NZDF General discussion thread

[Hawkeye69]

I am not sure what Treasury want here, the Govt of the day cannot have a rule for one and then another for itself, you cannot expect private or corporate enterprise to pay a minimum wage set by the Govt of the day yet that same Govt pay it’s very own public servants below the set minimum wage, that’s wrong.

My question is ‘how much more can you cut the NZDF?’ the navy have 3x ships tied up of which consist both OPV’s, 6 Squadron only have 3 operational SH-2I out of 10, what more can you chop?

We are getting to the point where we might be best served by having a referendum on if we keep an operational Defence Force made up of the 3x existing entities of Army Navy and Airforce or do we simply disband all 3 and have a Coastguard made up of OPV’s for fisheries and coastal patrol only and a limited air support made up of commercial type turbo props and only keep the A109’s for search and rescue only. All pilot training transferred to private commercial operators, and keep a limited SAS for internal situations only. Put that to Treasury and the voters and finally let the public decide.

 

[John Fedup]

I am not sure what Treasury want here, the Govt of the day cannot have a rule for one and then another for itself, you cannot expect private or corporate enterprise to pay a minimum wage set by the Govt of the day yet that same Govt pay it’s very own public servants below the set minimum wage, that’s wrong.

My question is ‘how much more can you cut the NZDF?’ the navy have 3x ships tied up of which consist both OPV’s, 6 Squadron only have 3 operational SH-2I out of 10, what more can you chop?

We are getting to the point where we might be best served by having a referendum on if we keep an operational Defence Force made up of the 3x existing entities of Army Navy and Airforce or do we simply disband all 3 and have a Coastguard made up of OPV’s for fisheries and coastal patrol only and a limited air support made up of commercial type turbo props and only keep the A109’s for search and rescue only. All pilot training transferred to private commercial operators, and keep a limited SAS for internal situations only. Put that to Treasury and the voters and finally let the public decide.

You may not like what the public decides as they won’t likely take the time to understand the details. I would have little confidence in the Canadian electorate and I gather NZ isn’t much different. The anti defence pollies will be in overdrive hyping all the new social benefits that can be funded from defence cuts. At least Canada is now facing US pressure to improve as per the recent WSJ article which correctly states Canada is a freeloader. Unfortunately the article restricted by a paywall.

 

[hauritz]

I am not sure what Treasury want here, the Govt of the day cannot have a rule for one and then another for itself, you cannot expect private or corporate enterprise to pay a minimum wage set by the Govt of the day yet that same Govt pay it’s very own public servants below the set minimum wage, that’s wrong.

My question is ‘how much more can you cut the NZDF?’ the navy have 3x ships tied up of which consist both OPV’s, 6 Squadron only have 3 operational SH-2I out of 10, what more can you chop?

We are getting to the point where we might be best served by having a referendum on if we keep an operational Defence Force made up of the 3x existing entities of Army Navy and Airforce or do we simply disband all 3 and have a Coastguard made up of OPV’s for fisheries and coastal patrol only and a limited air support made up of commercial type turbo props and only keep the A109’s for search and rescue only. All pilot training transferred to private commercial operators, and keep a limited SAS for internal situations only. Put that to Treasury and the voters and finally let the public decide.

I agree. I don’t see any fat to cut. If anything NZ need to probably double what they are already spending. The days where NZ could occupy its own quiet little corner of the Pacific without any threats to their security are coming to an end.

NZ current maritime capabilities would be struggling to contain a Chinese fishing fleet armada let alone their actual military forces.

Few countries like having to spend up big on their military but these are the times we live in.

 

[JohnJT]

Hopefully we'll get some good video of Te Mana's first Sea Ceptor launch!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680807807690608640

 

[Stuart M]

Well, thats that then.

Nanaia Mahuta shuts door on NZ joining AUKUS after United States' Antony Blinken says it's 'very much open' | Newshub

"The door is very much open for NZ and other partners to engage as they see appropriate," said Blinken.

But that door was later slammed shut by Mahuta.

"I'll be really clear, we're not contemplating joining AUKUS," she said.


Not only would AUKUS clash with our nuclear-free laws, but also the country's nuclear-free Pacific policy. It's a club we'd have to sell our soul to join.

Unsurprisingly, I think Mahuta is talking bollocks, but I also recall that there was a 'frank exchange of views' in Bejing.

A source told The Australian: “She was harangued for a whole hour.”


