NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

The Nats have historically cared Stuart. At least cared no worse than Labour. Historically until the end of the Cold War they were fairly bi-partisan. Its just that they deservedly cop it because of the Richardson era from the early to mid 1990's (Ruthie only thought like an Auditor going over the books of a company in recievership). Just as currently Labour deserve it for strategic blindness, unrealistic funding (Like Ruthie) and predeterminism . If we say historically we must include the Holland and Holyake era's when Defence was fairly well looked after. Muldoon at least did put our historical allied relationships up front and the Lange Labour era also generally kept things together when we were running short of money. The 1997 Defence Review was a reasonable template from which to recover from Ruthie's brutalist approach - she was still the Minister who set the budget for the 94/95 fiscal year which forced the ham fisted purchase of the Upham. There was always a rational policy put forward - historically speaking. It used to come from the Ministry and the NZDF. Through the 1990's when Gerry Hensley was Sec of Defence, he and his staff, as well as Service Chiefs, were putting the policy up front and other than issue over Anzus both Labour and National did respect and take into account the policy perspective of the officials. Its just that Ruthie who used to walk over everyone in Cabinet and Ministries because she held the purse strings.... a Thatcher without the need for friends. At least we got rid of her and a few of her mates... eh!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The Nats have historically cared Stuart. At least cared no worse than Labour. Historically until the end of the Cold War they were fairly bi-partisan.

Oh, bi-partisan certainly, but in what way?. There seems to have been a continual decrease in unit capacity of the armed forces since 1945, compared to their equivalents, and no real operational or strategic independence has ever been thought of until recently.

Its just that they deservedly cop it because of the Richardson era from the early to mid 1990's (Ruthie only thought like an Auditor going over the books of a company in recievership). Just as currently Labour deserve it for strategic blindness, unrealistic funding (Like Ruthie) and predeterminism . If we say historically we must include ..snippage.

Come on, I think that we both know that given the complete lack of anything resembling strategic mobility and a total inability to sustain in combat any credible unit without the complete support of the US {and that level is doubtfull after Korea}, is not exactly an indication of good policy, and lets be honest, good advice to the government of the day, and thats been the case since 1945.
I have no doubt that good intentions may well have been there, especially when the wartime generation was still involved at the highest levels, but good intentions are not enough, what counts is demonstrable capability and no political party has cared enough to develop that capability.

To a large degree I think that NZ has, for a long time been resting on the laurels of 39-45 and, certainly with respect to defence, we have not fully realized that we are an independent nation and that no one now is really inclined, or able, to make up for our self imposed failings.

At least we got rid of her and a few of her mates... eh!

For which I give daily thanks.

 

[MrConservative]

Stuart, I agree that NZ has dropped the bundle on Defence over time, but I just don't think that one can lay the blame all at National's door and to be fair, all at Labours door either (Though I reserve the right to lambast Ruth Richardson and Marc Burton). Labour and National have both been part of it policy wise, and both parties have at time had people within there ranks sympathetic to defence. Whether or not as you contend that only until recently under Labour there has been any operational or strategic independence is a moot point. I frankly see the current approach to defence as a restructuring it how "we" want it to be going forward as opposed to recognising how it is or will be. That is where I think you and I have some agreement that at present it is not the right fit. That whatever the current strategic focus is from a political level, it is at present not adequate enough for New Zealand to operate with a degree of real independence nor increasingly effectively with our regional allies. That message has also come across loud and clear on this site from non New Zealand contributors into the discussions.

The question of mobility of forces is really only a new concept for New Zealand to deal with as prior to the abeyance of Anzus we were also able to rely on the US, UK and of course Australia. In many ways we relied on them for our strategic direction also, but that is the Real Politik of been a nation of then just 3 million people and with just 1% of the US's GDP. Yes, there should be guilt on resting on our laurels over that. If there is one fundamentally flawed aspect with our current strategic thinking in this country and this is from all political hues, is that there is a tendency to think in the 'now' and not in the 'tomorrow'. Because of that change is very hard to politically accommodate. Unfortunately when change is forced upon one, the results can be rather grave.

If the best of what National intended to do post 2000 and the best of what Labour have done post 2000, at least there would be the right platform for New Zealand to have probably have a very useful and capable defence force for its size, budget and responsibilities going forward.

