NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Looks like the political parties are now coming to the party, albeit late, in terms of their election defence policies (or more like piecemeal defence statements).

Labour: "Fair pay rates and allowances" and a "comprehensive review" of the Defence Act. They are also talking up their recent investments as proof that they are committed to rebuilding defence capabilities, infrastructure and looking after personnel.

ACT: Increase defence spending to reach 1.5% of GDP over the next four years (I thought it already was at 1.5% according to most analysts, although occassionally 1% is referenced so presume ACT think it is currently somewhere in-between 1-1.5%). Their long-term target of reaching 2% is by 2030.

NZ First: Have released their policy and they also have a similar target to reach spending of 2% of GDP by 2030. They also suggesting they would "establish a permanent, ring-fenced Defence Capital Fund as part of the Budget to fund defence capability and estate procurement" and "instruct NZDF uniformed staff to deliver a tri-service Defence Command Paper based on what New Zealand needs and when". Unclear how that fits in with the Ministry of Defence's overall planning role for defence matters (also noting MoD are not "uniformed staff")! They are also suggesting creating a Border Protection Force.

For balance, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori unsuprisingly support disarmament and isolationism.

Now of course what the minor parties (ACT, NZF, Greens and the Māori Party) want or say may not have any bearing once they partner up with one of the major parties (Labour or National), which generally has tended to be the case over the last 3 decades (of the MMP voting system).

So that leaves the National Party to make their statements and I suspect some of the above parties have already stolen any remaining thunder, if it can be called that!

 

[ngatimozart]

Looks like the political parties are now coming to the party, albeit late, in terms of their election defence policies (or more like piecemeal defence statements).

Labour: "Fair pay rates and allowances" and a "comprehensive review" of the Defence Act. They are also talking up their recent investments as proof that they are committed to rebuilding defence capabilities, infrastructure and looking after personnel.

ACT: Increase defence spending to reach 1.5% of GDP over the next four years (I thought it already was at 1.5% according to most analysts, although occassionally 1% is referenced so presume ACT think it is currently somewhere in-between 1-1.5%). Their long-term target of reaching 2% is by 2030.

NZ First: Have released their policy and they also have a similar target to reach spending of 2% of GDP by 2030. They also suggesting they would "establish a permanent, ring-fenced Defence Capital Fund as part of the Budget to fund defence capability and estate procurement" and "instruct NZDF uniformed staff to deliver a tri-service Defence Command Paper based on what New Zealand needs and when". Unclear how that fits in with the Ministry of Defence's overall planning role for defence matters (also noting MoD are not "uniformed staff")! They are also suggesting creating a Border Protection Force.

For balance, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori unsuprisingly support disarmament and isolationism.

Now of course what the minor parties (ACT, NZF, Greens and the Māori Party) want or say may not have any bearing once they partner up with one of the major parties (Labour or National), which generally has tended to be the case over the last 3 decades (of the MMP voting system).

So that leaves the National Party to make their statements and I suspect some of the above parties have already stolen any remaining thunder, if it can be called that!

The trouble with NZ First is Winston; he doesn't even know himself what he's going to do next. I don't think that he's even been a fan of defence. He kiboshed the 3rd frigate during his only time in coalition with National.

 

[Shanesworld]

The trouble with NZ First is Winston; he doesn't even know himself what he's going to do next. I don't think that he's even been a fan of defence. He kiboshed the 3rd frigate during his only time in coalition with National.

He and alliance crushed the humvee project from what Ive been told. He knew better apparently.

 

[ngatimozart]

He and alliance crushed the humvee project from what Ive been told. He knew better apparently.

I think that was a blessing in disguise because they guzzle fuel like a drunken sailor drinks free grog. Also they were under protected and whilst the Pinz were a PIA, now we are getting far better vehicles in the Bushmaster.

 

[Shanesworld]

I think that was a blessing in disguise because they guzzle fuel like a drunken sailor drinks free grog. Also they were under protected and whilst the Pinz were a PIA, now we are getting far better vehicles in the Bushmaster.

I would much rather the widespread standardisation and support of what was proposed for that humvee project than the "version" of pinzgauer we got. And the 43 bushies replace 60 armoured pinzs and nothing else. The pinz were an enron excercise by bae and we were their suckers.
And soon we will have no one to repair the looms and pcb's. Byt they are expected to serve no less than another 4 years.
Anyone involved in that abortion of a procurement should have been charged with treason and dealt with accordingly.

 

[Shanesworld]

I think that was a blessing in disguise because they guzzle fuel like a drunken sailor drinks free grog. Also they were under protected and whilst the Pinz were a PIA, now we are getting far better vehicles in the Bushmaster.

