NZDF General discussion thread

[40 deg south]

Time to dust off your submission-writing skills, gentlemen.

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Defence White Paper 2015

The Government has directed that a review of its defence policy be conducted over the course of 2015. The Government last updated its defence policy through the Defence White Paper 2010.

The Defence White Paper 2010 represented the first comprehensive articulation of New Zealand’s defence policy this century. Since publication it has provided Defence with the direction it needs to be able to effectively prioritise the roles and tasks it undertakes, both at home and overseas, and guide the modernisation of many of the Defence Force’s military capabilities.

Defence policy has continued to develop and adapt since 2010. The Defence White Paper 2015 will provide an opportunity to take stock of changes to New Zealand’s strategic circumstances over the past five years.

The Defence White Paper 2015 will focus on the contribution of the Defence Force and Ministry of Defence towards New Zealand’s security, resilience and prosperity. It will set out New Zealand’s defence policy and how policy will be implemented to advance the nation’s national security and interests. In this regard the Defence White Paper 2015 will provide the basis for the Defence Force’s and Ministry of Defence’s strategy and planning from 2015 onward.

In 2009, over 600 written submissions were received from individuals and organisations as part of the public consultation process. In addition, over 250 people attended public meetings around the country. We are keen to ensure that New Zealanders are able to have their say again on defence and security matters.
Public Consultation and Making a Submission

On 5 May 2015, the Minister of Defence, Hon Gerry Brownlee announced the beginning of the Defence White Paper 2015 public consultation process, running to 22 June 2015.

The links below provides further information on the aims and objectives of the public consultation process, the times and locations of meetings that are being held around New Zealand, and how you can have your say:

Information about the public consultation on the Defence White Paper 2015
Defence White Paper 2015 Public Consultation Document
How to make a submission

Media releases regarding the Defence White Paper 2015

Click here for media statements by the Minister of Defence and frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Contact us

Enquiries regarding the Defence White Paper 2015, including feedback on the website or public consultation process, can be made by either emailing [email protected] or writing to:

Defence White Paper 2015
Ministry of Defence
PO Box 12703
WELLINGTON 6144

 

[Todjaeger]

Time to dust off your submission-writing skills, gentlemen.

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Any idea if the 2015 DWP would be willing to accept/read a submission from a non-resident, foreign national? Or would writing a submission be a waste of effort on my part? The links indicated interest in public input from Kiwis, but nothing about submissions from outside NZ.

 

[RegR]

Any idea if the 2015 DWP would be willing to accept/read a submission from a non-resident, foreign national? Or would writing a submission be a waste of effort on my part? The links indicated interest in public input from Kiwis, but nothing about submissions from outside NZ.

Good input is good input regardless of where it originates, sometimes beneficial to step outside the box and gain a different perspective on matters.

 

[Todjaeger]

Good input is good input regardless of where it originates, sometimes beneficial to step outside the box and gain a different perspective on matters.

Absolutely true, but I have also encountered enough situations where ideas get dismissed without any sort of review, simply due to either the source, or the idea did not fit the "desired" narrative.

 

[RegR]

Absolutely true, but I have also encountered enough situations where ideas get dismissed without any sort of review, simply due to either the source, or the idea did not fit the "desired" narrative.

That is irresponsible in my veiw, to disregard ideas and opinions based purely on origin, structure etc runs the risk of missing out on potentially innovative, cost effective and better suited soloutions.

It is free to consider all public information available but could cost alot to ignore any improved suggestions that are missed.

 

[Nick underscore]

Maybe the the forum 'as a whole' should put a submission paper for the NZ 2015 DWP, with the Kiwi posters on here, taking a lead.

Assuming a reasonable consensus could be made on the content..

 

[Zero Alpha]

Assuming a reasonable consensus could be made on the content..

You're a funny guy, you know that? nfloorl:

 

[40 deg south]

Any idea if the 2015 DWP would be willing to accept/read a submission from a non-resident, foreign national? Or would writing a submission be a waste of effort on my part? The links indicated interest in public input from Kiwis, but nothing about submissions from outside NZ.

