Defence is one of the least important policies to New Zealand voters in the run up to any election. It has been this way for decades, and despite my fervent wishes, is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is unsurprising that the major party heading up the coalition for a second election in a row had neither a defence spokesperson nor any defence policies in their manifesto.
Tim van de Molen was the National party spokesperson (he took over from the very energetic and astute Chris Penk who was landing some solid hits on Peeni Henare, the worst defence minister in living memory. I still don’t understand why he was shuffled on…). After he was sacked from all his portfolios, Defence was given to Gerry Brownlee, along with a host of others, and despite him being destined to be Speaker.
So it was a bit of a surprise to see Judith Collins pick up the role of Minister of Defence. Not a total surprise – she wanted it under John Key, but he said at the time that having her be Minister of Police and Minister of Defence at the same time was too much power in one hand!!!! She has finally got her wish, and it’s notable that she comes from a defence electorate, with Papakura camp in her area (that’s the SAS).
Making a welcome return is an Associate Minister of Defence – Chris Penk! I’m a big fan of him, as are many other servicepeople. He is very much ‘one of us’ who gets it. A former RNZN officer who jumped across to Australia to drive submarines before retraining as a lawyer, he is smart, engaged and fully aware of the issues plaguing the NZDF. Clearly Judith will need an associate – alongside Defence, she is also Attorney-General (not normally a part-time role), Minister for GSCB and SIS, and minister responsible for ‘digitising the government’.
So it’s a thumbs up to National for appointing a very capable and senior minister to this portfolio, assisted by a very capable and aware junior minister (outside of cabinet). Maybe in future we will see Chris Penk promoted to be Minister of Defence, allowing Judith Collins to focus on A-G?
But what about policies? I’ve looked through the coalition agreements, there is not a single mention of anything defence-related at all. The only thing coming close is the agreement with NZ First to look at a dry dock in Whangarei, to support RNZN ships. Let’s compare this to the minor parties’ manifestos prior to the election:
NZ First:
Defence is a core government function as we have never been in a benign strategic environment. Defence is vital for the vast area of the world we occupy, as well as in foreign affairs, and with Humanitarian and Disaster Relief; domestic or international. New Zealand’s continental shelf is far larger than our EEZ being over six-times the land area of New Zealand at around 1.7 million square kilometres. This is dwarfed by our 30 million square kilometre Maritime Area of Responsibility that’s more than three times the land area of Canada, extends from the mid-Tasman to halfway to Chile, and from the South Pole to almost the Equator.
Policy:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
- Progressively increase real Defence spending to reach 2% of GDP by 2030
- Establish a permanent, ring-fenced Defence Capital Fund as part of the Budget to fund defence capability and estate procurement
- Instruct NZDF uniformed staff to deliver a tri-service Defence Command Paper based on what New Zealand needs and when. This plan will be expected to establish tri-service long term size, structure and equipment needs
- Continue to support the role the New Zealand Defence Force plays in youth development
- Establish the New Zealand Border Protection Force combining functions of the New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Customs Service and Immigration New Zealand to coordinate the protection of our borders from biosecurity incursions
- Undertake a fundamental review of military medals and honours
Nothing close to that in any agreement! I once sat across Ron Mark at a lunch when he was Minister of Defence. He tried telling me that he couldn’t understand why NZDF didn’t vote NZF in much greater numbers that we do. Well, maybe it’s because we grew tired of NZF talking big and delivering nothing. After all, it was NZF who scuppered the third ANZAC Class Frigate first time round, and NZF who put Labour in charge last time round, scuppering all of National’s (quite decent) defence policies in 2017.
What about ACT? They talked a big game before the election, and had the very energetic and hawkish Dr Jamie McDowall as their Defence spokesperson, before he decided he had enough of politics. Look at this release from a couple of years ago:
“ACT is pleased to see that National Party members have read ACT’s Real Change Budget and supported a remit to adopt our policy of raising defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP,” says ACT’s Defence spokesperson Dr James McDowall.
“Politik reported yesterday that a delegate at the National Party’s Lower North Island conference proposed a remit to match Australia’s proportion of GDP spent on defence, and that the remit passed.
“This support at a grassroots level is welcome and we now call on the Party to make it official policy.