Stuart. Shouldn't you be at the Bruce Mason Centre this weekend? Just Kidding! We should keep the politics out of it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, I agree that NZ has dropped the bundle on Defence over time, but I just don't think that one can lay the blame all at National's door and to be fair, all at Labours door either (Though I reserve the right to lambast Ruth Richardson and Marc Burton).

Don't get me wrong, I blame them both, especially given the lifespan of defence equipment

snip

Stuart. Shouldn't you be at the Bruce Mason Centre this weekend? Just Kidding! We should keep the politics out of it.

The what?
As to politics..yeah, I know the moderation likes it not, but it hard to separate defence matters from politics as the two involve the other on numerous levels.

 

[mug]

From NZ Herald:

Defence force set to lose more people
4:11PM Thursday November 22, 2007
By Maggie Tait

The Defence Force is expecting to be hit with serious staff losses over the next few months.

Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee was also told New Zealand would be hard pressed to send troops to any new crisis in the Pacific.

Defence Force head Lieutenant General Jerry Mataparae said it was falling "slightly behind" recruitment targets.

"We are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit the right numbers and the right technical tradespeople in the navy, the army and the air force."

On top of that the force was expecting resignations - he did not put a figure on how many.

"Unfortunately the recent data indicates attrition rates are on the rise again."

There were 13,640 full and part time service men and women and civilians in the force.

"We are anticipating that this period from about December to March, which traditionally is a period of higher attrition, that we are in fact going to see that."

National MP Wayne Mapp said personnel had got modest pay rises around the rate of inflation.

Lt Gen Mataparae said this year an interim pay increase was made but it would be looked at again next year.

"Pay and remuneration is a special consideration for the Defence Force this and next year."

He said a remuneration strategy and housing assistance policy would be up and running and resourced by July next year.

The committee was told housing affected staff retention and a recent examination of the largely 1950s stock found the cost of bringing houses up to modern standards was $500 million.

The committee was told "an innovative" approach would be taken to reduce the cost. The problem was so bad because previously funding for maintenance had been diverted for other uses.

Mr Mapp questioned whether the army needed to be bigger or redesigned.

Lt Gen Mataparae accepted there was not enough capacity to be able to send an additional battalion if there was a new crisis in the Pacific.

There were already deployments in Afghanistan, Solomon Islands and East Timor.

"We will not be able to provide an additional battalion."

However, a smaller group could be sent for an absolutely critical deployment in the region.

Lt Gen Mataparae said that as part of the defence sustainability initiative the army was being grown.

He also said an army transformation programme was expected to be completed by the year's end.

Defence Minister Phil Goff told NZPA that when unemployment was low recruitment and retention would always be a problem.

Recruitment would focus on specific areas such as medical personnel, engineers, and technicians.

"It is a problem, but no greater problem than you would expect at a time of full employment and a parallel to what our colleagues are facing across the Tasman and elsewhere."

Mr Goff said the housing upkeep problem reflected the overall backlog of problems for defence when Labour became Government in 1999.

"We've put a huge amount into capital expenditure, some $3.3 billion through the long term development plan, we've put another $4.4b into the defence sustainability initiative. We are tackling these problems but we can't do them all at once."

- NZPA

 

[RubiconNZ]

Two words: Pay Rise,
The pay for NZDF personnely espescially enlisted is pathetic, change that and you might start to see a difference.
Not to mention continue to build up pride public image of the Defence Force.

 

[Lucasnz]

Other NZDF News

Further to the above NZ Hearld article stuff also as a report here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4284753a11.html which focus's on the state of the army and issues surrounding HMNZS Canterbury - (Propeller coming out of water, fatigue of landing craft fittings and issues surrounding the RHIB's).

I think the army needs to rethink its whole structure in order to acheive the stated aim of a battalion and one company deployed.

Stuff also reports that Rotoiti went to sea for the first time yesterday. Nice side on photo: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4284320a11.html

 

[steve33]

One of the biggest problems as far as recruiting goes is the folly of war never again campaign that has been pushed over the last twenty or so years along with the anti U.S AKA anti nuclear stance.

We have taken an attitude that we live at the bottom of the pacific and what goes on in the rest of the world doesn,t matter to us and if we are nice to everyone and build a reputation as peace loving people that will ensure our security and it is a joke the world runs on three things Greed,self interest and might and as a country we need to wake up.

When you look at our history our soldiers have performed outstandingly winning many battles but you never hear about them you only hear about the ones we lost because winning battles and the folly of war don,t go together very well you have to match the folly of war with defeat.

