fish gives us a insights into initiatives to increase ADF/NZDF collaboration, training and doctrine (whilst the pollies are "talking the walk", the defence forces are losing no time "walking the talk")!

Australia to take key role in NZDF capability growth - Australian Defence Magazine

The ADF is likely to increase its role supporting the development of New Zealand Defence Force capabilities following the launch of New Zealand’s new defence policy | Tim Fish

www.australiandefence.com.au

Finally perhaps one of NZ's more "realistic" foreign affairs analysts Geoffrey Miller gives us his views.

With China in sights, New Zealand signals major defense policy shift

Brand new strategy suggest a future desire to join the great power pack — even AUKUS — despite years of independence.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Although I think he also misinterpreted Foreign Minister Mahuta's comments of "NZ not joining AUKUS" (like Newshub did last week as discussed here), which was mainly aimed at the NZ Left. Let's be clear there is absolutely no way the US would ever share nuclear (propulsion) technology with NZ (there are enough roadbumps to overcome for an extremely close and supportive US ally like Australia eg in terms of Congress and calming international nuclear proliferation concerns etc) so of course NZ won't be joining AUKUS as such a proposition would be totally absurd (to the AUKUS partners). AUKUS Pillar 2 is yet to be finalised so no-one else will be joining for the time-being (regardless of NZ domestic politics or some of the agitating (far) Left or some of the headlining seeking "gotcha" MSM etc).

 

[Stuart M]

In terms of NZ planning changing and being prepared to meet these new threats, defence corespondent Tim Fish gives us a insights into initiatives to increase ADF/NZDF collaboration, training and doctrine (whilst the pollies are "talking the walk", the defence forces are losing no time "walking the talk")!

Australia to take key role in NZDF capability growth - Australian Defence Magazine

The ADF is likely to increase its role supporting the development of New Zealand Defence Force capabilities following the launch of New Zealand’s new defence policy | Tim Fish

www.australiandefence.com.au

Ahh yes, "Plan ANZAC". I do trust that in having surrendered the Army's intellectual independence, admittedly through no fault of their own in most respects, they do not forget why Fryberg rejected UK operational doctrine from 1940 on.

 

[recce.k1]

More weekend reading

Probably of the the best in depth takes on the current situation with a variety of views.

New Zealand's National Security Strategy: Greater regional presence, Aussie ties, and questions - Breaking Defense

"These documents represent a clear statement of intent by the New Zealand Government to step up its foreign policy and military efforts in the Pacific," one analyst told Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

A call for greater defence expenditure by Dr John Moreman:

Successive governments have underfunded defence. At the end of the Cold War in 1991, defence expenditure was 2.26% of GDP. Many countries imposed a “peace dividend”, reducing defence expenditure. But New Zealand cut more than most, more than half in real terms.

The low point was 2015 when defence spending fell to 0.99% of GDP. It has since climbed to around 1.4%, but the NZDF now needs to recover from those historically low budgets. Such GDP ratios will not be enough to match the rhetoric around the new defence and security strategies.

ACF gets a mention:

“The decision to scrap air combat [fighter jet] capability in 2001 appears particularly reckless.”

Lastly some focus on better utilising technology and ensuring new recruits can apply technological skillsets to their roles.

The ‘number 8 wire’ days for NZ’s defence force are over – new priorities will demand bigger budgets

New Zealanders will need to get used to bigger defence budgets – and change their attitudes to the military – if the new national security strategy is to be properly implemented.

theconversation.com

NZSIS release their threat assessment yesterday, analysis from Prof. Gillespie again.

Out of the shadows: why making NZ’s security threat assessment public for the first time is the right move

The Security Intelligence Service needs public support and trust to do its work well. Adding a degree of transparency to it’s annual threat assessment should help.

theconversation.com

Radio NZ report from yesterday.

NZSIS's first unclassified threat assessment targets competition, public trust, technology

China, Russia and Iran have conducted interference in New Zealand, it says, with technology and falling public trust adding to national security risks.

www.rnz.co.nz

Newsroom mainly looks at the claims of state interference from China, Russia and Iran.

Spies say interference in NZ linked to Chinese intelligence

In a major new report, the Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) says "ongoing activity in and against New Zealand" is linked to Chinese intelligence.

www.newsroom.co.nz

So a number of "threat" assessments have been released from various govt agencies in the last few weeks (with even the DefMin pushing for the initial defence assessments to be released one year early - ahead of the 2024 defence capability plan - which also explains why there were no linkages to investment and forthcoming capabilities last week), which suggests the govt is willing to speak up more and align its position with its closest partners.

