As I posted elsewhere...
Yes very interesting... I guess the biggest & most positive take-away from this is an open acknowledgement that there is a critical retention problem & that the $90M recently announced is not enough to turn that around. For the last 30 years or so Govt's have chosen to bury their heads in the sand over that very same point. The sceptic in me of course says that they had no choice to acknowledge it given the state the NZDF finds itself in now... but it's refreshing to see it openly acknowledged & admission that a plan needs to be put in place to reverse that.
As to the rest, Jack Tame is right in that previous reviews have also pointed out all the same challenges with regard to climate change & the influence of China...so why do we need to review again when we should just be getting on with it? I'm no fan of Henare as DefMin but he's finally managed to make some coherent sense! COVID has changed the ballpark, both in the retention stakes & on the budgetary front. Since the last review there has also been two very obvious changes that will be driving a review... (1) China's much more visible plan of action in the SC Sea & more importantly in the SouPac...along with the rising tension over Taiwan - ie: more overt talk & action (2) the Russia invasion of Ukraine. Both have an impact for NZ, as Henare admits.
The timing of course isn't great... a new defence review starting a year out from an election that the incumbent will likely struggle to win (frankly)... the BIG thing now is to see what National's response to this is...if they don't say much in support, I'd be very worried given they'll be looking for big $$ savings...and we know who that whipping by usually is! The retention issue does not need to wait for a review so that should progress ...sounds like maybe they acknowledge that.
As to hardware, well yes we know we are pitifully equipped. To take Tame's example of drones etc... most other militaries are streaks ahead with drone capability whereas the NZDF has all along seemed reluctant to get into that space in any seriousness, why the hell is that precisely!?! I did hear (unsubstantiated) whispers that Navy divers were thinking they'd be put out of a job if the Navy invested in remote-controlled mine clearance technology etc... maybe the attitudes in the services need to change... but isn't that a leadership issue! Anyway I could be wrong on that so please don't hang me on that example, but happy to be corrected!
The make-up of the review is clearly one with a focus on foreign affairs etc but that is to be expected I guess. Good to hear Henare put a focus on the RNZN but would like to see the RNZAF role given more prominence too (I'll play my broke record of 'EMAC' again here... invest in the capability now!). With regard to hardware, yes that will only become clear when a review is made then followed by a new capability review / plan so factoring in the election...years away yet!
I'd suggest anyone salivating over questions about the possibility of an ACF, don't read to much into that at this point... the NZDF is so far away from being able to support such a capability at present and given there are so many other more critical needs that all he's really done is sensibly batted that away with the standard 'puff' can't rule it out (& therefore nor can he rule it in!).
At the end of the day it is good to finally see a DefMin openly acknowledging the obvious so maybe, just maybe, NZ's thinking is starting to turn a corner. However a review means little unless there is the budget to then follow through with the recommendations. Hopefully it also won't be an exercise in refocusing way from combat capability. Given the open admissions now about real security concerns it would be extremely difficult for any future Govt to talk down investment in core military capability. Just don't expect a huge lift in spending!
Yes very interesting... I guess the biggest & most positive take-away from this is an open acknowledgement that there is a critical retention problem & that the $90M recently announced is not enough to turn that around. For the last 30 years or so Govt's have chosen to bury their heads in the sand over that very same point. The sceptic in me of course says that they had no choice to acknowledge it given the state the NZDF finds itself in now... but it's refreshing to see it openly acknowledged & admission that a plan needs to be put in place to reverse that.
As to the rest, Jack Tame is right in that previous reviews have also pointed out all the same challenges with regard to climate change & the influence of China...so why do we need to review again when we should just be getting on with it? I'm no fan of Henare as DefMin but he's finally managed to make some coherent sense! COVID has changed the ballpark, both in the retention stakes & on the budgetary front. Since the last review there has also been two very obvious changes that will be driving a review... (1) China's much more visible plan of action in the SC Sea & more importantly in the SouPac...along with the rising tension over Taiwan - ie: more overt talk & action (2) the Russia invasion of Ukraine. Both have an impact for NZ, as Henare admits.
The timing of course isn't great... a new defence review starting a year out from an election that the incumbent will likely struggle to win (frankly)... the BIG thing now is to see what National's response to this is...if they don't say much in support, I'd be very worried given they'll be looking for big $$ savings...and we know who that whipping by usually is! The retention issue does not need to wait for a review so that should progress ...sounds like maybe they acknowledge that.
As to hardware, well yes we know we are pitifully equipped. To take Tame's example of drones etc... most other militaries are streaks ahead with drone capability whereas the NZDF has all along seemed reluctant to get into that space in any seriousness, why the hell is that precisely!?! I did hear (unsubstantiated) whispers that Navy divers were thinking they'd be put out of a job if the Navy invested in remote-controlled mine clearance technology etc... maybe the attitudes in the services need to change... but isn't that a leadership issue! Anyway I could be wrong on that so please don't hang me on that example, but happy to be corrected!
The make-up of the review is clearly one with a focus on foreign affairs etc but that is to be expected I guess. Good to hear Henare put a focus on the RNZN but would like to see the RNZAF role given more prominence too (I'll play my broke record of 'EMAC' again here... invest in the capability now!). With regard to hardware, yes that will only become clear when a review is made then followed by a new capability review / plan so factoring in the election...years away yet!
I'd suggest anyone salivating over questions about the possibility of an ACF, don't read to much into that at this point... the NZDF is so far away from being able to support such a capability at present and given there are so many other more critical needs that all he's really done is sensibly batted that away with the standard 'puff' can't rule it out (& therefore nor can he rule it in!).
At the end of the day it is good to finally see a DefMin openly acknowledging the obvious so maybe, just maybe, NZ's thinking is starting to turn a corner. However a review means little unless there is the budget to then follow through with the recommendations. Hopefully it also won't be an exercise in refocusing way from combat capability. Given the open admissions now about real security concerns it would be extremely difficult for any future Govt to talk down investment in core military capability. Just don't expect a huge lift in spending!
If they win the trophy and someone does a breakdance after the presentation then we'll know. 
