Tim van de Molen has been stood down from his portfolios (including Defence), after the Privileges Committee found his conduct towards Labour MP Shanan Halbert to be inappropriate:
National MP Tim van de Molen has been stood down from his portfolios for contempt of Parliament, after threatening behaviour towards Labour’s Shanan Halbert.
National leader Christopher Luxon stood the MP down after Parliament’s Privileges Committee found him in contempt and recommended he be censured.
The committee found van de Molen had threatened Halbert and impeded his ability to perform his duties.
Van de Molen was referred to the committee early this month after Labour’s Rachel Boyack claimed he had threatened or intimidated Halbert during a Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee session in June.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/496507/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-stood-down-from-all-portfolios
As I said, he was National’s spokesperson for Defence. Given his low list placing at number 58 (!!!), this shows just how little regard National gives this portfolio. I mean, for goodness sake, in Australia, the Deputy PM is the Defence Minister. In the UK, it is always one of the top five cabinet ministers. Likewise Canada. Anywhere in the world, defence policy is hugely important and given to someone competent, experienced and senior.
Tim van de Molen is a former platoon commander in the Territorial Force. Maybe he got to the lofty heights of Lieutenant, maybe he stayed a Second Lieutenant, I don’t know. It’s certainly not much experience in a complicated portfolio.
He never released any policy, and his questions to Andrew Little reflected a superficial understanding of the challenges currently facing all serving members.
But that’s now irrelevant, because he is no longer the spokesman.
Which begs the question, who is?
And what policy does National have for this?
There appears to be no defence policy from National at all. And it looks like they’ve simply thrown the portfolio back to Gerry Bronwlee, alongside Foreign Affairs, GSCB and SIS and emergency management. And anyway, he’s not the prospective defence minister – he’ll most likely be the Speaker, if not he’ll be the Foreign Minister. This is a lazy reallocation of an important portfolio to someone who can’t do it justice. We are weeks out from an election, National looking likely they’ll form government. It was unforgivable for Labour to not have a spokesperson or any policy last election, it is unforgivable for National to do the same.
No Minister 
They might be keeping it open for Winnie P or one of Seymour’s lot….
Why farm out defence policy to a minor party? Give some concessions or policy wins to the junior coalition partner, but to not have any policy at all is just silly. No other country neglects defence like NZ’s major parties do.
And who in NZF or ACT?
NZF’s defence policy is to move the naval base to Northland, the sole purpose being to win the electorate seat. They have no spokesperson, and no other policies.
ACT’s defence spokesman is not seeking re-election. At least they seem to have some policies though.
Well I guess if we followed Luxon’s previous track record, dont say anything contentious or significant, say like root and branch reform of education, then it makes perfect sense.
National’s defacto policy would be to move defense policy closer to America, thats a no brainer I would have thought.
If he announced it, Chimpkens would be all over it with a conspiracy theory or two, and the horses would neigh and shudder in their stalls thinking we were becoming a tool of the Americans.
It is obvious to any fool we need to rebuild our capability.
An easy policy statement for National would be the announcement of the formation of a drone force, following on from lessons from Ukraine, to provide an interservice capability, land, sea and air.
With sea drones who needs expensive figates
Well, there’s two possible reasons why National have zero defence policy:
or
Unfortunately, from my time on the inside of National, it is very clear to me that the second option is the major explanation, exacerbated by their fears from the first one. (So it’s both).
We don’t have to necessarily move closer to America, but National have to articulate what level of combat mass is credible for a country the size of NZ. Currently, it is pathetic – a cobbled together multi-role battalion group is the output, and we can’t even generate that!!!
Regarding drones – be careful with your expectations about what they can achieve. While they are no doubt a very necessary part of the modern battlefield, they are an addition, not a replacement of anything. Ships and land forces in particular will find them a combat multiplier, but they are not going to replace anything like the truck and armoured vehicle replaced the horse. They are good for reconnaissance and delivering small munitions. But they also have their own costs, requirements and vulnerabilities.
The technological shift drones have bought to the battle field are incalculable at this stage. The technology is in its infancy.
It could well replace some things, its hard to tell at this stage. But certainly a far superior investment than $6b Frigates, especially as an underway drone with a 1000km range may be able to hunt and kill subs.
Just look at how I was shot down by all you military types 6-9 months ago when they first appeared…….
Now you cant fight without them. I at least hope someone in our military is thinking about getting on board with it.
Clearly the Ukrainians have shown the path, and the cost benefit of such devices.
As for National I hope they are thinking about Defense, but one undeniable fact is they will have a shit load of stuff to think about either way
I’m very wary of people promising ‘revolutions in military affairs’ every time a technological development occurs.
Clearly, drones are here to stay and NZ needs to get on board – there is no lack of willingness from NZDF to do this, but there is a lack of $$ and willpower in the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet to fund them.