You don,t want to be a nation that charges off to war like it is a fun pass time because it certainly is not but you also don,t want to be a nation that deludes it,s self that the military isn,t important and that being nice to everyone will ensure your safety it,s like saying you can live in a street of criminals and if your nice to them they won,t burgle your house.

We need the military to be encourged through society as a career choice and something to be proud of not a dirty word.

As for the New Ship they purchased as usual they went cheap and are paying for it down the line they could have purchased another ship that loaded and unloaded out the back and these operations could be carried out in rougher water but it cost more.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[steve33]

There is no need to pay more taxes to buy the better ship we are running billion doller surpluses and as well they can use the money saved from scrapping the strike wing.

I never got to serve in the military i had a motorbike accident at aged 17 which left me with chronic back problems and if i hadn,t had my accident i would be in the New Zealand army now.

The military is not a dirty word well it is not encourged either the pacifist attitude has been pushed hard over the last twenty years creating the view that if we are nice to everyone they will be nice to us which in a world that runs on greed and self interest is just plain stupid.

We are going into a world of growing populations and shrinking resources and the way the world is consuming we can,t keep it up there are going to be issues over oil,water,fishing resources,land for growing food and we are not going to be able to keep telling ourselves that we don,t need any real military capability.

We live in an enviroment where the U.S and China are taking more interest and we no longer live in a benign stratigic enviroment.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[steve33]

The fleet of ships i think was a good purchase we need to be able to patrol our fisheries as the worlds fisheries get depleted poaching is going to be more of a problem but i still think they should have spent the extra cash and brought the ship that unloads and loads through the back of the ship but it is to late now we will just have to make do.

I would like to see our two frigates capable of dealing with modern submarine threats and also defending themselves against enemy aircraft and anti ship missiles and also our Orions to have an up to date anti ship and anti submarine capability.

I would also like to see our two battalions at full strength with a Ranger company attached to each battalion and i would be happy.

There is no pressing threat to New Zealand at this point and time so yes i will sleep well but they say that by 2050 there will be another 3 billion people in the world and with the way we consume the earths resources are not going to be able to cope there are going to be serious issues over oil,water,fisheries,fertile land for growing food and globel warming is also something to take into account.

No one has paid much attention to us because there are plenty of resources to go around at the moment but it is not going to stay that way and a country like ours with plenty of fresh water,land for growing food,forestry,fisheries and a small population we are going to look like a gold mine compared to a lot of other places.

You are going to see the worlds resources put under strain like never before in our history and the results will not be pretty and the U.S and China are starting to take a greater interest in the Pacific the days of it being a benign staregic enviroment are over and as New Zealanders we need to look down the road and see what is coming and not think that it won,t affect us.

We don,t need to arm to the teeth but we should have a level of capability and at the moment we don,t have it.

 

[MrConservative]

There is no need to pay more taxes to buy the better ship we are running billion doller surpluses and as well they can use the money saved from scrapping the strike wing.

I never got to serve in the military i had a motorbike accident at aged 17 which left me with chronic back problems and if i hadn,t had my accident i would be in the New Zealand army now.

The military is not a dirty word well it is not encourged either the pacifist attitude has been pushed hard over the last twenty years creating the view that if we are nice to everyone they will be nice to us which in a world that runs on greed and self interest is just plain stupid.

We are going into a world of growing populations and shrinking resources and the way the world is consuming we can,t keep it up there are going to be issues over oil,water,fishing resources,land for growing food and we are not going to be able to keep telling ourselves that we don,t need any real military capability.

We live in an enviroment where the U.S and China are taking more interest and we no longer live in a benign stratigic enviroment.

Hi Steve33. Dont be put off by my old mate Investigator. He only comes on to entertain us. He's only doing his unquestioning duty to his beloved. Anyway, the following journals, publications and articles I'll list below may be helpful in deciding whether or not New Zealand is in a benign strategic environment. I think you will find it probably reinforces your views. The fundamental flaw in the "benign strategic environment" concept is that it only focuses on the immediate reduced EEZ in terms of direct threats and fails to address what what happens 2000+ km's away throughout the wider western Pacific region and our major trade routes. The one word answer for the contension that New Zealand is part of a warmer strategic environment is Pratas. If you know the word you will know what I mean and will understand the repercussions of it. For a bit a trivia, the term "benign strategic environment" in the New Zealand context first appeared in the then Wing Cmdr Bruce Fergusson treatise he completed at the US War College in Washington 1989 which as you can work out by the date was a totally different strategic context and time. Reading his paper you quickly come to the conclusion that the statement was made in the context of the actual time 1989 and that Fergie contended that the future situation would be somewhat more fluid. Of the papers below some are available online, others you might find in your nearest University Library or you can source them through the National Library Service or get a mate who is an academic to retrieve them for you on your behalf. They cover a range of material from diverse perspectives and issues.

