Um yep, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points other than the 1 point about why the populace are generally ignorant, and I certainly agree with your points about fake news, propaganda etc.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Um yep, I'm not disagreeing with any of your points other than the 1 point about why the populace are generally ignorant, and I certainly agree with your points about fake news, propaganda etc.
Hello esteemed contributors.
I have raised the concept of a joint NZ & Aust 'capability agreement' a few times before, but always received a cool response.
I'm asking why this concept doesn't seem to engender more support?
I suppose I could've also asked this on the ADF thread, and the principle is not necessarily confined to Aust & NZ either.
The rationale is that whilst not restricting unilateral national actions, such a co-ordinated capability plan would better structure the deployed capabilities each partner provides to the combined effort.
Any action against one inevitably involves the other, as has always existed as both nations are intrinsically linked geographically, strategically, historically and culturally.
Concerns of NZ popular passivism in the face of effected conflict I think are overblown, historically NZ has been a definitive contributor to any 'ANZAC' venture, and I think there's no reason to suggest the future will be any different. Whilst there may be many social pressures on the budget, I feel that every NZder would, in the end of the day, value a commensuratly strong appropriate Defence capability, especially if in the construct of an jointly defined ANZAC capability structure.
It just hasn't happened yet, in a maintained sense.
Factors would be developed and defined. Such as for example:
-Questions of Frigate numbers or even their presence would be resolved. Their default joint mission statements would be clarified and be equiped accordingly.
-Minimum standards of army deployed preparedness would be defined,
-RNZAF, even without ACF could evolve perhaps numbers to move a defined allied formation, creation of niche capability specialties to act in concert with its obvious allied partners.
I guess perhaps I'm describing a NATO-esque arrangement for the Australasian/Sth Pac region.
Surely this is logical, as opposed to trying to fashion a capability stew at the time, with piecemeal capability that is available.
This seems intuitive, but it's not seemingly a popular concept.
I ask the fellow contributors, why not?
Cheers.
I have raised the concept of a joint NZ & Aust 'capability agreement' a few times before, but always received a cool response.
I'm asking why this concept doesn't seem to engender more support?
I suppose I could've also asked this on the ADF thread, and the principle is not necessarily confined to Aust & NZ either.
The rationale is that whilst not restricting unilateral national actions, such a co-ordinated capability plan would better structure the deployed capabilities each partner provides to the combined effort.
Any action against one inevitably involves the other, as has always existed as both nations are intrinsically linked geographically, strategically, historically and culturally.
Concerns of NZ popular passivism in the face of effected conflict I think are overblown, historically NZ has been a definitive contributor to any 'ANZAC' venture, and I think there's no reason to suggest the future will be any different. Whilst there may be many social pressures on the budget, I feel that every NZder would, in the end of the day, value a commensuratly strong appropriate Defence capability, especially if in the construct of an jointly defined ANZAC capability structure.
It just hasn't happened yet, in a maintained sense.
Factors would be developed and defined. Such as for example:
-Questions of Frigate numbers or even their presence would be resolved. Their default joint mission statements would be clarified and be equiped accordingly.
-Minimum standards of army deployed preparedness would be defined,
-RNZAF, even without ACF could evolve perhaps numbers to move a defined allied formation, creation of niche capability specialties to act in concert with its obvious allied partners.
I guess perhaps I'm describing a NATO-esque arrangement for the Australasian/Sth Pac region.
Surely this is logical, as opposed to trying to fashion a capability stew at the time, with piecemeal capability that is available.
This seems intuitive, but it's not seemingly a popular concept.
I ask the fellow contributors, why not?
Cheers.
I’ll put on my “quarter Kiwi” heritage hat on here.
Unless there is some sort of political (such as the EU) union (NZ really should have remained part of NSW
) then such a formal concept would diminish the independence of NZ. They are an extremely proud and ”different” nation.However, an informal agreement on capability would be a different proposition and to be honest, some already exists.