No idea, so I am emailing them with this question. Will advise what response I get.

As someone who has worked on collating public submissions on a number of (non defence) issues, there has never been any attempt to verify if submissions are from NZ citizens or not. In practical terms, unless you identify yourself as a foreigner or have an exceptionally poor grasp of English*, it is likely your submission will be assumed to come from a New Zealander. It will therefore receive the same level of consideration as all others, i.e. not very much!

*Although the dire standard of written English of many home-grown Kiwis means this is far from a reliable test.

 

[Bluey 006]

No idea, so I am emailing them with this question. Will advise what response I get.

I was thinking of doing a submission regarding the raising of a permanent
Joint Psychological Operations Group. Based on the fact that as a small moderately equipped force the ability to influence emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behaviour of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals is paramount for NZDF operational success.

 

[RubiconNZ]

*Although the dire standard of written English of many home-grown Kiwis means this is far from a reliable test.

Wot r u tlkn abt I tke ofense at tht.

I swear people read Footrot Flats and saw how Dog wrote and thought yeah I'd like to write and spell like that too. It is appalling to see how bad it is.

/Diversion off.

 

[40 deg south]

Any idea if the 2015 DWP would be willing to accept/read a submission from a non-resident, foreign national? Or would writing a submission be a waste of effort on my part? The links indicated interest in public input from Kiwis, but nothing about submissions from outside NZ.

Sorry for the delayed response.

I never got around to emailing MinDef as promised, but put the question to a retired former colleague I ran into. He was very clear that the consultation process for a White Paper is a mechanism for the NZ government to consult its citizens, and that submissions from external sources would not be considered as part of the public consultation process. The analogy he used was voting - we may not have the world's smartest voters, but they are still the ones who get to choose the government!

Given this guy's experience, I am confident he will be correct.

 

[40 deg south]

The defence debate New Zealand needs is underway | Stuff.co.nz

Opinion piece from The Dominion last week. Surprised no one else has picked it up. Worth a read.

When the last Defence White Paper was published in 2010 the Government noted that it had been thirteen years since the previous White Paper. It was also signaled that the Government wished to return to the provision of regular defence reviews.

On Tuesday Defence minister Gerry Brownlee announced the Government's intention to undertake the development of a new Defence White Paper this year.

Karl du Fresne has bemoaned that Anzac Day had come and gone and with it the opportunity for a meaningful discussion on defence. (Sentiment and history mask real need for discussions about defence, May 1) Sentiment and history, he contended, had gotten in the way of the need for real debate on contemporary defence provision.

But meaningful debate about defence or strategic matters is just not part and parcel of everyday life for most New Zealanders.

However difficult this is for some of our friends and allies to understand, it is a reflection of New Zealand's strategic culture.

 

[ngatimozart]

The defence debate New Zealand needs is underway | Stuff.co.nz

Opinion piece from The Dominion last week. Surprised no one else has picked it up. Worth a read.

Not a bad article by Greener. He does usually write good articles on defence. I do wholeheartedly agree with his statement that kiwis don't discuss defence per se. To me it's their ambivalence about it that resonates. However this discussion does need to happen and hopefully kiwis will engage in the discussion, not just the interest groups both for and against.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Not a bad article by Greener. He does usually write good articles on defence. I do wholeheartedly agree with his statement that kiwis don't discuss defence per se. To me it's their ambivalence about it that resonates. However this discussion does need to happen and hopefully kiwis will engage in the discussion, not just the interest groups both for and against.

David Dickens published a paper on ways to engage the public more back in 1999. He raised some reasonable points; essentially that to get meaningful commentary from academics, experts and the public, defence had to engage with them in a meaningful way and be more proactive about presenting options and decision rationale. The link is here

The recent DMRR would have been an opportunity for defence to be proactive about presenting options and tradeoffs that were considered alongside the option finally agreed by officials and the Govt. Despite getting accolades for the maturity of the process they ran, they've totally refused to publish more than the bare minimum under the OIA. So much so that certain journalists have information received under the OIA the Defence haven't published as part of the documents they said they proactively released.

