They are certainly not like this guy.
www.nzherald.co.nz
From the scuttle butt ive heard it might be 12 now but there are more that are not happy and they occupy very understaffed roles. I get the gist that for some its the straw on the domedary rather than a sole issue and they are generally just fed up with leadership, how they are treated and shape of defence force.
At the very least they could be considered to be providing "restricted service" and administratively discharged following a "notice to show cause" process (if the NZDF has one similar to the ADF).
The operative word is SOME rights and freedoms. The AFDA71 and the DA90 also must be read (as outlined in the principle of s5 of the Interpretation Act 1999) in conjunction with the BORA90 and HRA93.
The is no chance of mutiny charges sticking here.
Section 57A of the DA90 will likely be used - meaning that the CDF just gets rid of them (discharges) under 4-156 for endangering other members of the Defence Force.
That is interesting. 12 can be down the road easy enough. But 200+ using the BORA and the HRA as a shield and making public through court evidence NZDF employment issues and general dissatisfaction that is different. The dilemma is back in the NZDF's court.
www.buzzsprout.com
Another interesting aspect is that NZ msm coverage appears to be "positive" i.e. between neutral and understanding/supportive eg acknowledging the rising influence of CCP in the wider region hence these new strategic developments etc, even appearing to highlighting the fact that NZ is not being included! It's even made talkback radio and the callers so far are supportive and wanting NZ to be more proactive and to do more with our allies!
I'd say good luck with (2) that won't end well for NZ, and its pretensions of an independent foreign policy, but to be honest the current generation of rank stupidity at present in the NZ political elite have not being able to see past our external relations settings as nothing more than trade access, are likely to think that is a great option. That trade access to our "allies" in and around the Indo-Pacific might not be so easy going forward, and if the tempo of prescribed and targeted economic and trade sanctions are increased against the PRC, which have already started per Canada, US and the EU, over the PRC in areas such as Human Rights but moves into punishment over egregious behavior in the SCS et al, the whole trade silo mentality and "independent foreign policy" trope will implode on itself.
Imagine though if this was started by Trump. NZ aligns itself much more easily with a Democrat president than with a republican one.
We can do much more by ramping up areas which have been left to atrophy in the Air and Maritime domains, speed up the Space domain roll-out would be the first touchstones to explore. Submarines are a very distant concept, when there is so much more that can and should be done. That would be the message that Canberra would probably think would be more helpful.
At an OZ government level it has been more frustration than looking down their noses. Frustration in that the additional strategic weight that NZ could add if it could get off its arse and contribute more than anything else.
www.nzherald.co.nz
This type of statement is to be expected from a political class known for their incompetence in understanding geo-political changes.
I would not say we offer nothing to India - we do in some niche areas. But you are right about the current ability of this government to achieve anything other than their one trick lock-down pony. On the trade front they have not managed to sign an FTA with the UK and the India deal has gone no where.
My view is that the Australian government has done NZ a favour in that it will force the current NZ government to do something. It wont happen overnight because it will have to shape the narrative of the great uninterested unwashed.
We as a nation are now sailing into dangerous waters
www.newshub.co.nz
I think that any Kiwi politician or Party who campaigned on repealing the antinuke legislation would be committing political suicide, even today. There are two people who we have to thank for that Geoffrey Palmer and George Schultz. Lange was in the UK at the time doing his famous Oxford debate - "Come closer. I can smell the uranium on your breath" quip came from there. Palmer was acting PM. When the US submitted the USS Buchanan visit request Palmer asked if it was nuclear powered or armed. Under US policy they refused to confirm nor deny so Palmer refused the request without any further consideration.Good write up on Newshub examining new AUKUS pact on NZ and its place in (this part of) the world.
(Also clears up some of the misreporting by NZ Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young, who gets it wrong again by claiming NZ "opted out" etc).
AUKUS's impact on NZ: Will new defence pact impact nuclear-free stance, Five Eyes?
It is being described as a "landmark event" - but how may it affect New Zealand.
At this stage NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's are viewing the new pact and RAN planned nuclear submarine acquisition via the lens of NZ's anti-nuclear posture, as it is.
But I would like to see NZ's defence and foreign affairs analyst's examining the practicality nowadays of a 35 year-old piece of legislation that was for a different time and different strategic environment. (Because clearly both major NZ political parties Labour and National won't ... unless pressure is applied to them).
Particularly when NZ's closest neighbor and to quote our own politicians "NZ's important and only formal defence ally" will have a capability that in theory won't be able to interact with the NZDF (within NZ waters). Is this wise, in these uncertain times?
I also take note and agree with Mr C's comments in the RAN thread that "As for subs there really is no tangible strategic reason for them to visit nor really the Carriers. It really is not an issue". I agree, it would make no sense for the RAN (nuc sub) to make a visit to a NZ port and expose the whereabouts of a high-value strategic asset (especially when such subs are relatively close to their own home nation - why stop again when only a couple of thousand miles away, when going on a long-range deployment etc).
But NZ's old and outdated legislation potentially puts NZ at odds with it's closest economic and defence partner, Australia, and could be viewed as somewhat insulting (and impractical) by our neighbour. I'm sure NZ's defence analyst's could put up some good arguments to amend the legislation, that would force NZ politicians to review and make changes.
Let alone recognition of the changing strategic environment that NZ is in now, compared to the 1980's, in which protagonists entirely operate in NZ's wider backyard.