And the new armour packages for that humvee evolution were to be produced in nz. Hutt valley to be exact. .

 

[Simon Ewing Jarvie]

Which appears to sound good but at the same time they want to tinker with the Defence Act 1990 because according to Mr Little "circumstances are different today" appearing to mean they want more civilian oversight.

Is there actually a problem (as no-one has been saying there is)? Or simply the want of more bureaucracy and bureaucrats/activists smothering efficiency and independence?

Perhaps if SEJ is about he could give us some informed perspectives.

Labour promises Defence Force pay would be set independently

Labour is promising to make it so Defence Force pay rates are set independently of the government, and review the Defence Act.

www.rnz.co.nz

The Labour Party defence policy just announced is likely born of the realisation that there was criticism regarding the lack of one. There is some history to take into account regarding Little's announcement though.

The Remuneration Authority proposal is a dead rubber. The authority exists only for very senior salaries in the public sector. It would be a massive undertaking and the only real beneficiary would be Korn Ferry - the consulting company that does the actual work. Their process is to 'size' a job (heard of 'Hay Points'?') Then they compare what is being paid elsewhere in various sectors to come up with salary ranges. I have used this and similar systems extensively in my civvy work and can tell you that they are a very blunt instrument. The Armed Forces Pay Review of 1979 used a similar benchmarking system where, for example, an army captain was pegged against a police officer, teacher and nurse.

The problem with a civilian remuneration modelling system is exactly that - it is a civilian system. It cannot deal with the 'unlimited liability' aspect of military service where the State can have you killed or wounded at its pleasure. Nor the 24/7 workplace. Nor the fact that the NZDF is exempt from the Health and Safety Act. And so it goes on. There is NOTHING that can compare to military service in war or peace. The 'M' factor in the current pay model doesn't come close to recognising this and the Reserves don't get it at all.

What we have in regard to remuneration is a perfect storm. NZDF is a skills-based pay model (as opposed to a performance-based one) with additional steps for seniority. Pay was frozen during Covid because the govt decided it couldn't pay. That's not the first time this has occurred and service personnel have coped by doing courses, getting promoted and gaining seniority as means of getting a pay rise. But all the courses basically stopped during Covid so advancement did too. Then there was the insult of being used as hotel security guards. Then the lid was lifted off the economy which caused the workforce to boil over quickly due to lack of inbound immigration.

There is, in my opinion, a command failure in not pushing the Minister harder on this. The solution needs to include a regulatory requirement to review NZDF pay scales at a minimum of five-yearly (in the same way Defence Reviews have been set down). That means there will be a small team continually working on advice rather than a huge problem trying to fix itself retrospectively. Total remuneration cost - which includes non-cash benefits - has been eroded and needs looking at too. Things like Defence housing for example.

This post is getting a bit long so I'll start again on the Defence Act.

 

[Hawkeye69]

And the World has another conflict in the Middle East with the surprise attack on Israel by Hamas plus the ongoing Ukraine War. All we need now and it’s a great time is for China to invade Taiwan and for Iran to get involved backing Hamas against Israel and its game on. In all honesty it’s sad as incident victims of these conflicts pay the price, no winners everyone loses except those that profit from war and death as President Eisenhower did warn humanity about.

 

[Simon Ewing Jarvie]

The Defence Act proposal is one that has its genesis in the 2010 White Paper (which I was involved in.) Basically, there are two chunks of work needed. One of those is purely administrative and should have been done years ago. The other is about command and control of the NZDF and has serious implications. It too should have been done years ago.

The Defence Amendment Bill languishes on the Order Paper and the fault lies with the National Party. This bill has passed through three National Party ministers and never been properly concluded. The original bill, the Select Committee report back and Coleman's SOP are attached.

The admin stuff is easy - Clarifying the difference between Territorials who are active reserves and those former regulars who have inactive reserve liability. There's several small things like that. The Reserve Force as it is referred to is actually still the TF Army, RNZNVR and TAF.

The command changes are far more serious. This was about detailing how the SecDef and CDF must work together and on info sharing. It formally created the role of VCDF as a warranted position with the right to command the NZDF if the CDF was incapacitated - as happened when Rhys Jones had a heart attack and Jack Steer took over informally for a quite a period. It also removed the warrants from the three single service chiefs giving CDF actual authority rather than having to command "through the single service chiefs." That removed the organisational disobedience element which has been problematic. Single service chiefs fought a rear-guard action at the select committee and convinced them to remove this change.

There's plenty more in the Bill about civilianisation, reduction in rank etc.

The bottom line is it all needs to be done and Labour has had 6 years to do this. National had 7 years before them. None of this will sway a voter but it does indicate a lack of care and attention at both ministerial and command levels in both old parties.