“It’s great to have this support and it bodes well for a centre-right Government. This is a necessary change to put us in line with our allies and protect us in a dramatically changing geopolitical environment.
“China now has a foothold in the Pacific. Labour agrees that the world is changing but they don’t know what to do and they’re too busy wasting money on poorly targeted spending.
“ACT says we should follow the NATO target and methodology. It would see $7.5 billion in extra capital expenditure over the next four years, this is almost double what Labour would spend.
“Our Defence force is full of hardworking Kiwis who want to protect and serve their country. We need to give our brave men and women the tools and resources they need. This kind of targeted spending would send a message to the rest of the world.
“Now that National is on board with ACT’s policy we hope that Labour also do the right thing and announce it as part of this week’s Budget.”
https://www.act.org.nz/act_thanks_national_for_defence_policy_support
What was unsaid in this press release is that the Lower North Island remit committing National to raising defence spending was scuppered by Party HQ, and was not addressed at all in the AGM. There was no significant support for defence from National, just silence.
In ACT’s alternative budget, it immediately lifted spending to 1.5% of GDP, with a long term goal of reaching 2% by 2030. Nothing like that in the coalition agreement though.
There have been no policies announced by the new government on anything defence-related. There needs to be a follow up to the 2023 Defence Policy and Strategy Statement – in face, the DPSS specifically calls for a future capability planning process, the next part being the Future Force Design. Andrew Little never got a chance to put that out, so now it is up to Judith Collins to be more specific with how big our Defence Force needs to be to produce what size output, with what equipment. There have been some promising developments, with Babcock committing to present its Arrowhead as a solution to replace the Frigates:
In response to the New Zealand Ministry of Defence’s industry engagement request to replace the current naval fleet, Babcock Australasia held a suppliers’ day for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in New Zealand aspiring to undertake work to support the delivery of company’s Arrowhead solution.
Babcock Australasia confirmed that it will formally present its proven Arrowhead platform as the future solution for the Royal New Zealand Navy.
https://defsec.net.nz/2023/10/26/babcock-confirms-arrowhead-platform-as-future-solution/
But we need more than just an announcement of interest in replacing the Frigates. Here is Major Star’s wish list of defence matters to address:
- A viable solution for three frigates for the RNZN. This needs an increase in recruitment and retention (we can only staff one Frigate right now), as well as vastly upgraded infrastructure at Devonport. (And no, Shane Jones, moving the base to Whangarei to buy you a seat is not a good idea).
- A replacement of HMNZS Canterbury, capable of lifting a bit more than the motorised company which we currently have.
- An army equipped and staffed to be able to deploy a full multi-role combat brigade, to a similar standard as the Australian Army. Our current output is a motorised infantry battlegroup, which in my opinion needs to be at least three times as big!
- An Air Force with a remit expanded to anything including space, cyber and digital. Don’t bother with a combat wing, too expensive to regenerate. Instead, they can lead anything in the space, cyber and digital domains. Furthermore, if their ab initio training and career progression training is aligned / merged with army training (the NCO courses and the Grade II and Grade III in particular), then we might actually turn them into a military force after all.
- A tri-service military academy, to replace the ad hoc and poorly resourced officer training currently conducted by each service individually.
- A reinvigoration of the role of service chiefs, reversing the centralisation of HR, logistics, training (NZ Defence College has been an unmitigated disaster), health, military policing, estate and infrastructure, capability development and HQ JFNZ. Service chiefs are currently little more than figureheads who must go cap in hand to civilian bureaucrats and the other services to build a committee to take four years to deliver something out of date and over budget.
- Fix defence housing and barracks. Implement something like Defence Housing Australia.
- Fix defence infrastructure. Our camps and bases are a disgrace.
Let’s see if any of that comes up in anything National says or does. I won’t hold my breath, but with Collins and Penk at the helm, dare I say there are promising signs after too much malaise and neglect from National and Labour?
Pretty depressing across the board. I expect nothing from the Left on this of course, although I see a few like “Bomber” Bradbury talking about the need for a good Defence force to protect us from all those Climate Change refugees 🙄
My take is that to start having hope all it would need would be for some serious money to be budgeted to fix up the camps and bases for you poor bastards, and then really follow that up with armies (fleets !!! 🙂 ) of builders. In the grand scheme of the budget it’s a rounding error but it would mean so much at the personal level and would show commitment far beyond announcing the purchase of new bang-bang machines (even if that ultimately does matter more).