Robin Lim. Rising China: Risk of Miscalculation. Defender Autumn 2005

Joint Ministerial Statement. NZ & Aust Defence Talks. 7 July, 1999

‘New Zealand’s Clark Government Creates a Strategic Vacuum in the Pacific’ Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy Journal. 4–5, 2001 p. 10–11.

D. Dickens, ‘The ANZAC connection: does the Australia-New Zealand strategic relationship have a future?’ in B. Brown, (ed.) New Zealand and Australia: Where are we going?, op. cit., p. 41.

Some reflections on maritime strategy and an oceans policy for New Zealand: presentation to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs Christchurch Branch, 14–14 June 2002. (http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/reports/NZIIACh’chJun02.html)
D. Dickens, op.cit.p.49.

Australia. Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force. Canberra, Defence Publishing Service, October 2000.

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Australia’s Defence Relations with the United States.

E.S Medeiros. Strategic Hedging and the Future of Asia Pacific Stability. 2001

Hynes H.A. China the Emerging Superpower. New Horizons, 1998.

Dana Robert Dillon. Priorities for South East Asian Policy. 2001

PACOM. Energy and Security in Asia-Pacific Report. 2002

Energy Information Administration. South Sea China Report. March 2002

Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations - Overfishing in the Asia - Pacific Region Report, 2004

Paul Buccanan Adrift in the Arc of On-Going Instability. 21 Nov 2006, NZ Herald

Paul Buchanan. Time to Get Over It. 24 Oct 2003, NZ Herald

Cheers Mr C.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

They used some of the stike wing money on the protector fleet you are criticising.

And why was that? because they wouldnt fund the defence forces properly

Everyone will not be nice but they hate others more than they hate us. Others are apparently easier to attack than we are - even the US by their losses.

Greed has not made us a more likely target otherwise we would have been invaded by now. NZ is in a benign strategic environment - there is no proof otherwise. Just fear. Don't be afraid. It will be OK. Sleep well.

With all due respect, no one {who is serious) thinks that NZ will be invaded, but that's not the issue and never has been. NZ is in something of a unique position, in that while we will never face more than asymmetric threats due to geography, we still face the same issue that every other nation faces with respect to our way of life, standard of living and de-facto independence. If a major war begins in Asia, theoretically in Europe (I don't see that happening, btw), we will be drawn in, as we have always been, because our way of life is threatened. Physical threats are but one element that a nation must defend against, and somehow we have forgotten that.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The NZ military is not a dirty word and hasn't been so since Vietnam. The Canterbury will do the job it is designed for. If you want to pay more taxes so bigger and better ships should be purchased then by all means say so.

You have still to show that taxes must be raised to fund a better equipped defence force. Funny how the same reasoning hasnt been applied to any other service in the country.

snip
The attitude we (NZ) have is that we are not under threat - as the 20+ years (including 9 years of the current opposition National party) we have been "protecting" ourselves without the help of the US or any other alliance. Those who had this view in 1986, that NZ was in a high threat environment at risk of attack, have been wrong for 20 years straight.

I advert your attention to the mines that still exist off Lyttleton and Auckland harbours, where was the threat in the 20 years between the wars?.

Surprise surprise - i'm standing up for NZ.

No, you are standing up for your own opinion, you don't speak for the nation.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

You are going to see the worlds resources put under strain like never before in our history and the results will not be pretty and the U.S and China are starting to take a greater interest in the Pacific the days of it being a benign staregic enviroment are over and as New Zealanders we need to look down the road and see what is coming and not think that it won,t affect us.

snip.

Its worthy of note that the leader of the Tokelau islands mentioned during their independence referendum that NZ was not doing it's job policing the EEZ around those islands and that poaching was endemic, fisheries were suffering and that a potentially good source of income was being siphoned away from them.

 

[steve33]

Thanks for the info Mr Conservative and stuart i noted your comment on the
Tokelau Islands and it is the future for the Pacific as people ruin there own resources they will look to the pacific.

