Thanks Reg for you considered reply.
I have changed the 300 claim of registered commercial fishing license holders to 1300 as you correctly state. I accepted my faulty memory on the numbers though the principle still stands that following the rationalisation of the commercial industry and the transfer of quotas to fewer players has completely changed the local fishing industry. There are far fewer small scale players than in the past.
Incidently I have zero trust in the NZ MSM and always assume that they are stretching the truth.
Customs have long wanted replacement vessels. They did their own needs review following the 2000 Maritime Review They are again pushing for this as it was something promoted again during the recent Martyn Dunne tenure. The following document outlines this on pages 18-30.
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/annex_iv_customs.pdf
Customs only have the 16m launch Hawk IV. What they really have been after is two 30-40m vessels and two inshore craft larger and more stable than the Hawk IV. They have had interest in a Q-West type vessel for that inshore role.
Customs now want to run their own show and not be tied into the patrolling patterns of MFish or the Navy. They are actually more intel lead and reactive by necessity than MFish's patrolling requirements. There areas of interest are also different - the Cook strait and the BOI / Hauraki Gulf. They are also wanting interception at and beyond the 24nm zone for larger vessel boarding.
Looking through the lens of the Navy per crew manning numbers wise will never allow one to get to the actual issue here. If numbers are an issue it is in the competing training methodologies that a small navy has to endure and not the emphasis of the actual manning numbers of sailors to sea (or is that ship person or something from now on). Frigates v OPV's v IPV's - plus the specialist AOR, MCM and CY.
The sea tasking requirements MFish and Customs are essentially incompatible with each other. They want to be in different places and approach a target differently. One role (MFish) is more overt the other role (Customs) is more covert and directed in interception. One wants to be around the Campbell Islands monitoring Korean Factory Ships or 200ks off the West Coast when the other wants to be north of Great Barrier intercepting a private yacht or inspecting a 40000 tonne container ship.
The one size fits all solution of the IPV's is not helping any of the interested parties to deliver their remits to the government. No one is winning at present. In a way the policy failure comes down to loading the civilian parties onto a compromised vessel.
The Maritime Forces Review 16 years ago did indeed suggest 3 OPV's and 5 IPV's. It did not speculate on size requirements of the vessels at the time.
In many respects what should have happened is what may eventuate if all parties now get their way.
1. Customs get the vessels that they were after to monitor their geographically specific choke points. Two 30-40m vessels that they have long envisaged supplemented by 2 smaller vessels around the 20-24m size.
2. Fisheries get similar vessels that suit there specific needs. They could operate jointly as an NZ Maritime Boarder Security Service but have the right resources to meet their needs out to 24nm. Funded staffed and manned accordingly.
3. The RNZN gets the 3rd OPV to conduct tasking specifically in the deep South and South West. This will leave the Civilian agencies in conjunction with the NMCC to look after their very different tasking requirements in very different localities, whilst the RNZN can deliver the long range persistent enforcement where it best meets the EEZ needs. Ideally of course with a 4th OPV then NZ can also conduct the emerging South Pacific Patrols to protect the outer EEZ of the island states.
What is evolving is an eventual transition away from a one size fits all policy that has not worked for any of the parties per the IPV's. Defence wants to recover more of its core military role, both Customs and MFish as the most evoked EEZ parties want to be able to focus on ending their competing needs without the tasking compromises that have stemmed from incompatible vessels. The IPV's are too big and possibly too few for one role and too small for the other.
Smaller inshore patrol vessels operated by the current customers to suit their needs. Even if it is under combined flag of a Maritime Border Protection Agency - buy having the maritime constabulary taskings under their control and budgets we could ring fence that out of the NZDF equation. Yes the NZDF can chime on in with the outer EEZ stuff where bigger and more specialised vessels and indeed aircraft are needed.
As to canning the IPV’s - I actually agree with it. I do not see it as a downgrade but a way for solving the current incompatibility of solely using the RNZN to look after the competing maritime needs of 6 other government agencies that have competing interests within our inner EEZ, Customs and MFish in particular. By taking the NZDF substantially out of the equation and letting the civilian agencies take ownership is better for the nation as a whole.
If all 4 IPV's can be converted into 2 further OPV's joining the Otago and the Wellington to make 4 OPV's, one of which is specifically built for SO/Antarctic tasking, plus a new larger LWSV, a new MPSV, the CY and the 2 upgraded frigates, well all we would be missing then is the 3rd frigate. That is the pathway back to a good little Navy again and not half a little Navy and half a little Coastguard.
The good little 'coastguard' or 'maritime security service' can be formed from Customs and Fisheries and the other civilian agency partners. Maybe the a couple of the Pacific Patrol Vessels coming through from Australia in the next few years would be ideal with four 20m Cats from a local builder like Q-West.
Cheers MrC
Last edited:
