kiwi in exile
Active Member
Im sure that they will let the Ukranians know that the plates and helmets are also useful in HADR and in work with other gov't agencies
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Wasn't that the selling point govt made for the SOPV which is now on hold? What of the Canterbury replacements, are they going to be on hold too?
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Incredibly benign strategic environment/earthquake recovery/covid recovery doncha know? Pick your excuse and any excuse will do.
NZ politicians are not going to pay for better defence capabilities unless its lack has a personal impact on them, and it does not matter what party they are from.
Yes should only take a few words, this should cover it: "Cobber, grow some balls and start spending some farking money where it counts"
To be honest does Australia really expect much from NZ anymore... they're moving into a whole different stratosphere in defence with AUKUS etc, so it might just be about the tea & bikkies!
Not really very much. We're still more than happy to accept their Defence Force members for the dedicated and competent mob they are, but politicians that leave *them* out on a limb and lecture *us* about our failings are getting a bit tiresome.
oldsig
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I am sure Minister Dutton will be asking what this statement actually means from our Minister.
'As this will be my first opportunity to travel, I look forward to meeting New Zealand’s key bilateral defence partners and exchanging ideas on regional security. This visit aligns with my Defence priorities of “Pacific”, by exploring how can we achieve greater defence coordination between Pacific partners, and “People”, through continuing cooperation with defence partners, including identifying ways to regenerate New Zealand’s Defence Force readiness and capability in a post COVID-19 world '
I imagine Dutton's answer would be along the lines of less BS talk and more concrete action! Commitment to an alliance needs to be demonstrated.
'As this will be my first opportunity to travel, I look forward to meeting New Zealand’s key bilateral defence partners and exchanging ideas on regional security. This visit aligns with my Defence priorities of “Pacific”, by exploring how can we achieve greater defence coordination between Pacific partners, and “People”, through continuing cooperation with defence partners, including identifying ways to regenerate New Zealand’s Defence Force readiness and capability in a post COVID-19 world '
I imagine Dutton's answer would be along the lines of less BS talk and more concrete action! Commitment to an alliance needs to be demonstrated.
well, at the end of the Cold War NZ had a defence capability arguably commensurate with its scope of influence.
I suggest the reason for NZs subsequent atrophy is because Australia expected nothing tangible from them, especially now.
Im thinking that’s pretty arrogant of Australia, but it’s left NZ at a loose end at the end of the Australasian archipelago.
- is it really such a surprise they’re funded for their local issues and broader strategic capability tokenism?
There is in practicality no such thing as an ‘Australian Theatre’ is inevitably an AustNZ Theatre.
Theres no such thing as a ‘NZ Theatre‘, it’s an AustNZ Theatre.
Yet there is zero recognition of this linkage capability-wise.
NZ does what it does cos it’s been unquestioned to do so.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure the above is really accurate.
IIRC prior to the deletion of the ACF, some RNZAF A-4K's were based at Nowra/HMAS Albatross to train with & against ADF personnel. The maritime strike capabilities of the A-4K's piloted by RNZAF pilots were very good, and as such provided excellent training opportunities in air defence for RAN warship crews. Once the ACF was disbanded, the ADF had to re-task Australian pilots and aircraft to provide the same training.
If that example of the RNZAF A4s was so integral then why was it disbanded?
not suggesting it wasn’t beneficial, but the NZG disbanded it cos it did not feature relevant enough as a capability in the bigger picture focus of Australia, and certainly in NZ, who no doubt wondered why they’d even bother and in the end didn’t!
If Australia expected a level of capability then I suggest there would’ve been an incentive to maintain it.
- What did the Aust govt do as a response, they moved on.
not suggesting it wasn’t beneficial, but the NZG disbanded it cos it did not feature relevant enough as a capability in the bigger picture focus of Australia, and certainly in NZ, who no doubt wondered why they’d even bother and in the end didn’t!
If Australia expected a level of capability then I suggest there would’ve been an incentive to maintain it.
- What did the Aust govt do as a response, they moved on.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I have to disagree with the above, as IMO NZ disbanding the ACF had everything to do with politics.
Of course the then NZG made the decision, but
Do we believe that Australia said “no no!” and tried to persuade the then NZ to retain the capability?
Was there a recognition in Australia that retaining the NZ air combat capability was imperative to the collective good of both nations, or was it regarded as just a local NZ decision thing?
no such luck everyone's friend Helen was in charge and I believe I read somewhere on this forum that she was watching the A4 come ashore with a whole bunch of the loopy left and she said if she ever got the opportunity she would get rid of them.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Even if the then AusGov had attempted to persuade the NZ Labour gov't under Clarke to retain an ACF, if the NZ GotD still decided to axe the ACF without replacement, there would have been very little that Australia could have done. Keep in mind also that the ACF was disbanded without replacement after the Labour gov't had already canceled the lease of 28 early block F-16 A/B Falcons from the US signed by the preceding National-led gov't.
If one also looks at subsequent Defence budgets and purchases it should also become apparent Defence was not where gov't wanted to spend money, and even when they finally would spend some coin, it would not be on combat capabilities..
Oh bollocks. Victim blaming at it's best, because it assumes that NZ doesn't have the brains and balls to see what is needed and then get up and go get it and needs Australia to tell it.
Good luck with that. Chippie NZ politicians for generations have bought votes by bitching about what Australia has or hasn't done and anything more than a mild, back channel diplomatic request would be met with accusations of big brother bullying.
oldsig
The reason the the ACF was disbanded was simply due to the fixed agenda of Helen Clark the PM. who had that agenda foe the previous 30 years. She had been part of a small protest goup when they arrived and in the middle of the 1980's is reputed to have said that if she was eve in a position to get rid of them, she would, and when she made PM she did, ccontary to the advice given. (may have scuttled her chances when she went for the UN secretary general, as who would want someone who would not listen in that job.