No navy in the world is contemplating replacing frigates with them. Many, however, are equipping frigates (and other sized ships) with them – again, something we need to get on board with.
Ukraine vs Russia looks like it is conceptually becoming more and more like the trenches in Western France in 1915, strong defences on either side absorbing any manoeuvrist or attritional approach, regardless of technological developments. Drones are playing a role, but clearly not a decisive one.
A drone force? What a great idea. Fill it with Labour Part drones and watch them shoot each other in the foot. Give them lots of ammunition.
I suspect Chris Penk will be the next Defence Minister and will have immediate credibility with our close Allies. He has the strongest credentials in the role since Mark Mitchell’s grandfather ACDRE Frank Gill, probably more in the maritime domain which was was his military specialisation.
James Christmas who is on the list is the legal high flyer will go straight into Cabinet as the Attorney General which has been Penk’s most recent shadow role.
I hope you are right on both counts.
Chris Penk was an excellent opposition spokesman on defence, who frequently spoke up for us and had his finger very much on the pulse. A retired LCDR submariner (he jumped ship to the RAN from the RNZN so he could drive subs), he brings credibility to the role which has been sorely neglected.
(As an aside, the minister of defence who garnered the most respect in the NZDF in recent years was actually Phil Goff. You don’t have to have experience in the military to be a good MoD, but it does help).
I got to know James Christmas a few years ago. He has a brain the size of a small planet. A very capable high flyer. And a genuinely nice guy! It’d be a big call to make a novice MP the AG, but as Chris Finlayson’s protege, he will certainly go very far.
Bill English and John Key stole Christmas from Findlayson and had him working the national security and intelligence portfolio too. The AG role is one that an outsider can be co-opted into Cabinet through the party list as in the case of Wilson and later Findlayson. In a way the role is as much a legal advisor to the Executive as it is a political one. Christmas is well capable of doing the job as he is more than a suburban solicitor.
I am of the view that the specialist expertise that Penk can bring into the Defence portfolio is now needed more than ever as the role of Defence whether NZ wants to recognise it or not (they don’t have a choice) is going to require to play a much more concerted level of both expertise and importance than in previous governments. In fact I would like to see the Associate role also return to support the workload that will be required.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
ACT’s spokesperson on Defence, Jamie McDowell, is not seeking re-election and he has been the driving force for their defence policy up until now. ACT have Major Ben Harvey in their list at number 15 on their list – a Royal New Zealand Signals Corps officer. I can’t see him being appointed to Cabinet in his first term (especially from the junior coalition partner), but maybe there might be scope for some input.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Heather Roy was the last associate minister of defence? Closely supported by former TF Lt Col Simon Ewing-Jarvie as her advisor? That all fell apart under Rodney Hide and other internal party shenanigans. But she was passionate about the portfolio and brought some energy and drive to things.
I’d actually like to see Defence be its own select committee in Parliament. Being bundled together with Foreign Affairs and Trade dilutes the effort which all parties give it.
But yes, an associate minister could look specifically at things like major projects, tri-service cooperation or other things in more depth than a sole charge minister (who is often burdened with other portfolios in recent years).
I see Christmas is 28 on the list, behind Catherine Wedd (23) and Katie Nimon (22) which does not seem to reflect his talent you aindicate he has. I thought he would have been in at least the first 10/15.
Admittedly both Wedd (a certainty) and Nimon (likely) should win their respective seats of Tukituki and Napier.
I have always respected Penk – in my view he should be on the front bench and giving him Defence makes sense given what you say about him and ticks the riight boxes as far as Defence is concerned.
Yes Heather Roy was never replaced as pretty much Key seemed to favour the Caspers. They never suffered the flatlining budgets Defence suffered.
Another newbie is WGCDR Tim Costley is looking like a good bet in the Otaki electorate and is currently CO of the Flight Training Wing. He has a Master’s Degree in International Defence and Security from the UK which again provides for additional expertise within caucus that can complement the more politically experienced Penk.
I found that Dr McDowell was someone who quickly got up to speed on what is a very complex portfolio area and was disappointed that he decided politics was not his vocation. At 15 on the ACT list Ben Harvey has a real show in getting in.
Completely agree that Defence should have its own select committee separate from Foreign Affairs and Trade or at least pair off to join the Intelligence and Security Committee.
BTW Major Star will you get around to writing your comments with respect to the recent
Defence Policy and Strategy Statement? I have been waiting for it to drop and interested on your thoughts concerning the development of the NZ Army over the next decade or two in light of the DPSS release by Andrew Little. The context and structure of the Land Domain and how it will sit within an NZDF which is likely to have a greater Maritime Domain emphasis.
Yep getting round to it now! There is a fair bit to say on it. Just got back from an extended period away on duty so having now caught my breath, I’m back to posting my thoughts for the thousands of readers here!