The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity, said Mahuta pushed back on Qin’s ‘Wolf Warrior’ approach.

Another source told the outlet that the meeting was “robust”.

Mahuta’s trip to Beijing was the first in-person meeting between senior New Zealand and Chinese figures since Jacinda Ardern raised Chinse ire by telling US President Joe Biden in 2022 that a Chinese military base in the Pacific would “fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region”.

The comments prompted China’s ambassador in Wellington, Wang Xiaolong, to warn that NZ should act as a “friendly country” and not take China “for granted”.

Nanaia Mahuta meets with Chinese just hours after Beijing gives NZ 'unprecedented dressing down' | Newshub

I think that this reaction to AUKUS is prompted by two factors, partly it's the very left wing anti-US side of NZ Labour, Helen Clarks mob, being its usual self and those who might be in favour, with one eye on the history of the 70's, 80's and 90's keeping schtum. Combine this with NZ economy and its excess dependence on China to cover costs and we have the above result. The message from Beijing is clear; Toe the line, or else.
And Mahuta has enough clout inside Labour to force the issue.

Now that this has happened I do not think that there will be a reversal of this from any National led government .

Asked by a journalist if the submarine pact will make New Zealand safer, Brownlee, who was a Minister of Defence in the last National Government, replied: "No, I don't think it does". He also criticised the way that Western countries are currently painting China as "the enemy", saying "I'm not sure that's the right sort of thinking".

"What I don't like is the concept that we just seem to be dividing the world," he added.

NZ needs to distance itself from Australia's anti-China nuclear submarines | RNZ News

But then we have National Leader Chris Luxon saying

National Party leader Christopher Luxon said on Wednesday that possibly participating in this second pillar of Aukus would be a “good conversation to have” – a conversation he would “most likely” have if elected to Government”.

“It needs a lot more definition before we would actually make a commitment about whether we would or wouldn’t get involved with that,” he said.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken says 'door very much open' for NZ to join non-nuclear aspects of Aukus | Stuff.co.nz


Despite Luxon's comment, I think he's playing both sides of the coin here for forms sake, I do not believe that the balance of NZ political opinion at this point is in favour of NZ participation in any aspect of AUKUS, and I don't think that any number of alarming reports out of MFAT and MOD, are going to change this. NZ's political establishment are quite happy to use the phrase 'Independent Foreign Policy' as a convenient cover for any number of ideological beliefs, be that rather mercenary attitudes to trade or various flavours of left wing progressivism.

In any event I will say that I think NZ participation in AUKUS is now dead for the foreseeable future.

 

[Gibbo]

But then we have National Leader Chris Luxon saying

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken says 'door very much open' for NZ to join non-nuclear aspects of Aukus | Stuff.co.nz


Despite Luxon's comment, I think he's playing both sides of the coin here for forms sake, I do not believe that the balance of NZ political opinion at this point is in favour of NZ participation in any aspect of AUKUS, and I don't think that any number of alarming reports out of MFAT and MOD, are going to change this. NZ's political establishment are quite happy to use the phrase 'Independent Foreign Policy' as a convenient cover for any number of ideological beliefs, be that rather mercenary attitudes to trade or various flavours of left wing progressivism.

In any event I will say that I think NZ participation in AUKUS is now dead for the foreseeable future.

One of the linked article states itself 'The National Party is much more critical of the Aukus deal than Labour'... with a change of Govt likely soon we'll see a move to cap or even reduce defence expenditure regardless of support partners.... unfortunately as a nation we've rested on our supposed laurels far too long... here come the chickens...to roost...or is that roast!?!

 

[Stuart M]

One of the linked article states itself 'The National Party is much more critical of the Aukus deal than Labour'... with a change of Govt likely soon we'll see a move to cap or even reduce defence expenditure regardless of support partners.... unfortunately as a nation we've rested on our supposed laurels far too long... here come the chickens...to roost...or is that roast!?!

I think we will have to watch China's moves in the South Pacific, that will be the determining factor for anything defence related in future. Both parties are opposed to 'militarisation of the South Pacific' and I have a strong suspicion that the CCP very much wants to base Naval and Air Forces in the South Pacific to help get them out of the first island chain barrier, provide a distraction for the USN when/if the CCP has a go at Taiwan, help them section off Australia as well as pressure NZ.

I think there are two possible outcomes to this based on previous patterns of NZ behaviour;
1.) The principle one is that NZ essentially doubles down on the "Independent Foreign Policy" schtick to essentially declare neutrality. The prospect of landbased bombers in the Solomons as well as naval forces escorting the Chinese fishing fleets would be the motivation.