The replacement F16's for the A4's wee due to arrive the following year and comment from the RAAF on this was very favourable
I’m not sure I agree that Australia has expected nothing from NZ…
We have expected substantial support (and received it…) in operations in Timor, Soloman Islands and Tonga most recently as well as many places elsewhere…
We have expected NZ to pull her weight in international affairs and we expected NZ to maintain combat capabilities in areas of likely involvement, such as maritime and land warfare, Special Operations and so forth.
I’m sure we expected NZ to pull her weight proportionately in most areas of defence related issues, but we have been disappointed that NZ has repeatedly refused to do so, to the point where it seems we almost entirely ignore NZ when it comes to our defence decisions and basically have ever since NZ unilaterally decided to not pursue a 3rd ANZAC surface combatant and divested itself entirely of it’s air combat force, noting the utter futility in expecting modern day NZ to even attempt to seriously provide for it’s own defence…
I’m accepting that the NZG ultimately makes its own decisions.
im accepting that various Govts are biased in their motivations.
I suggest that in the absence of imperatives to the contrary, they have a free hand to run with their agendas.
If Australia had lobbied strong enough, might it have put the GOTD to reconsider the ramifications of their ideology?
Did the govt make other seemingly unpalatable (to them) decisions under similar pressures?
My own observations is that NZ atrophied it’s capabilities because there wasn’t enough incentives from their allies to maintain them. Simply saying Clark did what she did, does not disprove that.
…….I guess if Australia was kicking & screaming but Clark ignored the advice, then that would be significant.
But I don’t think Australia did any kicking & screaming in defence of NZ capability.
(hope I’m explaining myself correctly, I’m writing on the run…)
im accepting that various Govts are biased in their motivations.
I suggest that in the absence of imperatives to the contrary, they have a free hand to run with their agendas.
If Australia had lobbied strong enough, might it have put the GOTD to reconsider the ramifications of their ideology?
Did the govt make other seemingly unpalatable (to them) decisions under similar pressures?
My own observations is that NZ atrophied it’s capabilities because there wasn’t enough incentives from their allies to maintain them. Simply saying Clark did what she did, does not disprove that.
…….I guess if Australia was kicking & screaming but Clark ignored the advice, then that would be significant.
But I don’t think Australia did any kicking & screaming in defence of NZ capability.
(hope I’m explaining myself correctly, I’m writing on the run…)
Yes I agree.
NZ have supplied valuable contributions as you say, to HADR and lower intensity operations.
not in any way discounting that.
I imagine we were quite ticked off when they chose not to pursue their options on the additional 2 ANZAC vessels they originally contracted for and their subsequent decision not to acquire a 3rd ANZAC vessel by purchasing an existing RAN vessel OR a third newly built ANZAC vessel, yet still got their contracted workshare for the program, based on earlier plans to acquire 30% of the total vessel build numbers…
Not to mention the reality that we would have to bear the responsibility in the Oceania region for any serious military contingency, given NZ’s divestiture of meaningful capabilities that would allow them to take on the responsibility or at least substantially assist us…
But would a more vocal effort from us politically and diplomatically have changed the ideological (not economic or military) mindset that led to these decisions?
Highly unlikely. Only a genuine and direct military threat could possibly do that and their strategic planning base of hoping (with fingers and toes crossed…) that such never happens, has worked out pretty well for them so far…
Last edited:
Wombat,
It occurred over two decades ago, but my recollection is that not many people survived challenging Ms Clark on anything (witness the sad case of David Dickens, then director of the Wellington think-tank the Centre for Strategic Studies, who opposed her on the F-16 deal. He lost his job and was labelled a 'National Party Hack' for expressing his views). Australia tried fairly hard to get NZG to change its mind on defence policy, but Clark wouldn't hear any of it. It wasn't just Labour though, National had been running things down seriously for nearly a decade (while pretending to field a 'balanced force' - by the time Labour got in, something had to give (and that wasn't going to be an increase in the defence budget, hence the major capability loss).
----
The news regarding Peeni Henare gets worse: in addition to talks with Peter Dutton, he is also giving a speech to the Australian War College and participating in a roundtable discussion at ASPI. That should be hilarious. Cheekily, I'm wondering if the real reason he is 'on tour' is that if he shows his face at the MoD after the SOPV & MIQ-manning debacles, someone is likely to toss him from a high-storey window.
Henare quote for today: "I'm strictly focused on defence" (link)
It occurred over two decades ago, but my recollection is that not many people survived challenging Ms Clark on anything (witness the sad case of David Dickens, then director of the Wellington think-tank the Centre for Strategic Studies, who opposed her on the F-16 deal. He lost his job and was labelled a 'National Party Hack' for expressing his views). Australia tried fairly hard to get NZG to change its mind on defence policy, but Clark wouldn't hear any of it. It wasn't just Labour though, National had been running things down seriously for nearly a decade (while pretending to field a 'balanced force' - by the time Labour got in, something had to give (and that wasn't going to be an increase in the defence budget, hence the major capability loss).
----
The news regarding Peeni Henare gets worse: in addition to talks with Peter Dutton, he is also giving a speech to the Australian War College and participating in a roundtable discussion at ASPI. That should be hilarious. Cheekily, I'm wondering if the real reason he is 'on tour' is that if he shows his face at the MoD after the SOPV & MIQ-manning debacles, someone is likely to toss him from a high-storey window.
Henare quote for today: "I'm strictly focused on defence" (link)
Last edited: