NZ and Australia defence relations

[AnthonyB]

Rather then to continue to contiminate other threads, I thought I would start a new one.

Reading the threads on "NZ election" and "NZ becoming a regional power" I have been stuck by just how different NZ has become to Australia (or vice-versa). Having visited NZ and shared houses with Kiwi's, I hadn't really noticed that great a difference.

The US alliance in Australia is taken as a non negiotable starting point. Infact it is widely felt that Mark Latham's anti-US sprays caused him consider damage. Generally both sides on Aus politics fight each other on whose idea the alliance was and who is best to maintain it. Labor that Curtin first turned Australia towards the US in WWII and the Libs because ANZUS was signed during Menzies reign.

In NZ (from what I understand from reading the thread) no major party is advocating a return to full US alliance.

In Australia there is public debate over of the F-35, F-22 or the SH as replacements for the F-111. The angst is over do we have enough and good enough quality air force. It is just assumed that we must somehow have air dominance over our own territory. Despite the fact that regionally we face no substantial air threat. (They might get have the resources to get planes to Aus (if the RAAF fell alseep) but getting planes to eastern seaboard of Aus would be as far again.)

NZ appear to have quiet happy to have no air combat force.

The actual percentage level of defence spending is different. Both sides have committed to above inflation increases in Aus. NZ appears to want to minimize military spending and spend the minimum needed to meet the goals they have set.

Do the Kiwi poster agree with what I have said from your perspectives?

Given that Aus and NZ for most of our history from my perspectives have had a very shared strategic veiw, why the divergence? Australia appears to have decided that we must be able to project power rather then to be as small as we can get away with alliance member. NZ has decided to follow the idea that we're far away and harmless, so lets have a force that can assist regional states not to fall apart.

What has driven these differences? Is it just NZ remoteness? Or the diffence in populations (Australia being bigger should in some ways be more secure but we appear much more concerned with military defence) Both nations are getting a greater appreciation of their native peoples, but Maori culture has never struck me as overly pacificist. (The haka and welcoming people by sticking a spear near their face as obvious examples.) Immigration has diverged the ethnic makeup of the two nations but Australia has hardly gone out recruiting from known military assertive countries?

As an Australian I think our policies make sense (for us anyway) and that given the bipartisan support the pollies think the public largely agress with them.

 

[steve33]

Rather then to continue to contiminate other threads, I thought I would start a new one.

Reading the threads on "NZ election" and "NZ becoming a regional power" I have been stuck by just how different NZ has become to Australia (or vice-versa). Having visited NZ and shared houses with Kiwi's, I hadn't really noticed that great a difference.

The US alliance in Australia is taken as a non negiotable starting point. Infact it is widely felt that Mark Latham's anti-US sprays caused him consider damage. Generally both sides on Aus politics fight each other on whose idea the alliance was and who is best to maintain it. Labor that Curtin first turned Australia towards the US in WWII and the Libs because ANZUS was signed during Menzies reign.

In NZ (from what I understand from reading the thread) no major party is advocating a return to full US alliance.

In Australia there is public debate over of the F-35, F-22 or the SH as replacements for the F-111. The angst is over do we have enough and good enough quality air force. It is just assumed that we must somehow have air dominance over our own territory. Despite the fact that regionally we face no substantial air threat. (They might get have the resources to get planes to Aus (if the RAAF fell alseep) but getting planes to eastern seaboard of Aus would be as far again.)

NZ appear to have quiet happy to have no air combat force.

The actual percentage level of defence spending is different. Both sides have committed to above inflation increases in Aus. NZ appears to want to minimize military spending and spend the minimum needed to meet the goals they have set.

Do the Kiwi poster agree with what I have said from your perspectives?

Given that Aus and NZ for most of our history from my perspectives have had a very shared strategic veiw, why the divergence? Australia appears to have decided that we must be able to project power rather then to be as small as we can get away with alliance member. NZ has decided to follow the idea that we're far away and harmless, so lets have a force that can assist regional states not to fall apart.

What has driven these differences? Is it just NZ remoteness? Or the diffence in populations (Australia being bigger should in some ways be more secure but we appear much more concerned with military defence) Both nations are getting a greater appreciation of their native peoples, but Maori culture has never struck me as overly pacificist. (The haka and welcoming people by sticking a spear near their face as obvious examples.) Immigration has diverged the ethnic makeup of the two nations but Australia has hardly gone out recruiting from known military assertive countries?

As an Australian I think our policies make sense (for us anyway) and that given the bipartisan support the pollies think the public largely agress with them.

The reality for New Zealand is that if you walk up to the average Kiwi and tell them that they need fighter aircraft and they need ships with the ability to detect and destroy submarines and other surface ships they will ask you what for.

These is a belief with the majority of Kiwi that there is no threat to us from anyone so we don,t need the weapons i don,t share this belief but i am in the minority.

If a country started threatening us you would see the public call for weapons purchases and recruitment would go up history shows that we are not weak people and can produce high quality soldiers,sailers,airmen but as i said earlier the strength and capability of our military is a reflection of the attitude of the average Kiwi in regards to us being attacked.

 

[Jecito]

Resources

Also remember Australia has a lot of resources to protect, and has faced the possibility of invasion before. Australia is also a lot closer to potentially hostile much larger countries. New Zealand also bludges off Australia whereby it would let Australia defend it if in the very unlikely situation that it faces any threat. Whereas New Zealand is very remote, it's only neighbours other than Australia are a few french colonies and bankrupt pacific islands. It's contribution to any international commitment should be trying to create 'niche capabilities', ie Special Forces, EOD Teams, Peacekeeping, etc...which is what it looks like it is doing.

 

[AnthonyB]

NZ has the tenth biggest EEZ in terms of sea territory, add to that fact it is an island, I would have thought that would skew their defence commitment to naval and air force, cause a great army won't do a lot to the defend the quite large EEZ that you have.

 

[exported_kiwi]

We are "an" island? Last time I went home, we had at least 2 big ones (islands) and a fairly significant number of small ones!

 

[Goknub]

NZ/Aus

I think its Australia that has largely changed its viewpoint. While it wasn't paid much attention Howard was increasingly keen on calling Australia a medium power, not a regional power which we are already but rather medium on a global scale.

I believe theres an idea that Australia should become a global player in the footsteps of Canada, France, and even the UK. And if you want to play on the world stage you need the hard-power to back it up.

Even Rudd has picked up on the idea and. It may not be politically correct to say it, but why else would he be harping on about spending more on defence to counter an "Asian arms race" when the Indons have just decided they will only get 3 new fighters because they can't afford the original 6?

 

[greenie]

Most kiwis seem to think that NZs intrests only extend to the 12mile or at a pinch the 200 limit, very few think about the fact that 98percent of our trade comes by sea and of that 70 percent from round the top of Aust , so our direct intrest is much further away , contributing to regional securiety is so important to our very existance , hence A4s in Aust.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Most kiwis seem to think that NZs intrests only extend to the 12mile or at a pinch the 200 limit, very few think about the fact that 98percent of our trade comes by sea and of that 70 percent from round the top of Aust , so our direct intrest is much further away , contributing to regional securiety is so important to our very existance , hence A4s in Aust.

Ahh, thank you for that, nice to know I am not the only one to realise that.
As always, one must remember what happens if that trade stops?

 

[greenie]

Ahh, thank you for that, nice to know I am not the only one to realise that.
As always, one must remember what happens if that trade stops?

With the arms build up in the Asian countries , throw in China and India , add a resurfacing Russia and what seams to be a growing lack of trust in the tradional western veiws I feel very worried about the lack of defence commitment (both govt and general public,spose they feed each other)NZ is making to the region and extended region.
It also concerns me that we (for the last 20 yrs ) been shunning our traditional allies in favour of a commumist dictatorship.Perhaps next on the PMs shopping list is a millitary alliance with china.Ever wonder what concessions were really in the FTD with China.
Meanwhile Aust has to carry our shrinking sharp end.
Sorry to you all, been a bad day.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

With the arms build up in the Asian countries , throw in China and India , add a resurfacing Russia and what seams to be a growing lack of trust in the tradional western veiws I feel very worried about the lack of defence commitment (both govt and general public,spose they feed each other)NZ is making to the region and extended region.

Indeed. One also has the prediction that Chinese economic activity will surpass that of the US by 2040. Then there is the outcome of this latest financial crisis.

It also concerns me that we (for the last 20 yrs ) been shunning our traditional allies in favour of a communist dictatorship.Perhaps next on the PMs shopping list is a millitary alliance with china.Ever wonder what concessions were really in the FTD with China.
Meanwhile Aust has to carry our shrinking sharp end.
Sorry to you all, been a bad day.

I don't think that their is anything untoward in the trade deal with China, other than moral issues surrounding dealing with a dictatorial government, my concern is the 'isolationism at all costs' attitude, our current government cannot distinguish between that and an independent foreign policy.

 

[recce.k1]

Question (especially you Aussies!): with the geo-political situation changing in S/SE Asia i.e. the rise and potential for conflict with and/or between India-China/Pakistan etc (possibly involving or affecting nearby areas and countries eg Straits of Malacca, their actions off the coasts of Indonesia/Australia or off the coasts of Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam etc) ..... and with the recent Australian Govt announcement to boost defence .... what scenarios are likely that could involve the ADF protecting Australia's northern borders?

I ask in an Australia-NZ relations context i.e. if it's felt that NZ needs to do more to contribute to regional security, what are the threats so that we can work out what NZ needs to do better to help, but more importantly, justify what is needed and why? Remember the public in NZ don't have the same appreciation as the public in Australia of these threats, as thus adversely affects perceptions over here etc.

 

[Sea Toby]

You won't like this answer, but the answer is: the same as Japan's drive southward in 1941, except this time there is a lot of iron ore added to the list.

 

[t68]

You won't like this answer, but the answer is: the same as Japan's drive southward in 1941, except this time there is a lot of iron ore added to the list.

Considering the price they pay for it, its cheaper to buy it than take it forcibly.
But it's better to have the insurance paid up front than after the horse has bolted.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Considering the price they pay for it, its cheaper to buy it than take it forcibly.

That's if the other nation will trade with you. Remember we all had a reasonable trading relationship with imperial Japan in the 20's (and even 30's to some extent), at the time it would have been much cheaper just to buy the oil than to fight for it right? guess what happened when the trade environment changed?

 

[t68]

That's if the other nation will trade with you. Remember we all had a reasonable trading relationship with imperial Japan in the 20's (and even 30's to some extent), at the time it would have been much cheaper just to buy the oil than to fight for it right? guess what happened when the trade environment changed?

agreed

From memory thats where prime minister Menzies got the nickname
pig iron bob

Selling pig iron to the Japanese a few month's before pearl harbor

 

[recce.k1]

Ok, so the good ol' resource grab reasons etc! For us non-mineral economies, what's a few good 'uns that would be worth going to war over? Tin, copper etc? What about the vast gas reserves north of Australia? Does uranium count? Etc.

 

[t68]

Ok, so the good ol' resource grab reasons etc! For us non-mineral economies, what's a few good 'uns that would be worth going to war over? Tin, copper etc? What about the vast gas reserves north of Australia? Does uranium count? Etc.

I agree with you in regards to the natural resource situation, Australia has an abundance of resources, which we could be a self sustaining nation. Although we also have to play our part in economics of world affairs

Another point that in my opinion we also should not only be looking at the resource sector, but in terms of population control, countries that are over populated (bursting at the seams so to speak) need more space in which to grow, Australia has the potential to grow into a considerably large power base with the right economic and social input

 

[StingrayOZ]

A direct threat is unlikely. However Australia is very aware that problems up north end up down south. Refugees, pirates/criminal organisations, political instability, invasion of 3rd party countries are real possibilities. EEZ are in high contention. You only own what you protect. Those EEZ are highly likely to contain large unexplored oil and gas reserves worth billions. Our region could be destabilised by a major power looking at securing its own interests. Topple governments, fund rebels, terrorisim, pirates, interrupt shipping, trade/military base deals etc.

If NZ wants to join the world again, it needs to work more closely with its regional allies Aust and US.

Look at the Australian defence budget, both sides of government agree that there are serious issues going to crop up. It is aquiring new platforms and systems its never had before and few even european countries have. Its moved to a whole new level of cooperation with the US.

Things NZ could concider:
+ Tiger helicopters - Very capable. If you don't have an airforce this would be the next best thing. Even a small number would be a valuable addition to any deployment. They could even operate off some NZ ships.
+ Additional helicopters
+ Additional Frigate - Add an additional order onto a european build. Or if you really want to go nuts step up to a AWD. To make that step a serious commitment to intergrating forces in with allies would need to happen.
+ Additional OPV/MRV/HSC EEZ ships. These ships would be useful in a number of areas.
+ Improve SAS and regular army units with weapons and training to be part of high intensity conflict. Australia is looking at improving into this area.
+ Generally pitch new aquitions at a higher level. Eg MRV, really should have been designed for higher sea states.

 

[Stryker001]

NZ defense is to rundown to be resurrected, to a capable self-defense force even. In the future what will occur is that as New Zealand is in the Australian Constitution, the NZDF will have to be incorporated into the ADF and under Australian Government Command, NZ officer etc would end up commanding Australian forces in some degree but never become Chief of the ADF.

Take it or leave it, you will never be able to keep your percentage of your Antarctic claim, meaning the energy resources. Just as Australia cannot keep hers without the US.

The problem is geo-political events and foreign policy of NZ in contrast to Australia. Australia's lack of knowledge of the Rim, under the Howard years, so much so that Australia has had to consult NZ about policy.

You both have upset the hawks back in the US over some matters in the Rim, especially trying to use doc Rice for your geo-political purposes.

 

[t68]

NZ defense is to rundown to be resurrected, to a capable self-defense force even. In the future what will occur is that as New Zealand is in the Australian Constitution, the NZDF will have to be incorporated into the ADF and under Australian Government Command, NZ officer etc would end up commanding Australian forces in some degree but never become Chief of the ADF.

Take it or leave it, you will never be able to keep your percentage of your Antarctic claim, meaning the energy resources. Just as Australia cannot keep hers without the US.

The problem is geo-political events and foreign policy of NZ in contrast to Australia. Australia's lack of knowledge of the Rim, under the Howard years, so much so that Australia has had to consult NZ about policy.

You both have upset the hawks back in the US over some matters in the Rim, especially trying to use doc Rice for your geo-political purposes.

I agree that the NZDF has been as you say rundown to extremely low level of capability. The building blocks are there to greatly expand the defence force with an increased commitment of funds; all it needs is the political will.
I do not believe New Zealand should be brought under the umbrella of the Australian constitution, although we share common beliefs it is important to remain a sovereign identity
Under current defence relation between the two countries exchange personnel already exist to greatly enhance the relations between the defence forces. We also have exchange agreements with UK/US, were a few years ago Gen Molan became chief of operations in Iraq of all US military personnel

In regards to the last paragraph in your post can you expand on this?