2.) The most unlikely result is NZ beginning to rearm and, alongside the South Pacific nations, take a more robust approach to opposing outside interference by opposing 'outside' militarization with defensively motivated militarisation in association with US/AU/UK.

I cannot see 2' happening without a significant stiffening of political will and national resolve to oppose the CCP.
Even if the public mood shifts somewhat in favour of defence, the anti-armed forces/alliances attitude in NZ politics is such that only new blood actively clearing out the parties will change matters on the foreign policy front. Without a political clean out, I can even see a shift of public mood in favour of rearmament forcing a form of neutrality, a la Suisse, especially if there is an improvement in NZDF's capacity and capabilities.

 

[Gibbo]

I think we will have to watch China's moves in the South Pacific, that will be the determining factor for anything defence related in future. Both parties are opposed to 'militarisation of the South Pacific' and I have a strong suspicion that the CCP very much wants to base Naval and Air Forces in the South Pacific to help get them out of the first island chain barrier, provide a distraction for the USN when/if the CCP has a go at Taiwan, help them section off Australia as well as pressure NZ.

I think there are two possible outcomes to this based on previous patterns of NZ behaviour;
1.) The principle one is that NZ essentially doubles down on the "Independent Foreign Policy" schtick to essentially declare neutrality. The prospect of landbased bombers in the Solomons as well as naval forces escorting the Chinese fishing fleets would be the motivation.

2.) The most unlikely result is NZ beginning to rearm and, alongside the South Pacific nations, take a more robust approach to opposing outside interference by opposing 'outside' militarization with defensively motivated militarisation in association with US/AU/UK.

I cannot see 2' happening without a significant stiffening of political will and national resolve to oppose the CCP.
Even if the public mood shifts somewhat in favour of defence, the anti-armed forces/alliances attitude in NZ politics is such that only new blood actively clearing out the parties will change matters on the foreign policy front. Without a political clean out, I can even see a shift of public mood in favour of rearmament forcing a form of neutrality, a la Suisse, especially if there is an improvement in NZDF's capacity and capabilities.

Yes would have to agree pretty much with that. My biggest concern is that NZer's seem to have have a belief that neutrality means you can get away with minimal defence spending, and many call for neutrality based on that premise more than actual security concerns. History shows of course that to maintain neutrality a country must in fact have significant defence expenditure.

 

[Stuart M]

Yes would have to agree pretty much with that. My biggest concern is that NZer's seem to have have a belief that neutrality means you can get away with minimal defence spending, and many call for neutrality based on that premise more than actual security concerns. History shows of course that to maintain neutrality a country must in fact have significant defence expenditure.

I would suggest that the basic problem NZ has is that it wants to have cake and eat cake. 'Cake' in this case being prosperity and independence without consequences or responsibility, and that just aint going to happen.

If NZ defacto opts for some kind of neutrality regardless of defence forces fitout, it will on the basis of denial of reality even if that reality is H6ks within range of the entirety of the nation. And this is what's frustrating, this denial of what's happening in the world will not serve NZs long term prosperity.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Time will be the judge, the average NZ right now wants to feel safe in their house or place of work, want a first World Health system, decent roads built to last and a World class education system and want lower inflation and lower interest rates so they can feel they are getting ahead of the game. Right now most feel for every step they take they get knocked back 20 and the Country is struggling to do anything right.
I think Defence Force wise the new P-8’s and C-130J might be the last of any significant investment we see for some time or until the Country is back in surplus at least.

 

[Stuart M]

Time will be the judge, the average NZ right now wants to feel safe in their house or place of work, want a first World Health system, decent roads built to last and a World class education system and want lower inflation and lower interest rates so they can feel they are getting ahead of the game. Right now most feel for every step they take they get knocked back 20 and the Country is struggling to do anything right.
I think Defence Force wise the new P-8’s and C-130J might be the last of any significant investment we see for some time or until the Country is back in surplus at least.

I get what the public feel, but I cannot remember a time when defence wasn't either being cut back or just ignored, even when the nations budgets are in surplus, so what hope is there when the economy has been put to rights?

Nats and Labour do not invest in defence other than to avoid complete embarrassment on PR exercises peacekeeping and to put on a tidy display on ceremonials.

So here's the thing, what happens when time is up? What will NZ do when Australia and the CCP are calling the 9th floor; one asks for aid and the other asks for compliance?

