NZDF General discussion thread

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Try telling that to social workers, police, emergency room personal. I have an uncle who is a social worker, he's been assulted several times, another friend who is in the Police was put in hospital with a broken jaw, even teachers are beaton up by kids these days, the defence force are not the only public servants in NZ who are put in danger every day. I have another uncle who retired as a Lt Colonel a few years ago, in his 25 years in the army he never came anywhere near any life threatening situation.

What about the non combat personal in the military do they also get a tax exemption, they aren't at the pointy end, I don't think papercuts count as putting their lives on the line.
But all other Public Service jobs have a Union or Association including NZDF Civilians. Regular Defence Force staff don't. If Defence could have a Representative Association to take care of their pay and service interests then I would happily concede that point of tax exemptions. Until that changes I will take the position I do on principle.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
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.
And the Tokelau Islands are part of NZ, although effectively self governing, and are our responsibility, the size of the populations is irrelevant. So yes, I am suggesting that we do our job and police our EEZ until such time as the locals decide that they wish to do the job themselves.

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?
And this is relevant, how? did you miss the bit about German mines being laid in our waters? or the bit about us being involved in a war and the circumstances of that war?
 

mug

New Member
There have been plenty of Survivor votes since 1990 and each seem to be against you and your ilk. National cut military spending in the 1990s and kept getting re-elected, Labour has not increased it in the 2000s and keeps getting re-elected, and in our free country the public has continued to vote this way. National could have campaigned on 1.5% of GDP on the military or 2.5% or more but they haven't and they have given no indication they would so "under a change of government" it will disappoint you yet again.
At risk of wading into the middle of this argument, I would have to say that I find your reasoning (above) somewhat specious.

The idea that, because a Government has been voted in, the 'people' agree with/support all of its policies is false.

As we all know, a Government gets voted in for a wide variety of reasons, and just because it does get voted in does not mean that its defence policies have been roundly endorsed by the public.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
My family was one of them in 1998 we left even on a School Principle and Senior teacher salary my Parents found it hard with four children, so we moved to Brizzy and they haven't looked back, out of my brothers class at Otago Uni, apparently over 75 percent went straight overseas because they wanted better pay and conditions. Perhaps this overseas population could be attracted back with the right incentive, also addressing the "brain drain" could help fulfill the technical shortage.
Regards,
Rob
Indeed. Part of my job is on the premises of a University and as part of that job I interact with the students quite alot, and this is what they are telling me as well. Most of those who NZDF are looking for are going overseas when they graduate, esp the engineers, as there are no opportunities in this country. There is also the ongoing problem with income as it relates to cost of living and taxes.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not so entertaining anymore, huh?.

I bring to the table the other side of the argument. Wouldn't it be boring if everyone was (like) you?

There have been plenty of Survivor votes since 1990 and each seem to be against you and your ilk. National cut military spending in the 1990s and kept getting re-elected, Labour has not increased it in the 2000s and keeps getting re-elected, and in our free country the public has continued to vote this way. National could have campaigned on 1.5% of GDP on the military or 2.5% or more but they haven't and they have given no indication they would so "under a change of government" it will disappoint you yet again.

Japan is calling.

NZ military people are no better or worse than the average New Zealander.
Japan? No London / Dubai in 09 to 11 for me. Though I will still stop back to Tokyo for the odd visit mainly to enoy a Kirin lager and a plate of Yakizakana.

Defence spending in the 90's already covered by myself and others. Go back and read it.

National campaigned in 02 and 05 on increased Defence spending. That has also been discussed on this thread. Go back and read it.

Entertaining. Yes and No. Yes, because most of what you say is completely contradicted by others. No, when you make remarks about patriotism. No one here has ever been that abusive to you in return. Never ever question another Kiwi's patriotism just because you dont agree with them.

This website is not only about "arguing" it is also about "information" and "ideas". Lets have some creative ideas from you, some information.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
Stu: So are you saying we should permanently station a patrol vessel and a few dozen sailors to patrol the Tokelau Islands? Sure it would increase their GDP by 15% on the wages alone and their population by a few % but it doesn't seem to be the answer.
Did you miss the bit about the Tokelau Islands being effectively part of NZ?
Are you suggesting that NZ does not police its EEZ?

How would they do that job themselves after full independence? They can't afford even one of our Inshore Patrol Vessels being built and many have said the 12.7mm calibre machine gun is not enough anyway.
I am not saying what the Tokelaus should or should not do if they gain independence, but as I read it you, dont want NZ to police its own EEZ, is that the case?

I can't seem to find how this relates to a change of Governent. National doesn't seem to have any plans for a naval base in Tokelau.
Actually, National has not said in detail what they will do, nor have I said that we should base anything in the Tokelau's only that we should police our EEZ their. I find it indicative of your lack of knowledge of this subject that you seem to think that having a patrol vessel at the Tokelaus is the only way to accomplish EEZ patrol and policing.
Try and exersize a degree of intelletual honesty in your statements, your starting to become boring.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Did you miss the bit about the Tokelau Islands being effectively part of NZ?
Are you suggesting that NZ does not police its EEZ?


Investigator. 1) Should New Zealand police its EZZ? If not why not? 2) How should New Zealand police its EEZ? If you can please summarise an answer that would be great. 3) Are you aware that oil and gas industry experts and local Energy officials believe that the GSB Block, Northland Block and the new Taranaki oilfield have estimated their combined potential reserves at over $1 Trillion. If so what security precautions are necessary to plan for this possibilty over the next decade, if any?
 

mug

New Member
However, if it happens so often does it not mean that those disagreeing either don't care enough to rally support for their cause or there really are relatively few of them who would choose more fighter planes over more operations or higher super?
Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, a Government gets voted in for a variety of reasons.

I think you make a tenuously large (and somewhat oversimplified) leap of deduction when you say that (to repeat), because "it happens so often" then "does it not mean" the reasons you state.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
In response to MrC's post:
NZ should not police the EEZ of the Tokelau Islands because we haven't done so beyond an occasional fly past by the Orions and probably assorted vessels passing through or on short term secondment - and it has not hurt yet.
Ahh, so your argument for not policing our EEZ is not because it may need it but because its has never been done! circular logic at its worst to say nothing of ignoring what the Islands themselves are saying.
How do you know it has not hurt yet, despite the fact that the local leader of those Islands saying it has? why should anyone accept your opinion over theirs when you supply no evidence?.

Project protector and the Orions are enough for our EEZ needs.
Prove it.

Fighting off fishing boats does not require frigates. I have advocated a third frigate to help in selected areas like the Arabian gulf and in other important waterways - as part of international efforts.
Your right, frigates are not, always, needed for fisheries protection, but since to do see a need for frigates perhaps you can give us your view of their mission and what they need to perform that mission and why?



snip
Now you can answer 1 and refer to the Tokelau Islands as I did. What actually would you do? What with? Why haven't we done that before under other NZ administrations?
Who was asking what here, you or MrC? the quote tags are messed up.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
In response to MrC's post:
NZ should not police the EEZ of the Tokelau Islands because we haven't done so beyond an occasional fly past by the Orions and probably assorted vessels passing through or on short term secondment - and it has not hurt yet.

Project protector and the Orions are enough for our EEZ needs. Fighting off fishing boats does not require frigates. I have advocated a third frigate to help in selected areas like the Arabian gulf and in other important waterways - as part of international efforts.

$1 trillion is such a huge amount that I doubt we have that much. Combined potential reserves does not mean it is there in such quantities. If it was certain they would not have used the term potential. We also would not be putting exploration out to tender but would start a government company to do the job. Also, there would already be dozens of oil wells proving its existence. Therefore no change to the current government plan.

Now you can answer 1 and refer to the Tokelau Islands as I did. What actually would you do? What with? Why haven't we done that before under other NZ administrations?
Thank you for your questions.

The life of the GSB field for instance is estimated at around 25 years from late next decade between to the mid 2040's. The two main exploration players at present are the Japanese/European/New Zealand consortium and Exxon Mobil. The infrastructural costs and exploration cost of setting up the field are around $100 Billion. New Zealand doesn't have that sort of capital. Oil is a risky business. Is it not better for experienced private enterprise organisations to take that risk. We cannot and could not, as you would like, to set up a Government operation to do it. What would be the point of doing it. Government Departments are wonderful at spending money and not making it. Anyhow the GSB and Northland block are beyond our technical capacity. Your mates Mr Cullen and Mr Dunhoven have said as much. I agree with them.

So in terms of our EEZ your reasoning is that since we have not done EEZ patrols in the outer area's of our EEZ for awhile therefore we should not need to do anymore.

Projector Protector patrol vessels look fine I agree. Great. I do have a couple of issues with the HMNZS Canterbury and its self protection systems but they can be rectified later. As a sealift ship concept is useful addition to the fleet now that we are not part of Anzus. The IPV's look to be excellent and the OPV's are a good concept as well. I am less unconcerned about them having the 25mm Bushmaster and not a 76mm as they were on the original Irish ships they are based on, than others. What I would like to see is that we have the 5 IPV's and the 3 OPV's that are required to meet the needs of the 2001 Maritime Review.

The Third frigate. Good. I agree. Thing is Investigator you might call me an extremist, but I dont see any need for a whole big fleet of Aegis Destroyers or mini aircraft carriers. The ability to send a frigate international if required and have one on regional patrol through our trading routes into the Asia/Pacific region, Northen Approaches and one in refit/work up. I dont see the need for anymore than at maximum 3 regular battalions. Im not calling for New Zealand to return to the days of a deployable Brigade. Just the modest ability to deploy a combat capable Battalion Group alongside our Anzac mates and be able to rotate it and have the capacity/flexibility to take care of low level short term commitments such as a RAMSI / PRT using initially a Regular Company as stabilisation and rotated through with Territorial soldiers. I have advocated an improvement in our Straegic and Tactical airlift and in our helicopters. I recognise ways in which we can also work with Australia in that regard. Both the NH-90 and the A109LUH are perfect selections. I think we needed just a few more A109LUH's or if that is not possible maybe even six or so rebuilt Hueys for the low key, low level tasks such as civil assistance, humanitarian and disaster work, troop support in small Pacific operations.

This is not warmongering. This is just basic realistic stuff.

Well we use to spend a lot more time in the Pacific when we had four blue water capable vessels. The regular runs up into the islands were well loved by the crews. The RNZAF were also up there on a far more regular basis, even the A-4's. Also in the days when the C-130's were younger.

The Tokelau's. Aircraft can't land there. But can land at Rarotonga, Apia and Niue. The locals are very positive towards the RNZAF you might be pleased to know. Currently we are investigating a smaller multi-role aircraft with Maritime capability. The Canadian built Bombardier Q300 Multi-Mission has found some support amongst a number of people. The current King Air B200 has limited range and capability. I can can see a use for a Q300 type aircraft to spend deployment time patrolling during the main fishing seasons based temporarily from those airports. Also the Orions from time to time when need and capacity allows. I see an extra OPV as a must. We currently have two to manage a huge area. Southern Ocean, Tasman, NZ EEZ, South Pacific. An OPV is not an Destroyer. Just as Frigate is essentially a defensive protection vessel and not as many in New Zealand think a great big nasty warmongering vessel. Our Orions will not last forever. They are as nearly as old as me. They probably wont be able to be upgraded again as they become unsupportable. So my question to you is do we replace that 20st Century capability, with a 21st century capability. Do you endorse dovetailing a P-8 purchase with the Australian one?
 
Last edited:

FlashG

New Member
Mr C you last comments on an objective force structure make a lot of sense to me! We are a small country - others have economy of scale benefits and resources to boot. But 3 of each for Army and Navy deployable units covers us for most contingencies. Coming back to the original thread, I recall John Key making the point on a Sunday morning programme (is it "Agenda"?) - last March I think - that an extra combatant (ie Anzac class) made a lot of sense, to keep a deployable capability - minimal as that may be - and it was one of the few items he was particularly specific at all on. Also, in the last few days he has come out against the private / defence use of Whenuapai airbase (he also happens to be the local MP even though he lives about 15 miles away!) and said it would be retained for the RNZAF. I bet their bosses would be relieved, how many engineers would want to move to Palmerston North (not be rude PN residents but Auckland does have more opportunities for families).
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Just to follow up the earlier comments on the merits or otherwise of EEZ patrolling in the Pacific, the Commander of Joint Forces NZ is paying an annual visit to some Pacific nations and there's a brief but timely press release on the NZDF website which reinforces the close relationship between NZ and those island nations for which it is responsible for their defence.
* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *


http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20071205cjfnzitwpn.htm
Commander Joint Forces NZ in talks with Pacific Nations
5 December 2007

Major General Rhys Jones was on a Royal New Zealand Air Force P3-K Orion as it touched down in Niue, Rarotonga and Samoa during scheduled maritime surveys this week.

Maj Gen Jones has already met Heads of State and other key personnel in Niue and Rarotonga, and will do the same in Samoa today in what have become annual talks.

The goal is to ensure that support from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) is well tuned to the needs of these countries.

“In order to be certain that we know the real needs of the Pacific Island nations it is important that we maintain contact and personal relations with the key personalities. My visits are part of this ongoing programme of engagement," said Maj Gen Jones.

The New Zealand Defence Force has supported disaster relief operations, assisted in the building of infrastructure, and patrolled the economic zones of the Pacific countries for many years.

Lesser known is the help that the NZDF provide in the training and support to local military and police forces, both in their home locations and in New Zealand.

The economic zone patrols are a regular task for the RNZAF Orion, usually carried out once a month and often in conjunction with Navy patrol boats to primarily target illegal foreign fishing vessels.

ENDS
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
NZDF under current Govt !

"Projects due to be considered next year by Cabinet include an upgrade to the P-3 Orions Self Protection System, a Self Defence Upgrade for the ANZAC frigates, and the replacement of the Army’s General Service Vehicle Fleet". :)

Comments on the rest of the speech, anyone? :duel

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=31606
(also http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00204.htm)

Tuesday 11 December 2007
Rt Hon Helen Clark Prime Minister
Closing speech to NZDF Command No 48 Staff Course On Defence Issues for New Zealand

NZDF Command and Staff College
Trentham Military Camp
Upper Hutt

9.00am
Tuesday 11 December 2007



Thank you for the invitation to address the No 48 Command and Staff Course.

I acknowledge the New Zealand members of this course, who include Defence Force and other government agency personnel, and the overseas students.

I note that a number of countries are represented : Australia, Papua New Guinea, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Singapore, and Tonga. I hope you have enjoyed your time in New Zealand.

In my address today I will talk about the broader security environment in which New Zealand operates. I will focus particularly on how we plan for, equip, and deploy our defence force, but will also acknowledge that defending our interests is a multifaceted task, and that we bring a whole of government approach to it.

When it’s considered that security challenges run the gamut from illegal fishing and biosecurity incursions, to instability in our Pacific neighbourhood, and, further afield, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, it’s clear that many agencies of state must be involved in asserting and protecting our interests.

Over the last seven years our government has committed an extra NZ$7.6 billion to defence spending. That has enabled us to upgrade and replace capital equipment as part of the Defence Long-Term Development Plan, and focus on additional recruitment and improved retention of personnel as part of the Defence Sustainability Initiative.

The plan for this programme of renewal was set out in the Government’s Defence Policy Framework published in June 2000.

The Framework provides the strategic direction for our defence policy. It acknowledges that ensuring the security and safety of the nation is a fundamental objective of any sovereign state.

The Framework states that New Zealand itself is not directly threatened by any other country and is not likely to be involved in widespread armed conflict. It identifies no country as being of direct threat to New Zealand. It makes the point that security is more than just defence against conventional military threats.

The Framework includes in New Zealand’s primary defence interests protecting our territorial sovereignty ; keeping our close defence relationship with Australia in good order; meeting our particular responsibilities in the South Pacific; maintaining good relations in the wider Asia-Pacific ; and meeting our multilateral obligations, particularly through the United Nations.

New Zealand, as an internationally minded country with interests around the globe, benefits from a well functioning international system in which the rights and interests of small countries like ours are protected. We are strong multilateralists.

We contribute to the effective operation of the international system in a number of ways – through diplomacy, through our development assistance, and through the ideas and practices we share with others in a variety of regional and wider gatherings – the Bali climate change talks this week being one of many examples.

As well, our defence force deployments play a part in New Zealand meeting its obligations to be a good international citizen.

Regional Issues

In the Pacific, we have special obligations to our Pacific neighbours to assist in maintaining stability, promoting good governance and in supporting development. Across Tonga, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, and the Bougainville Province of Papua New Guinea, our defence force has helped steady things at times of crisis. Our Police also play a role in mentoring, advising, and occasionally leading local police forces.

