NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

The big problem I have with being to closely allied to the US is that you can get involved in things that you might not want to like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, none of which could be considered as resulting in a good outcome. However being on good and friendly terms is essential. The problem I have is that the current government will use the joining of any defence agreement as an excuse not to spend any money on defence as they will take the line, We have an agreement with X they will defend us so we don't need to "waste" our money on our defence we just have to alline with X's policies and all will be taken care of.
This has happened more than once in the passed and I don't see this government as being any different, possibly worse.

 

[Catalina]

During World War Two, aside from the Tiger Moths built at the de Havilland New Zealand Ltd factory at Rongotai, New Zealand produced no aircraft, yet at its peak the RNZAF in the Pacific had 26 squadrons* and hundreds of training aircraft of various types.

Question - did New Zealand actually pay for any of these aircraft or were they all gifted by the United States to us under Lend Lease?

* 13 squadrons of Corsair fighters, six of Venturas, two of Catalinas, Avengers, C-47 Dakota transport/cargo aircraft, one of Dauntless dive bombers, many transport and communications aircraft, and flight of Sunderland flying boats.

 

[Rob c]

During World War Two, aside from the Tiger Moths built at the de Havilland New Zealand Ltd factory at Rongotai, New Zealand produced no aircraft, yet at its peak the RNZAF in the Pacific had 26 squadrons* and hundreds of training aircraft of various types.

Question - did New Zealand actually pay for any of these aircraft or were they all gifted by the United States to us under Lend Lease?

* 13 squadrons of Corsair fighters, six of Venturas, two of Catalinas, Avengers, C-47 Dakota transport/cargo aircraft, one of Dauntless dive bombers, many transport and communications aircraft, and flight of Sunderland flying boats.

Lend, Lease required that any items given to that nation be returned to the control of the gifting nation or paid for at the end of the conflict. Often this ment that while items were returned to the control of the gifting nation they were simply scrapped on the spot and did not actually return.
In the NZ case in what can be termed reverse "lend lease" Nz supplied large amounts of food and services to the US forces so that when all was added up at the end of the conflict NZ was not allowed to return items that were leased to NZ to the control of the US. As the US could not return the food and services to NZ and evidently the costings were somewhat similar, we kept everything and so did the US.
As a side note the UK owed NZ a large sum equal to the NZ entire 1939 NZ government budget which was written off.

 

[SeaplanePaul]

Thank you Rob. Seems unfair that Britain made New Zealand completely pay off HMNZS New Zealand, taking us some 32 years from 1912 to 1944, and yet the New Zealand Government wrote off a debt Britain owed us equal to our entire 1939 budget...

 

[Rob c]

Thank you Rob. Seems unfair that Britain made New Zealand completely pay off HMNZS New Zealand, taking us some 32 years from 1912 to 1944, and yet the New Zealand Government wrote off a debt Britain owed us equal to our entire 1939 budget...

It all depends on how and where the loan for HMS New Zealand was arranged, if it was through the banking system then they would require payment. The debt the British owed us was simply for unpaid products and not a loan and that is significantly different.

 

[CJohn]

Line of Defence editor Dr Peter Greener breaks down the latest delay to the DCP.

Defence Capability Plan: Kicking the can down the road yet again

Are the recent actions of the Chinese really the reason for the delay in the Defence Capability Plan, or do the politics have a part to play?

defsec.net.nz

 

[Gibbo]

Line of Defence editor Dr Peter Greener breaks down the latest delay to the DCP.

Defence Capability Plan: Kicking the can down the road yet again

Are the recent actions of the Chinese really the reason for the delay in the Defence Capability Plan, or do the politics have a part to play?

defsec.net.nz

Yes absolutely no surprises there... I'm convinced the main reason is to delay spending any $$$ ...but I wonder if the uncertainty over what will happen with TrumpV2 in all key facets of international relations (Defence, Trade, Foreign Policy etc) is a partial factor.

 

[jbc388]

Yes absolutely no surprises there... I'm convinced the main reason is to delay spending any $$$ ...but I wonder if the uncertainty over what will happen with TrumpV2 in all key facets of international relations (Defence, Trade, Foreign Policy etc) is a partial factor.

Which will just turn into another delay "kicking the can further and further down the road" bloody government needs to grow some balls and make a dam decision and get on with things. This sort of thing is just going to come along each month all this useless government will do is delay,delay.delay!!

 

[Hawkeye69]

Government has no money, that’s the truth of the matter. The tax take is currently not enough to do everything, we are not mineral rich like Australia so we need to introduce a capital gains tax, wealth tax and increase the age for entitlement for NZ Super and NZ Super needs to be means tested, if you have 6x mortgage free rental properties then you can self fund your retirement, the rich can self fund and should be doing so. The hard fact is this is no vote winner for any political party nor is anything to do with defence, most Kiwis just don’t care.