 

[ngatimozart]

David Dickens published a paper on ways to engage the public more back in 1999. He raised some reasonable points; essentially that to get meaningful commentary from academics, experts and the public, defence had to engage with them in a meaningful way and be more proactive about presenting options and decision rationale. The link is here

The recent DMRR would have been an opportunity for defence to be proactive about presenting options and tradeoffs that were considered alongside the option finally agreed by officials and the Govt. Despite getting accolades for the maturity of the process they ran, they've totally refused to publish more than the bare minimum under the OIA. So much so that certain journalists have information received under the OIA the Defence haven't published as part of the documents they said they proactively released.

Thanks for that ZA. I agree that the problem is the lack of information in the public domain is quite noticeable. I tend to find more information about NZDF, MoD or the Minister of Defence going ons from overseas publications and sources than from NZ. For example, I gleaned the import of the recent Ministerial talks in PNG from the Australian Defence Minister's public release. The NZG, in particular and Defence, both the Ministry and NZDF, need to be more forthcoming with information dissemination and transparency say along the lines of the Australians, for example. The services do use social media but for more detailed info social media is not enough. This is how you engage people and have the debate with proper information, not scraps gleaned from sources that may or may not be accurate. The NZG and defence establishment need to encourage the debate, not stifle it by hiding information behind layers of bureaucracy.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The NZG and defence establishment need to encourage the debate, not stifle it by hiding information behind layers of bureaucracy.

I hope you'll put all that in your White Paper submission!

It's shambolic that more details on future plans are publicly released on the tender system and vendor material than via the Ministry's summary pages.

It's a cultural problem. Defence seems incapable of adopting a more transparent way of operating. You and I could find out more about serviceability rates for the USAF than we could for the RNZAF, because over here the RNZAF will cite national security as a reason for not reporting it. Meanwhile, availability and service intervals for B-2 bombers are on the internet. Go figure.

 

[ngatimozart]

I hope you'll put all that in your White Paper submission!

It's shambolic that more details on future plans are publicly released on the tender system and vendor material than via the Ministry's summary pages.

It's a cultural problem. Defence seems incapable of adopting a more transparent way of operating. You and I could find out more about serviceability rates for the USAF than we could for the RNZAF, because over here the RNZAF will cite national security as a reason for not reporting it. Meanwhile, availability and service intervals for B-2 bombers are on the internet. Go figure.

It's not just Defence, it extends right up to ministerial level. I understand that OP SEC and general security and confidentiality requirements, having worked within it, are a necessity, however there are things that don't necessarily fall within that criteria. They aren't going to create a national emergency, cause the fall of a government, nor the collapse and defeat of the nation if they are in the public domain. It is a cultural thing and a hangover from the days of the Official Secrets Act. The second part at ministerial level is political.

Yes I will be including this in my submission. I am researching and drafting it at the moment.

 

[Nick underscore]

..Yes I will be including this in my submission. I am researching and drafting it at the moment.

..and sharing with those interested on here, I hope Ngati?

I'll get my red pen ready

 

[ngatimozart]

Defence is set to be a winner in this weeks budget according to the NZ Herald.

Auckland's housing supply, immigration and defence are set to be at the front this week's 'no-surprises' Budget announcement.

Finance minister Bill English will present government's annual spending plan on Thursday and while he won't "open the presents before Christmas morning", he will say no revolutionary changes are on the way.

......

Elsewhere, English confirmed defence will also be a winner, hot on the heels of government deploying 142 personnel to Iraq to join the fight against Islamic State terrorists, while unlike military coalition partner Australia, he said New Zealand's aid budget will remain stable.

Sounds like good news, but the proof of the pudding is as always in the eating. Maybe a C17 purchase of two or three aircraft, he says hopefully.

 

[Gracie1234]

Yes, Thursday will be an interesting day. I wonder how the public will react? It will be a good indicator as the numbers should be significant.