It is important to us that there is a solid level of consent for our deployments as peacebuilders to other nations. That can become more difficult as time goes on. Striking a balance on military/humanitarian involvement and outsider/local involvement can also be delicate.

Border security

Border threats are a downside of globalisation. We benefit from the freer flow of goods, services and people throughout the world, but terrorists, criminals, drug barons and people smugglers also benefit from that freedom.

So too, do those who wish to trade in weapons of mass destruction and other dangerous goods. We have to take strong measures to deal with these unwelcome exploiters of our increasingly integrated world.

Other threats post 9/11

Terrorism is a global challenge, which by its nature can strike anyone, anywhere, anytime.

New Zealanders, like the nationals of many countries, have been killed in different locations around the world as a result of terrorist activities.

Dealing with the causes of terrorism is far more complex and long term than simply attempting to stabilise a situation through military means. It requires a comprehensive approach which tackles terrorism’s root causes – whether they be ethnic or religious conflict, poor governance, poverty, or discrimination to name just a few. It needs a co-ordinated international response of the kind only the United Nations has the mandate to provide.

That includes a response based on dialogue. New Zealand is a strong supporter of the UN’s Alliance of Civilisations initiative which looks at how we can engage across civilisations’ boundaries and build greater understanding of our diversity

Other challenges like natural disasters, global warming, or the spread of infectious diseases, are also part of our broader security environment.

In some cases, like a major a natural disaster, military assets are best placed to deal with the immediate consequences.

The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Indonesia is a good example. Here many states’ military assets, working in conjunction with local people and NGOs, were able to provide essential aid in the immediate aftermath, and also reconstruction assistance over the medium term to help rebuild devastated areas.

All these challenges, by their nature, call for collective action, appropriate responses and genuine commitment – solutions to which New Zealand is dedicated. In order to be positioned to respond, the New Zealand Defence Force needs key resources – good people and the right equipment.

NZDF capability challenges

The current operational tempo of the New Zealand Defence Force is high.

We currently have over 400 New Zealand Defence Force men and women deployed overseas on security and peacekeeping operations. These operations are not entirely centred on the Defence Force. More and more the Government is calling on other agencies to support these missions.

In Afghanistan, Timor Leste and Solomon Islands for example, NZ Police are contributing essential elements to the operations. That is why I am particularly pleased to see that this course has personnel from other New Zealand agencies on it.

The situation in Afghanistan, particularly in the South and East, continues to be difficult. It will require political and development solutions, as well as military, if the international community’s objectives are to be secured.

The New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction team in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, continues to be warmly welcomed by the local Hazara people. It is widely regarded by other countries operating in Afghanistan as a model operation of its type.

But the reality is that this has been a long commitment already. I do not see an early end. Our government has just announced the continuation of our Bamiyan deployment until at least 2009.

I strongly believe that we are making a difference. We are contributing to stability in Bamiyan province. Multilaterally, we are well respected. We are genuinely thanked for our contribution. Don’t ever think that because we can’t deploy assets or people in the same numbers as other countries that we are not appreciated in these theatres. We are.

Our actions in Afghanistan remind us that the New Zealand Defence Force has long distinguished itself in the range of humanitarian and peace support operations that it has undertaken. But there are times when the use of force is required. That is why the Defence Force is trained and equipped for all contingencies, including combat.

This has been underlined by the recent award of the Victoria Cross to Corporal Willie Apiata for his conduct when his SAS group was ambushed by Taliban fighters in 2003. This was a salutary reminder to us all that our Defence Force personnel face considerable risk when deployed.

In Timor Leste, over 170 personnel, including two helicopter squadrons, are working hard. CDF Mateparae was there in August and has reported that while the situation there seemed calm at the time, in reality it remains both volatile and dependent on the International Security Force and the United Nations policing operation.

In Solomons Islands we continue to have the presence of a 43-strong platoon from the New Zealand Defence Force and up to 35 police officers as part of the Regional Assistance Mission (RAMSI). RAMSI was re-endorsed at this year’s Pacific Forum Leaders’ meeting in Tonga following a positive review by a Forum Task Force sent there.

RAMSI has succeeded in providing stability and security, and supporting renewed development in the Solomons, drawing that country back from the brink of being a failed state. It has overwhelming support from the local people.