Excellent MS.
I have some thoughts re this and will email you later in the day or this evening.
Given my knowledge of Submarines comes from Tom Clancy and various old world war 2 books I have the clear impression that Chris Penk is too tall to be a submarine crew member – let alone the `driver’ (is that Captain) of one.
Generally agree with most of your wish list however wanting to do an OZ Army Plan BEERSHEBA and turn the NZ Army into a deployable Multi-Role Brigade Group is way too ambitious and in fact now dead as the ADF are walking it back fast in light of their recent Defence Review.
It would have required an Army of at least 12000 RF and 6000 TF if we were also wanting to generate a concurrent LTG size regional HADR response and a Task Element sized NZSOF response to a SASO situation.
The Australian Army is to now focus on combat in the littorals with long-range fire support (HIMARS & NASAM are a huge part of this refocusing), calling for the Army to ‘re-posture key capabilities’. The self propelled Howitzers are going to be canned and the emphasis is becoming more light, agile, precise and amphibious.
Plan ANZAC, which we signed up for with the OZ Army in April this year after consultation with the ADF and INDOPAC is a better and dare I say it more realistic ambition considering the restraints on manpower, where we would be able to generate a Battle Group within a coalition formation and other components where and as when required. Yet still be able to respond with deployed LTG’s and TE’s when necessary.
Also completely disregarding air combat capability is an oversight. No other military platform possesses the ability to be placed into an operational vignette across the air, maritime, and land domains and be able to generate anything near the same level of dynamic military effects, both kinetic and non-kinetic, with such speed, agility, range, precision, networkability and role flexibility that a modern multi-role tactical air combat platform provides to a taskforce commander – period.
Interesting. It would be even more interesting if you could translate some of those terms. Yes, I could look them up on the Interwebby – but I’m a very lazy man. 🙂
Here is a Glossary just for you Tom for your future reference. Apologies for using shop talk abbreviations.
LTG – Light Task Force (Around the size of a Company)
TE – Task Element (Around the size of a Platoon)
HIMARS – High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
NASAM – National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System
HADR – Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
ADF – Australian Defence Force
INDOPAC – Abrev of United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)
Much appreciated. Thanks. HIMARS I knew. 🙂
The lessons of the war in Ukraine are now more than self evident, where a small power is defeating a larger power.These lessons need to frame our “new” defense policy.As I mentioned a year or so ago the drone has and is revolutionizing warfare. I am sure the Ukranians havent finioshed us yet more innovations.So I see it ths way:
One. Rebuild the infantry to a small but useable force that packs a punch with a range of anti tank, anti infantry weapons, backed by drone recon. Those weapons to include the RPG, a cheap and effective weapon.. Airforce. Yes we need a strike force as Udea states, F16 or some suitable highly available platform that wont cost the earth but has a ready supply of parts.
The anti submarine aspect has to be develpoed and deepened.
Navy. We can afford frigates, we cant man Frigates and thirdly I doubt we can maintain them. We already have a very effective supposedly in shore boat built in Wangerai, about 50m I believe, Moa class with a crew of 36. I think we should develop our own Corvette force, somewhere in the 50 – 150m class and build them over 10 years or so in Whangerai.I understand they cost $36m each, we can afford say 10 Corvettes at $200m a piece. The kit must be easily upgradable.The side benefit would be moving the focus of the Navy to Whangarei.
They would be primarily anti submarine, but have built in drone platforms, and relatively low manning levels.Research shows that most effective Navies, eg Israel use these boats.
In conclusion NZ faces several issues that frame the debateDemographically we are screwed. I think socially economically we are screwed. The manpower source is on social welfare or sitting on the couch doped out of their mind.Economically we are screwed for the forseeable future and defense needs to be framed within what resouces we have. Frigates consuming a large part of our GDP are simply not a viable option. Why they are continually pumped them is beyond me. Especially when a “corvette ” class could be developed in NZ.But we need a Defense Force and I hope the incoming Govt can address these issues, and I hope the military mind can adapt to the new realities facing warfare and our country.Over the top chaps, Good luck and Tally Ho