 

[chis73]

I have often felt a sensible way to address Defence Force pay would be to simply tie it to MPs salaries. The Defence Force can't (constitutionally) have a union to bargain for it (unlike the rest of the public service), so it only seems fair to bind the DF's salaries to the Remuneration Authority's (formerly known as the Higher Salaries Commission) judgements. Having to pay increases to an extra 15000+ people might even cause the politicians to reject the Remuneration Authority's proposed increases now and again. When you compare what a backbench MP gets nowadays versus 50 years ago against other sectors (for example teachers, roughly equal in 1976), the current MP salaries are obscene (here is a link to an article from 2018 - link). Of course, it's never going to happen.

 

[recce.k1]

The Defence Act proposal is one that has its genesis in the 2010 White Paper (which I was involved in.) Basically, there are two chunks of work needed. One of those is purely administrative and should have been done years ago. The other is about command and control of the NZDF and has serious implications. It too should have been done years ago.

The Defence Amendment Bill languishes on the Order Paper and the fault lies with the National Party. This bill has passed through three National Party ministers and never been properly concluded. The original bill, the Select Committee report back and Coleman's SOP are attached.

The admin stuff is easy - Clarifying the difference between Territorials who are active reserves and those former regulars who have inactive reserve liability. There's several small things like that. The Reserve Force as it is referred to is actually still the TF Army, RNZNVR and TAF.

The command changes are far more serious. This was about detailing how the SecDef and CDF must work together and on info sharing. It formally created the role of VCDF as a warranted position with the right to command the NZDF if the CDF was incapacitated - as happened when Rhys Jones had a heart attack and Jack Steer took over informally for a quite a period. It also removed the warrants from the three single service chiefs giving CDF actual authority rather than having to command "through the single service chiefs." That removed the organisational disobedience element which has been problematic. Single service chiefs fought a rear-guard action at the select committee and convinced them to remove this change.

There's plenty more in the Bill about civilianisation, reduction in rank etc.

The bottom line is it all needs to be done and Labour has had 6 years to do this. National had 7 years before them. None of this will sway a voter but it does indicate a lack of care and attention at both ministerial and command levels in both old parties.

Appreciate your insights and knowledge (here I was wondering whether it would turn out to be something like the SIS now having a civilian watchdog, which was implemented by Labour). Will spend the day going through the Bill attachments.

Question: despite all the hard work being done previously on the Defence Amendment Bill, is there a reason why Labour is highlighting this now and how likely would Labour (or even National) further tinker with the Bill to suit their particular "world views"?

Edit to add: Any thoughts on NZ First's policies quoted above (eg tri-service Defence Command Paper and so on)? Asking as at least of all the parties they appear to have put some thought into their policies (presumably it harks back to Ron Mark's time in the party)? Not saying that they will actually implement any of this but wondering what outcomes or changes could result hypothetically.

 

[recce.k1]

And the World has another conflict in the Middle East with the surprise attack on Israel by Hamas plus the ongoing Ukraine War. All we need now and it’s a great time is for China to invade Taiwan and for Iran to get involved backing Hamas against Israel and its game on. In all honesty it’s sad as incident victims of these conflicts pay the price, no winners everyone loses except those that profit from war and death as President Eisenhower did warn humanity about.

IMO all these uncertainties highlights that whilst the Govt (of whichever hue) will go about medium-long term reviews and planning (including future expenditure), they really need to prioritise further strengthening/spending now (i.e. in the short term) for our existing capabilities.

Some work has started (or is starting) eg near doubling of fuel storage capacity at Ohakea as a result of the new Poseidon's being based there.

But for example have they acquired the self-defence kit including Phallanx for HMNZS Aotearoa? Whilst there is mention of CWIS upgrades in DCP19 it's unclear if that also refers to additional units.

HMNZS Te Kaha appears to be still tied up at Devonport (presumably receiving the second phase of the Frigate comms upgrades & thus reintroduction back to service in 2024) but this highlights the (political) mistake of shrinking the Frigate force down to two (and presumably Te Mana will out of service next year for the same major engineering works including engine replacements but at least the comms upgrades can be undetaken at the same time meaning a shortened period of being tied up alongside (compared to Te Kaha))?

Whilst I realise the Type 23's the RN have recently withdrawn from service are somewhat knackered (i.e. not worth the cost of the next major overhaul project), could it be worth leasing some of them for the next year or two in order to give RNZN personnel much needed time at sea (otherwise to not keep personnel occupied with skillset development could see further resignations)? Granted would also require the loaning of some key RN personnel to work with RNZN personnel traimning them on the operation of the vessel's various systems. Realise leasing an old vessel with different systems is not the optimum solution (although we have leased other RN vessels in the past for similar reasons) otherwise what other better options are out there?