 

[Aluminium Hail]

As a nation though what are we supposed to do. The US expects us to tow their line, while coming from a position of world economic dominance (as it has been for a century). But NZ still needs to put food on the table so to speak. We don't have products that the world is in desperate need of (like you could argue Australia has). So we have threaded a fine needle for many years.

Now I would most definitely have put more into vote defence over those years. But with the lack of any trade assistance from the US, it seems that joining something like AUKUS runs a real risk of leaving many kiwis in a much worse financial state.

How many of us would literally sell the farm in order to have a closer security relationship with the US?

For the record I would be heavily in favour of such a move but as was once said "Where's our free trade aggrement??"

 

[Stuart M]

As a nation though what are we supposed to do. The US expects us to tow their line, while coming from a position of world economic dominance (as it has been for a century). But NZ still needs to put food on the table so to speak. We don't have products that the world is in desperate need of (like you could argue Australia has). So we have threaded a fine needle for many years.

Now I would most definitely have put more into vote defence over those years. But with the lack of any trade assistance from the US, it seems that joining something like AUKUS runs a real risk of leaving many kiwis in a much worse financial state.

How many of us would literally sell the farm in order to have a closer security relationship with the US?

For the record I would be heavily in favour of such a move but as was once said "Where's our free trade aggrement??"

As a nation I would expect us to continue as we have been diplomatically whilst rearming, the model being the UK position pre-1914 with respect to the entente and the 'understandings' that were in place then. Given our economic situation re China, this will be understood.

And whilst it is true that one might ask of certain western powers "where's our free trade deal" they might ask with good reason, since 1986 where has your military and foreign policy commitment to Western values been? Because there is 40 years of NZ cutbacks to capacity and capability that show in stark relief that even in times of economic prosperity NZ has made no commitment to improving its armed forces, quite the contrary in fact. Moreover NZ so called Independent Foreign Policy, that bailed on the West during the Cold War, has more often than not been a cover to gain brownie points with more than once despotic regimes that's been opposed to the interests of the US and others.

And NZ politicians actually brag about it!

And right now Mahuta, after both Little and Hipkins showed interest in pillar two AUKUS, imitated Clark in 86 and slammed the door shut, you think NZ is getting an FTA from the US with that kind of duplicitous behaviour on a major plank of US policy on containing China? Two words: Hell and No.

It's not a case of toeing the US line and never was, it is about having a moral compass and being prepared to stand up for it. Part of that moral compass should be having the wit to note that NZ single largest trade partner is run by the most murderous political party in human history that, by the way, is currently engaged in cultural genocide, is quite happy to utilise slave labour and appears to be bent on use of force and intimidation to bend others to its will. Wit to recognise and do something about it.
In having recognised what China is and is doing, preparing the armed forces and making understandings with the US and others, do that and we might find that more favourable trade relations are possible.

 

[Rob c]

What we need to change first of all is to have more debate and information on defence. We need to stop the decline in public understanding brought about by the pollies making Defence a non issue, which was cemented in place by the major parties agreeing not to debate defence over a decade ago.
Prior to Ruthless Ruth's blood bath in the 1990's National government, defence was in the best shape it had been for a long time. The budget had varied between 2,2% to 3% GDP, averaging about 2.5% and by 1990 the army had got new trucks, light tanks, 105's new rifles and coms. the Navy operated 4 frigates, 4 dubious patrol boats a tanker and various other ships, with 2 new frigates on order and 2 options. The air force had received 10 additional Skyhawks and the fleet of 22 were being refitted, an additional P3 had been acquired and the fleet of 6 refitted, the C130's had there center sections replaced and 18 new advanced jet trainers were being delivered. At the time it was recognized that with the demise of the ANZUS treaty we had to be more able to look after our selves.
Then the slide began with Ruth's blood bath followed by Helen Clarks dismantling of the Airforce and John Keys total lack of any progress. To see the difference you need to remember that the defence budget from 1980 until Ruthless Ruth's cuts averaged about 2.5%, but between 2010 and 2020 the average was around 1.3%, almost half what it was.
The pollies have achieved this by stifling debate and publicity. They have made sure that the public are treated like mushrooms (Kept in the dark and fed on sh-t) This is the first change that has to happen, more debate and more information.
I remember back when the $20B (probably we need 2 of 3 times that) for re-equipping was anounced and there was very little negative feedback on that, so I think the public if better informed would support additional defence funding as they did in the 1980's.