Go and read a rugby forum for ten minutes. Even when it would suit the All Blacks for the Wallabies to do well most fans will not bring themselves to admit it. They are a fiercely independent group balanced by a Kauri log on each shoulder and look on any agreement with suspicion.
There are other logics than mere mathematical logic
oldsig
G'day Wombat,
In theory, it probably could work, but unlike Australia there is no bipartisan agreement wrt defence. Most Kiwis are rather ambliviant about defence and it is a rather noisy far left minority who create the most drama about it, and they are also the virulent anti US faction as well. The real issue is that is no consistency in Kiwi defence policy, apart from the lack of funding allocated to defence, because each time there is a change of govt, defence and foreign policy lurches one way or the other. Therefore, the CoA would see such an undertaking as quite a risky concern, because experience has shown them that NZ has shown to be somewhat unreliable since the mid 1990s wrt to defence. I think that's why some of us have reservations about it.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
With Canada's defence attitudes being very similar to NZ's, the question of cooperation is answerable. NORAD is the example, the junior partner makes minimal contributions and the senior partner does all the heavy lifting. I am guessing Australia, unlike the US, would find a NORAD type arrangement unacceptable.
With all due respect to those in the NZDF, there is also a question as to whether the NZDF would add significant useful capability.
The ADF is going through a major modernisation program and there is no sign that the NZDF will do the same in the medium-term.
Regards,
Massive
At the present point in time, I would have to agree wrt most capabilities.
Ocean1Curse
Member
Decided to reply to RegR in the General thread rather than the RNZN thread because it's probablly way off topic.
I know this cost vs finance vs trade offs argument always comes up and I still think it's a b******t argument and I'm willing to die in a ditch to debate it. But I don't think you are b******t, of course not. I think the argument is b******t. Printing money for the NZDF is one of the only mandated reasons that printing money can be justified. The point is money isn't a problem when something is really important to the smooth running of the government.
My favourite example for identifying risk is the psychological game people play on Zebras to find out why lions don't hunt them. Some people tag Zebras with markers because their stripes make it difficult to single out a zebra. Much to there surprise the lion is able to attack the zebras that have been marked.
So it turns out the lion finds it difficult to target a single zebra but when you give them a target then it's dinner time. So that's my illustration of a nudge and what's a nudge - a nudge is something that attracts our attention and alters our behaviour and it comes down to values. So when should we shove and when should we nudge I think is a political judgment. Obviously in some situations we need shoves as in we need laws so we don't need just nudges. So if some corporal is found drunk at the wheel he is fined which is a push and then we may nudge him with some device that only allows the engine to start if he's got a breath-alcohol level of zero. So which direction we go on defence capabilities and funding will be a political issue where, of course, people differ.
I think the people who've been most underwhelming are the people who adhere to the trade-offs dogma and the reason is because we failed to learn the primary lesson of treasury when long-term-treasury-forecasts go belly up, and that is NZDF capabilities that seem uncorrelated can be correlated simply because we (you, I and everyone else) are interested in those defence capabilities. Now NZFD by its very nature does not produce revenue so applying routine business practices to NZDF seems completely unrelated to the pools of money that the NZDF has access to that very few government institutions would, but they are related simply because people are interested in profits.
So the world is much more correlated than we give it credit and we are seeing more Black Swan events because rare events are happening more often than they should because the world is more correlated. So I think one lesson we ought to learn is that there is a lot more risk than we are giving credit too.
You know I think one change that can be made is that people who make a lot of money out of defence so any one who has anything to do with VoteDefence and earns over $300,000 so pretty high up. I think a chunk of that should be differed. I think that would change the whole game. The money has to be differed with what's called claw-back which means if NZDF starts losing money they can get it back before there is any meaningful drop in overall funding. So if cuts to defence spending is justified then they better mean it. The taxpayer shouldn't pay for anything that is suboptimal. Y'know if people want to de-mobiles then they should have skin in the game and run things by a committee before decisions over capabilities should be actioned.