 

[Gooey]

As predicted by some here, now that the Defence Policy and Strategy Statement 2023 has sunk below the noise floor without trace and the nations hard working masses and our overloads look inwards again to study such weighty issues as incidents at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples caused by saying 'Guy Fawkes' and National husbands helping out with their family shopping, may I give a heads up to a recent Helen Clark Foundation Webinar.

As background, I was the first to enjoy chucking spears at PM Clark. Her destruction of the RNZAF ACF and ASW capability is legend but it was her unchallenged 'benign strategic environment' dictate, after Timor and before 11 Sep 2001, which reinforced a long stagnation in NZ foreign and defence group-think.

Then, I found and registered for this webinar with guest MAJGEN (Rtd) Mick Ryan, organised by the Foundation, which discussed the current Ukrainian War. Mick was very good, in my opinion, with his high-level summary of the multiple theater complexities, that this will be a long war, together with the importance of the nuclear umbrella for deterrence and 'jet strike' air power. I waited for Uncle Helen to jump down Micks throat, but wonder of wonders, she let him proceed uninterrupted. I remain amazed at the quality of information in this one particular public webinar, which admittedly is an outlying study in comparison to the rest of her more usual suspects material at the Foundation, and that this went unreported by our fourth estate.

The missing piece during the webinar, from a Kiwi perspective, is the 'so what'; what does this analysis of the Ukraine War mean for NZ strategy. Additionally, I must complement PM Clark on the quality of this product whilst reminding myself that you can't always judge a book by its cover.

So that we do not continue ignoring our own national security how do we increase the public quality of knowledge in NZ to gain momentum in this space?

As previously, how does the NZ system spend political-capital to engage and solve and resource our own doctrine?

If PM Clark of all people can produce such a quality webinar, which plainly discusses nuclear deterrence and air power, why does this basic responsibility of our nation remain continuously ignored when we are so staunch on other issues?

Perhaps we need to have a permanent fellowship here in a public NZ institution filled by a quality chap like Mick. Even more so, perhaps he should be seconded to the PMs Office for 3 years? After our self imposed isolation since 1986, perhaps our own system and the NZDF is incapable of producing personnel with the professional mastery and mana of Mick?

 

[Rob c]

If PM Clark of all people can produce such a quality webinar, which plainly discusses nuclear deterrence and air power, why does this basic responsibility of our nation remain continuously ignored when we are so staunch on other issues?

My IMO it is the result of a high proportion of our jurno's and editors being very left wing. The two major local newspapers in my area, each separately owned by the two major owners of newspapers in NZ, had zero articles about the strategic review and have very limited coverage of the Ukraine war. When I wrote to both and asked why there had been no coverage I got no reply.
In my opinion Journalists and editors need to make an effort to be as neutral as possible but unfortunately this is seldom the case in NZ. If a pro defence political party announces a defence policy, it is seldom reported on, but a pot hole outside Joe Bloggs house which gave him a flat tire gets the front page.

 

[John Fedup]

Sadly, any awareness by pollies realizing former polices were in fact naive and dangerous are not worth much given the time required for fixing. Pollies need reasons to be re-elected (prime directive). Like Canada, NZ (and other countries) does not have enough citizens aware of the geopolitical situation and how the potential to turn their lives to $hit should be a big concern for them. Knowledgeable voters can influence pollies. Why this is so, perhaps slack general media along with left wing media negative influence, low calibre political candidates or just as likely voters are fixated on free stuff from the government at the expense of defence.

In an increasingly dangerous world, Canada and NZ may find allied support limited, especially from their key allies. In NZ's case, Australia will need all their assets for their own defence. Canada, same applies to a much lesser extent but there is a growing realization on Canada's defence neglect and certainly right wing pollies will make this an issue (rightfully so).

 

[Redlands18]

Sadly, any awareness by pollies realizing former polices were in fact naive and dangerous are not worth much given the time required for fixing. Pollies need reasons to be re-elected (prime directive). Like Canada, NZ (and other countries) does not have enough citizens aware of the geopolitical situation and how the potential to turn their lives to $hit should be a big concern for them. Knowledgeable voters can influence pollies. Why this is so, perhaps slack general media along with left wing media negative influence, low calibre political candidates or just as likely voters are fixated on free stuff from the government at the expense of defence.

In an increasingly dangerous world, Canada and NZ may find allied support limited, especially from their key allies. In NZ's case, Australia will need all their assets for their own defence. Canada, same applies to a much lesser extent but there is a growing realization on Canada's defence neglect and certainly right wing pollies will make this an issue (rightfully so).

The ruling Labor Party here in Australia had its National Conference on Friday and the far left of the party tried to stop the SSNs being part of Labor's platform, fortunately they failed.