 

[ngatimozart]

There's a change of government. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins (NZ Labour) has conceded defeat.
Chris Hipkins concedes NZ election in emotional speech to Labour supporters | Newshub - YouTube

For a Party or Coalition to win a total of 62 seats must be won out of a probable 122 seat Parliament. The current Parliament is 121 seats but there is the probability of another overhang seat being added. The Parliament has 120 seats and the overhang seats are where minor parties have large number of MPs elected that is in excess of the percentage of the Party vote that the parties obtained in an election. After the final vote count the votes of the parties that didn't gain entry to Parliament are reallocated to the successful parties and distributed as a percentage of the Party Vote that the successful parties obtained.

In NZ we have two votes every election. One is for the candidate of the electorate that we reside in. The second and arguably more important vote is the Party vote where we vote for the Party that we want. There are 65 General Electorates and seven Māori electorates. Māori have a choice of being in a General Electorate or in a Māori electorate, but not both. MPs and Electorates - New Zealand Parliament (www.parliament.nz)

At the moment National and ACT have 61 seats but with many votes still to be counted.NZ First Leader Winston Peters has said that he will help where required. Special votes still have to be counted and the final results will be declared on 3/11/2023. It may take time for the next Coalition govt to be formed but it should be a far simpler process than in 2017 or 2008. This time Winston doesn't appear to be the Kingmaker.

WRT regard to defence policy etc., we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't even hazard a guess who the defence minister will be. A shame Ron Mark didn't stand for NZ First because he would have made for a great defence minister.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

There's a change of government. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins (NZ Labour) has conceded defeat.
Chris Hipkins concedes NZ election in emotional speech to Labour supporters | Newshub - YouTube

...

WRT regard to defence policy etc., we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't even hazard a guess who the defence minister will be. A shame Ron Mark didn't stand for NZ First because he would have made for a great defence minister.

So no change really... lol

 

[Rob c]

So no change really... lol

Oh, there will be change, Very, very slow change. Don't count on any opportunities being taken or any significant improvements. My prediction is a John Key repeat.

 

[Hawkeye69]

The first change will likely be saying goodbye to the 757 as Luxon hinted at.

 

[Rob c]

The first change will likely be saying goodbye to the 757 as Luxon hinted at.

Yep, but I hope that with pressure he will be shown that we don't have enough transport aircraft as it is and that replacement military transport will be acquired. (me dreaming ) Reality is we are short in all area's.

 

[Teal]

Yep, but I hope that with pressure he will be shown that we don't have enough transport aircraft as it is and that replacement military transport will be acquired. (me dreaming ) Reality is we are short in all area's.

Maybe its time for KHI to place a huge advertising banner up on the old NZ Post building showing off the C2 , by memory its in plain ( pun??) Sight of the 9th floor

 

[Gooey]

Or more along the lines that might happen in this age of strategic tension with zero capability if we were more militarily literate, RNZAF placing a banner that reads "Kiss off the Boeings and get 5 more C-130J-30's". You know, something that everyone knows is needed, takes 5 minutes to confirm on the back of a fag packet, and doesn't really need a 5 year procurement cycle at MOD.

 

[recce.k1]

Dr Peter Greener, writing for Line of Defence Magazine, gives an early appraisal of where defence fits under a new coalition govt (once or if one is formed in the next couple of weeks). Early signs appear somewhat positive compared to previous govts in that at least the three parties seem to be in close alignment.

"To the most reasonably affordable standard": The National Party’s newly proposed policy intent for Defence - Defsec

Almost total replacement of ships, new maritime helicopters, replacement of strategic air mobility, and new primary combat vehicle.

defsec.net.nz

He also highlights National's defence policy (released two days before the election ... missed that one)! But a snippet of interest amongst their publicity blurb:

For the New Zealand Defence Force do its job to the fullest potential of its personnel, it must have available equipment, ships, planes, vessels, vehicles and appropriate weaponry to the most reasonably affordable standard. National supports the current Defence Procurement Plan and recognises both the medium, and longer-term intentions of the Plan.

National will commit to the regular reviews, updates, and where appropriate, inclusions to the Plan.

Perhaps most reasonably affordable standard could be up for debate as to what that actually means in reality?

And although not as strong as perhaps we here would like but at least inclusions to the Plan is an acknowledgement that more needs to be done.

Personnel recruitment and retention is also acknowledged (let's hope that isn't stuffed up again like in previous administrations).

The proof of the pudding of course will be their reaction and intentions once the Defence Policy review is concluded in 2024.