 

[jbc388]

Actually we have pretty good mineral rescources here billions in gold for a start, this government needs to have the balls to stop "kicking the can" and actually do something?? make some decisions!!! not do what National always does cut the NZDF!!
If there is a major earthquake etc the NZDF is pretty much useless, lack of pers,no navy, lack of helicopters, A fleet of old unimogs that are not fit for purpose!! only 5 x transport aircraft capable of carrying meduim sized equipment!! it's been run into the ground!!! but I know the troops on the ground will do the best they can!!
What needs to happen is our idiot pollies need to spend a few weeks working with all the lack of major equipment and other gear to actually see what a complete cock up they are making of the NZDF. But we all know that will never happen!!

 

[Rob c]

Government has no money, that’s the truth of the matter. The tax take is currently not enough to do everything,

Prior to the recent tax cut NZ had the lowest personal tax rates in the OECD and then they were cut again. So the government is the author of its own monetary problems.

The hard fact is this is no vote winner for any political party nor is anything to do with defence, most Kiwis just don’t care.

The reality is that the lack of understanding in regard to defence is in a large part due to past governments making sure that there is little discussion on the subject, which dates back over a decade ago to an agreement between the major parties not to discuss defence for political reasons. Keep the public in the dark type reasoning. I did read of a survey some 3 or 4 years ago which was about defence spending, From memory about 45% wanted an increase, about 30% said stay the same, 12% had no opinion and the rest want a reduction.
The big problem with defence funding is that every time the government wants savings defence is cut, but when things improve, other departments get their budgets restored but defence does not. So the budget keeps on going down each time.

 

[Todjaeger]

Prior to the recent tax cut NZ had the lowest personal tax rates in the OECD and then they were cut again. So the government is the author of its own monetary problems.

The reality is that the lack of understanding in regard to defence is in a large part due to past governments making sure that there is little discussion on the subject, which dates back over a decade ago to an agreement between the major parties not to discuss defence for political reasons. Keep the public in the dark type reasoning. I did read of a survey some 3 or 4 years ago which was about defence spending, From memory about 45% wanted an increase, about 30% said stay the same, 12% had no opinion and the rest want a reduction.
The big problem with defence funding is that every time the government wants savings defence is cut, but when things improve, other departments get their budgets restored but defence does not. So the budget keeps on going down each time.

Please also remember the "Capital Charge" accounting shenanigans, which further reduce the Defence spend in real terms. Sorry to still be banging on about this (after nearly 20 years!) but unfortunately the GotD can make it appear that more funding is being directed to Defence by simply increasing the Capital Charge and it's offset in Vote Defence, without Defence actually getting any more funding.

 

[Rob c]

Please also remember the "Capital Charge" accounting shenanigans, which further reduce the Defence spend in real terms.

Totally agree, the capital charge distorts the hole budget and is totally inappropriate for a non commercial organisation. Even treasury admitted as much when it was first introduced. I remember a published treasury report saying that the method of accounting involving the capital charge was not totally appropriate for the NZDF, but was instituted for reasons of consistency across government departments.
For Treasury to admit that there baby was not totally appropriate, in my view means it was a total disaster and remains so to this day.

 

[swerve]

Same here in the UK. Causes a great deal of waste. Appropriate for many commercial organisations*, but utterly wrong for armed forces, where it's essential to have reserve stocks sitting around unused.

*But even there it can cause problems if used wrongly. I remember leaving work late & meeting a colleague doing the same, & not in a good mood. He'd just spent the day stopping a lot of out of production parts for mobile phone networks being sold as electronic scrap. They'd been deliberately bought & stockpiled to keep our employer's old kit functioning until its scheduled replacement, to avoid rushed ad hoc buying & installation of new stuff as old parts failed. He'd saved a few million quid in future costs by stopping the sell-off, he reckoned.

Warehouse management had throughput targets to meet, & departments had to pay charges on stock . . . Nobody had given those parts formal exemption from either, perhaps because it hadn't been needed before, but enforcement of the targets & charges had been strengthened.

 

[jbc388]

Totally agree, the capital charge distorts the hole budget and is totally inappropriate for a non commercial organisation. Even treasury admitted as much when it was first introduced. I remember a published treasury report saying that the method of accounting involving the capital charge was not totally appropriate for the NZDF, but was instituted for reasons of consistency across government departments.
For Treasury to admit that there baby was not totally appropriate, in my view means it was a total disaster and remains so to this day.

I fully agree wirh your comments but our other problem/disaster is our pollitions of all parties here in New Zealand they are just not interested in actually trying to sort this mess we have now!!
This current mob are going to keep kicking the can further down the road so far it can't been seen!!! can't be seen so don't have to worry about it!!