So I think that decision makers ought to learn the lessons of treasury or expect parliament to act because it's even more important now to get all this stuff correct. Y'know the number of patrol days for the Navy need to go up, the amount of men and material the Airforce has to project needs to go up, the amount of force projection needs to go up. So I think that if anyone wants to for example the top page of the DCP should have an auto-enrolment that says if you want to cut this or that, then we are going to pull money from your salary or make treasury print money and we're having it anyway, as a backstop. Auto-enrolment probably shouldn't be slipped into the DCP but Y'know someone's going to have to level up a huge amount in order to stitch up these deals from now on. But if they don't want to auto-enrole then a selection of decisions makers (MPs) can sign saying I don't want to join which goes on top of any deal and when they're in the proper position to cut spending or capability then they can do so because that's what the contract says. But if you're just Johnny come lately after 20 years into a 25 year defence capability plan with a whole bunch of treasury calculus then there has to be a device that clears them of there blood alcohol before they can Y'know, cut funding.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
$7,500,000,000 SURPLUS
The largest surplus in decades being reported in media and none of you Kiwis make a notation. This is amazing. Good job NZG. So the cutting of a new build littoral vessel had to happen because of a blowout in the frigate upgrade which went over budget. So somewhere along the way the government amasses a multi billion dollar surplus but undercutting programs and departments. Shameful.
2% of this surplus would have covered the frigate overage. So why is the SOPV being pushed out if this kind of money is available now?
The largest surplus in decades being reported in media and none of you Kiwis make a notation. This is amazing. Good job NZG. So the cutting of a new build littoral vessel had to happen because of a blowout in the frigate upgrade which went over budget. So somewhere along the way the government amasses a multi billion dollar surplus but undercutting programs and departments. Shameful.
2% of this surplus would have covered the frigate overage. So why is the SOPV being pushed out if this kind of money is available now?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
@Novascotiaboy ....Well I think Canada and NZ both have minimal defence percentage to GDP ratios. That being said, having the surplus you you mentioned for NZ is pretty impressive given the size of their economy, especially compared to junior's annual $20 billion deficits.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Not the first time we've posted Multi Billion dollar surpluses either, last year's was 3 Billion. I'm sure we've had others. So no excuses there for us.
I’ll put on my “quarter Kiwi” heritage hat on here.
Unless there is some sort of political (such as the EU) union (NZ really should have remained part of NSW
However, an informal agreement on capability would be a different proposition and to be honest, some already exists.
As a kiwi I wholeheartedly agree with you, in hindsight NZ should have joined the Commonwealth, but alas that time came and went. Section 6 of the Australian Constitution leaves the door open for NZ to become a state.
When you look back at the reasons why we didn't join the Commonwealth they really don't hold a lot of water today.
Why New Zealand did not become an Australian state
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yeah but wouldn't it be far more beneficial to us Kiwis than Austrailia, if that came about? Austrailia would have to completely reorganize our forces and theirs too somewhat, wouldn't they? And spend a lot more than the estimated 20 Billion on defence we are to get us up to speed. How does Austraila regard distribution of its forces then , would there be strategic value for Australia to base squadrons in New Zealand ? Ironically, most of my family live in Australia now.☺
Jeez there are some traitors on here who deserve to be well and truly locked in the naughty corner listening to Preceptor singing his greatest hits. 
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Distance has an effect over time IMO. Who to say that NZ, as state of Australia, still wouldn't develop an anti -defence bias and object to the amount of their tax dollars going towards defence. The false premise that remoteness minimizes the need for defence would likely develop in NZ and would possibly be sufficient for feeding a separatist movement out of the Commonwealth had they joined.
What I'm saying is we should have joined the Federation back in 1901, but we didn't, which was a very stupid decision IMO, it's too late to join Australia now, although legally we can.
I would think if we have federated with Australia in 1901 we would have a rather different society than the one we have today, we would be Australians not Kiwis for starters, our world view would be different, it would be Australian centric, in effect we would be completely different as one (or two states) than we are as an independent country.