In New Zealand people seem to think when you say we need a capable military that you are a war monger but it is just not the case we don,t need to start digging trenches and prepare for invasion but as a country we need to look down the road at a changing world and be ready to meet those changes and that means upgrading certain military abilities that i listed.

As you stated in your post what goes on in the rest of the world affects us we can,t bury ourselves away at the bottom of the pacific and think otherwise but some people in New Zealand think it is an option.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[RubiconNZ]

BTW Stu - again with the criticism of NZ. The Tokelau islands have a population of less than 2,000, have islands with a land mass of about 10km squared, are thousands of kilometres away from NZ, a gross domestic product equivalent to a very small NZ town and we've tried to get them to vote for independence.

Wow, so is your view along with the majority of NZ for Tokelau as well, brush it the under the mat hope they go away. NZ took on responsibilities on behalf of the UN, I think NZ can be proud of this, I always was but if thats now what the Majority want

Are you criticising NZ for not having a NZ ship permanently stationed there to patrol their waters? I'm all for paying welfare where necessary but their GDP is only a few million per year and you seem to suggest we should station 10s of millions of dollars worth of military assets there to protect it.

There are many other pacific nations that rely on NZ for its EEZ protection, unless you want to put them out the door as well, while you're at it you should probably get rid of them as well, then you could live happily in your egocentric little NZ world to living up to your responsibilities. Not to mention the Chatham Islands is a fair distance away, maybe you could get rid of them to, probably save some money their.

I certainly hope this isn't the view of majority of NZ'ers because that would make me ashamed to be a New Zealander, something I have never felt before, (World Cup doesn't count)

NZ gives $13.17 million in aid to tokelau. (MFAT NZ)
A higher level of fishery protection alllow's fishery money to go to the local economy, thus stimulating growth in all area's, then maybe you could get your $2.20 back of them.

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C, Stuart, Steve - I live to entertain. I also live to provide a reality check. NZ would spend much more on the military if a majority of the voting population wanted us to. "Under a change of government" there will not be a significant increase in military spending - National didn't campaign on it at the last election and I suspect will not do so next year.

I love sharing the majority NZ view (it is so rare, these days, on other issues!).

But it is good for you to have a place to share your fringe/ extremist NZ opinions. You guys need an outlet. Perhaps you should publicly campaign for increased spending. If a majority actually agreed with you it could happen. Be strong.

BTW Stu - again with the criticism of NZ. The Tokelau islands have a population of less than 2,000, have islands with a land mass of about 10km squared, are thousands of kilometres away from NZ, a gross domestic product equivalent to a very small NZ town and we've tried to get them to vote for independence.

Are you criticising NZ for not having a NZ ship permanently stationed there to patrol their waters? I'm all for paying welfare where necessary but their GDP is only a few million per year and you seem to suggest we should station 10s of millions of dollars worth of military assets there to protect it.

So there are mines off our shores? As far as I know there have been thousands of ship visits to NZ since WW2 without any having been sunk recently from these "mines". How many are still working? Any?

To be call an extremist by you Investigator is a badge of honour. You have made my day and bought a smile to my face. All I want you to do is to go and read a range of Defence and Strategic publications over the next few months. I really want you to broaden your outlook. I notice you live in Hamilton. Maybe you should enroll in a post grad paper with Dr Ron Smith at your local university. It would help to put your views into a less simplistic perspective. Maybe for instance you will learn that one of the major evolving strategic and defence issues in the Pacific is resource and environmental plundering. But then again the cost of a having an adequately equiped OPV/Frigate patrolling in the area on a regular operation basis thus fufilling our defence mandates and responsibilities to places such as the Cooks and even Samoa, whom we have had a long standing defence relationship since their independence in 1962 is not important to you now is it. Obviously nor does environmental plundering that is expected to continually rise dramtically over the next decade. But of course you support a current defence policy that ensures that 87% of our EEZ does not receive any survelliance at all and only around 6% receives any regular attention. So if we take your views that the Tokelau's of this world can look after themselves in protecting their independent economic interests because of having GDP's that are not worth our while, maybe we should also not become a charity case and look after our own economic and strategic interests. Become a true fully independent 'kiwi' nation and secure all air and sea trade routes on our own or at least write an annual and very big cheque to PACOM (because we dont want charity now do we) who are in the world of real politik, the ones which actually gaurantee that all that sea trade and air traffic which New Zealand's economy lives or dies gets there safely. Now that is an inconvenient truth.