 

[Aluminium Hail]

Whilst I totally agree with the previous two posts I guess my real question is how we could join AUKUS and still keep our trade relationship intact with China. The idea of rearming whilst keeping our diplomatic position largely as is, is almost a no-brainer (though probably still won't happen), but doing so whilst joining AUKUS would be a challenge.

I do believe there is a real willingness amongst the public to take a stand against the human rights abuses and international intimidation, and I also believe that the politicians haven't read the mood on it quite right yet. NZers like the idea that we stand up for what's right not what's easy. But we will need assurance from our friends that when we do make a stand they will have our back.

On another AUKUS note. I wonder if it would get more traction here if the US took a step back. It is a tri-partite agreement and maybe the average kiwi might be a little more open to it if the UK and Aus took more of a lead. The US is still a somewhat tainted brand in NZ for many reasons.

 

[Gracie1234]

While i would like us to join AUKUS, I doubt it will happen soon. It will be a bargaining chip with China i.e. if China does something largely negative then we will join and they would be informed of that decision and why.
I think it is more likely that we will build our capabilities with a larger NATO relationship. The new level of partnership is largely about capabilities and sharing of technology. This NATO approach aligns better with how our politicians like to act, not saying it is right.
I do see NZ increasing its defense spending as a proportion of GDP, during the last few decades it has been easy to say that the centre of instability, threat and conflict was in Europe and far away. Now, that is not the case, it is in our backyard. There is no choice, we can not ignore it. The pathway that China is moving down is worse than the previous worse predictions.
Does anyone have a date when the next public document will be released? I thought i was this month.

 

[ASSAIL]

I don’t think the AUKUS group would welcome a country which refuses to allow SSNs to visit the country, that’s counter intuitive.

 

[Stuart M]

I don’t think the AUKUS group would welcome a country which refuses to allow SSNs to visit the country, that’s counter intuitive.

Ahh, no, the US is open to NZ participation in areas it feels comfortable with, and I have no doubt the UK or AU will feel the same.

Blinken says door open for New Zealand to engage on AUKUS | Reuters

"The door's very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate going forward," Blinken told a news conference in Wellington.

"We've long worked together on the most important national security issues. And so as we further develop AUKUS, as I said, the door is open to engagement."

Obviously, NZ will not permit nuclear armed or propelled ships/submarines in NZ or its waters, but the legislation does not prohibit something like pillar two of AUKUS, domestic politics on the other hand a whole different thing.

 

[spoz]

If NZ wants to participate, great. But don’t expect the rest of us to stand around waiting.

 

[recce.k1]

And right now Mahuta, after both Little and Hipkins showed interest in pillar two AUKUS, imitated Clark in 86 and slammed the door shut, you think NZ is getting an FTA from the US with that kind of duplicitous behaviour on a major plank of US policy on containing China? Two words: Hell and No.

Actually to correct the record on here, no such thing has happened i.e. NZ's Foreign Minister has NOT "slammed the door shut" on Pillar 2.

Far from it (the NZG is considering Pillar 2, along with the likes of Canada and Japan, but at the same time is also waiting on the original AUKUS partners to finalise Pillar 2's framework and participation levels - it won't happen overnight) and likewise in your original post on this above, you might have fallen for "MSM misinformation" (by an hyperbolic tv news journalist, sensationalising Foreign Minister Mahuta's answers using selective editing and then mixing in his own opinion to conclude the segment)!

See the full "X" discussion here for context:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684723744034762753

Anyway Foreign Minister Mahuta was only referring to Pillar 1 (NZ wasn't, isn't and never will be party to that ... we couldn't afford nuclear powered submarines even if we ditched the anti-nuke legislation! Pillar 1 is exclusively for the original AUKUS partners and they are not, and never were, thinking of the likes of us joining so let's all rule that out for the record on here and we all shouldn't take offence if FM Mahuta did the same last week).

So here we have Mahuta also last week batting away the hard-left Greens (perhaps also using "misinformation" to sometimes juxtapose AUKUS Pillar 1 with Pillar 2 etc), where she is clear that NZ has no part in Pillar 1 but is open to Pillar 2 (the NZG position).

Question 4 - Golriz Ghahraman to the Minister of Foreign Affairs - Parliament On Demand

ondemand.parliament.nz

And that was also Mahuta responding to a domestic (and Pacific) audience in terms of the framing of her answers.