Its relationship with the Soloman Islands government is uneasy, but our government and others, in conjunction with the Pacific Islands Forum is doing its best to work the issues through with the Solomons Government.

Defence Force personnel are also tackling challenges in other areas of the globe. These are as diverse as the recent deployment to Lebanon to remove unexploded ordinance and cluster munitions, or to peacekeeping in the Sinai where I visited eleven days ago – and where we have been deployed since the early 1980s.

I recognise that our Defence Force is working very hard, and that our many deployments place a lot of pressure on individuals, units, families, and communities. Yet the regional and international challenges which exist require a constructive response from New Zealand.

The high operational tempo at which the New Zealand Defence Force continues to operate provides good reasons for the investment we are currently making in the equipment modernisation programme.

We want our defence contributions to be valued. To this end, we have continued the process of modernising and rebuilding the New Zealand Defence Force, following its running down in the 1990s. This alone is a challenge, because we are asking the Defence Force to maintain a high level of operations while also introducing substantial new and upgraded capability over the next few years.

A July 18 article in Jane’s Defence Weekly summed up the difficulties for nations in judging which areas of capability to develop. It noted that:

“finding a balance between force structure, budget, modernisation and adaptation to new missions remains the major task for military decision-makers”.

In the New Zealand Defence Force:

• Every platform in the Air Force is being replaced or upgraded.

There will be new NH-90 helicopters, new Augusta-Westland 109 training and light utility helicopters, upgraded P-3 Orions and C-130 Hercules and a new Advanced Pilot Training Capability.

There will also be significant investment in the defence airforce infrastructure, particularly at Ohakea.

• For the Navy, the major Project Protector continues to come online.

I was proud to launch HMNZS Canterbury in Melbourne in May. By this time next year, the project will have delivered seven new ships.

We have recently also committed NZ$50-60m to the Platform Systems Upgrade of the ANZAC frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha. This followed a decision to upgrade the ANZAC frigate’s Close in Weapons System earlier this year.

• The New Zealand Army, meanwhile, is continuing to introduce into service the large number of new and upgraded capabilities it has acquired over the past few years. It has new fleets of Light Armoured Vehicles, and also Light Operational Vehicles, the Pinzgauers.

These latter vehicles have proved to be enormously versatile and successful, including the Special Forces variant that has operated in Afghanistan.

The Army also has new mobile radio equipment, night vision equipment, medium anti-armour javelin missiles and a cueing and radar directed air defence system.

The capability enhancements will not stop here. We will continue to increase the operational capability of the New Zealand Defence Force.

Projects due to be considered next year by Cabinet include an upgrade to the P-3 Orions Self Protection System, a Self Defence Upgrade for the ANZAC frigates, and the replacement of the Army’s General Service Vehicle Fleet.

The costs of rebuilding the New Zealand Defence Force as a small but highly capable and well equipped military have been considerable.

Then, to deploy Defence Force personnel overseas with new equipment is one thing. But we also need to have the people to do this. Recruiting and retaining personnel is a particular challenge where unemployment is very low – as it is in New Zealand right now.

A whole-of-government approach

The challenges of terrorism, transnational crime, natural disasters, state fragility in our region, and possible global pandemics are challenges not just for our armed forces, but for all security agencies.

Such initiatives as Project Protector recognise that security agencies need to come together to achieve common aims.

Project Protector represents a significant increase in capability for the Navy in the ability to support multi-agency operations and tasking.

Agencies involved include Customs, the National Maritime Co-ordination Centre, the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Fisheries, Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand, and the New Zealand Police.

Once in service, the Navy’s new Offshore and Inshore Patrol Vessels will undertake maritime surface surveillance in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone, the fourth largest in the world, and the South Pacific.

The patrol vessels will work in conjunction with maritime patrol aircraft and other government agencies to protect our natural resources, and detect and deter maritime transnational threats. They will be available to conduct multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks.

Counter terrorism has also been pursued as a whole-of-government exercise. We have improved our intelligence capability, our border control, and the capacity of other agencies. We have also taken the message of the importance of counter-terrorism to our neighbours.

Defence Relationships

In 1986, under the Fourth Labour Government, our decision to legislate for New Zealand to be free of nuclear weapons and nuclear powered ships saw New Zealand excluded from the operations of the ANZUS alliance.

We retain close defence relationships with Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Malaysia. We work alongside the United States, particularly in Afghanistan.

The defence and foreign policies New Zealand pursues reflect a careful balancing of our interests. We are a proud, independent, and sovereign nation. We are acknowledged as a country which operates constructively and on the basis of principle. We meet our international responsibilities.

Conclusion

The current international security environment is complex and fluid.

The events of 9/11 were a major security shock. Such shocks are unpredictable. But we have to be able to adapt our responses to the needs which arise as we have.

When I became Prime Minister eight years ago, the last thing I could have imagined was that our government would be deploying defence force personnel to Afghanistan. But we have because the circumstances compelled us to do so. And we are proud of the service our people have given there.

To the New Zealand members of this course, I want to thank you once again for the role you play in the defence of New Zealand and the region in promoting our values and interests when you are deployed further afield.

To the overseas members of the course, I hope that the New Zealand Defence Force spirit and ethos with which you have been associated for the last few months will be remembered by you when you return to your countries.

Have a safe journey home.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Stuart Mackey

New Member
Link to NZ Herald

The threat of Taleban fighters moving into Afghanistan's Bamyan province could mean an increased New Zealand troop commitment, a Defence Force commander said today.

New Zealand has 107 defence personnel in Bamyan, running a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) with non-combatant duties and limited rules of engagement.

The area has been relatively peaceful, but Joint Forces Commander Major General Rhys Jones said there had been recent reports of Taleban fighters moving in.

"That gives us concern there may be attacks in our area," he said.

"We don't have a combat mission, and the protection we have is only designed to protect us in case we are ambushed or attacked."

Maj Gen Jones said all the options were under consideration, including more troops and combat patrols.


The Government would have to agree to those options, and a spokesman for Defence minister Phil Goff told NZPA requests were likely to be approved.

The spokesman confirmed the situation in Afghanistan was under review.



New Zealand has a total 117 military personnel in Afghanistan and the Bamyan PRT has been praised for its work.

Maj Gen Jones told Radio New Zealand local people supported it.

Its projects have included the construction of 20 new village wells, the repair of five bridges, the completion and opening of five police stations, the construction of a high school and the supply of equipment to hospitals.

"The mandate we have for our mission at the moment is one of humanitarian liaison," Maj Gen Jones said.

"We go around and discuss what the priorities for repair or support are."

The commander yesterday held a briefing on troops posted overseas, outlining their activities and operations.

He said 2008 would be a challenging year for the Defence Force as an "unstable world" put pressure on its resources.

New Zealand staff deployed overseas comprise eight in the Middle East, 26 in Sinai, 10 in southern Lebanon, 117 in Afghanistan (107 in Bamyan), one in Iraq, one in Kosovo, three in Sudan, three in South Korea, 183 in Timor-Leste, 44 in the Solomons and seven in Antarctica.

- NZPA

Does the governemnt of NZ know what it want to do?, IHT Link

Direct threats had been made against the provincial governor and "that gives us concern there may be attacks in our area," Jones told the National Radio network..............

.......Defense Minister Phil Goff told reporters there was no plan for "a major change in tactics."

"The threat level in Bamiyan remains at medium," he said. "The situation ... has remained predominantly quiet. There is no intention at this point ... to increase troop numbers significantly in Afghanistan.".....

It will be interesting to see how the current government responds to the prospect of combat in Afghanistan outside of the SAS work of the past. Moreover, what will this mean for future defence spending, given the lackluster commitment of various nations involved in that nation, will NZ have to spend more on self-sustainment capabilities for actual combat operations? Will a major rethink be required on retention to provide forces for combat operations?
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We will only find out how much we will spend when actual combat troops are deployed, I believe that retention will have to be looked at not only by the government but by the NZDF currently there is a perception in the NZDF that infantry can be trained quickly Army are correct to a point a rifleman can be trained to a basic level in 6 months but these are not the soldiers we are losing its the senior Corporal/ Sergent & Staff Sergent that are leaving this is the bracket where our knowledge & experience are held. If Infantry are deployed with there vehicles this will certainly strip Linton of all its combat spt/ Cmbt Services spt as well so something has to give - Timor/Solomons/PRT? 2 understrength battalions into three major deployments dont fit.
 
Top