NZDF General discussion thread

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Gibbo,

yes these points-of-view from New Zealand leaders are disappointing on a number of levels.

1. Together with the earlier article from Simon about the DPM&C National Security Strategy being framed for internal (read right-wing racist) threats, we see the continuing inability of our country to look beyond itself. This immature inwards-focus has infected us since the 1980's Anti-Nuclear madness that saw Kiwi thrown out of ANZUS, after what can only be called disastrous diplomacy.

2. Foreign Policy requires both Soft Power (you could argue this is what Mahuta, the PM, Key & Browniee are attempting) and Hard Power (6 frigate navy; ACF; balanced land including SPG etc but most of all consistent and adequate funding).

The main point is that NZ has ignored its own history and the worlds big boys rules, since Vietnam. For whatever reason it is content to rely on Hope as a strategy and has produced generations of political leaders who see nothing wrong with this rosy view. Can I say Bludgers too?

The upshot now is that the NZDF is not able to generate balanced maritime combat capability for an allied effort despite clear internal, external, historical, and diplomatic warnings. Without taking anything away from the mana of current personnel, it has also lost generations of warriors professional mastery, who could manage and guide an expansion.

I agree with you that based on these comments there is little evidence that Kiwi see's any need to change.
 

Simon Ewing Jarvie

Active Member
I logged in last night to the first of 2 webinars run by DPMC as part of public consultation for the national security strategy. I thought I would provide a summary here and if anyone else was online for it, please add more if you wish. It ran for an hour from 7-8pm headed by Tony Lynch, DCE Nat Sy Group. Six other members of his staff were involved. In short, it was a 45 min fluff piece and 15 mins of Q+A. The first 15 mins was about a vision of everyone working together to improve national security and especially pointing out that previous national security work hadn't explicitly acknowledged the Treaty, Maori/Crown relationship or acknowledged the role of Maori in Nat Sy. This was followed by two 15 min 'case studies'. One referred to the mosque attack and the Countdown supermarket stabbing attack. The second was the Waikato DHB ransomware attack. There was nothing in these presentations that can't be found on line and my takeaway from them was the officials saying they couldn't have done more than they did because of 'this and that reason.'

Then to Q+A. I asked 2 questions of the half dozen or so they had time for. First question was "What structural changes are envisaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels of govt in order to successfully execute the strategy under development?" As I expected, Tony Lynch pressed the 'structure follows strategy' escape button but then went on to say that they were looking at national security structural reform i.e. unblocking the machinery of govt and looking at the Royal Commission recommendation for an agency at the nexus of all Nat Sy and Int functions. If we achieve nothing else, that will be a huge step forward.

Second question was when they would have the strategy complete. There was a bit of side eyeing on this one but eventually he said that they planned to release it by middle of next year. just in time for the election I'm thinking. There is absolutely no reason why this document can't be finished this year. So if there any DPMC lurkers here - I'm happy to help put a JATO bottle on this project. Message me and I'll send you my rate card!

To be honest folks, unless they radically change the format to mostly Q+A, I wouldn't waste my time signing up for the next webinar.

Progress I know, but it's like watching your kids learn to walk.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I logged in last night to the first of 2 webinars run by DPMC as part of public consultation for the national security strategy. I thought I would provide a summary here and if anyone else was online for it, please add more if you wish. It ran for an hour from 7-8pm headed by Tony Lynch, DCE Nat Sy Group. Six other members of his staff were involved. In short, it was a 45 min fluff piece and 15 mins of Q+A. The first 15 mins was about a vision of everyone working together to improve national security and especially pointing out that previous national security work hadn't explicitly acknowledged the Treaty, Maori/Crown relationship or acknowledged the role of Maori in Nat Sy. This was followed by two 15 min 'case studies'. One referred to the mosque attack and the Countdown supermarket stabbing attack. The second was the Waikato DHB ransomware attack. There was nothing in these presentations that can't be found on line and my takeaway from them was the officials saying they couldn't have done more than they did because of 'this and that reason.'

Then to Q+A. I asked 2 questions of the half dozen or so they had time for. First question was "What structural changes are envisaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels of govt in order to successfully execute the strategy under development?" As I expected, Tony Lynch pressed the 'structure follows strategy' escape button but then went on to say that they were looking at national security structural reform i.e. unblocking the machinery of govt and looking at the Royal Commission recommendation for an agency at the nexus of all Nat Sy and Int functions. If we achieve nothing else, that will be a huge step forward.

Second question was when they would have the strategy complete. There was a bit of side eyeing on this one but eventually he said that they planned to release it by middle of next year. just in time for the election I'm thinking. There is absolutely no reason why this document can't be finished this year. So if there any DPMC lurkers here - I'm happy to help put a JATO bottle on this project. Message me and I'll send you my rate card!

To be honest folks, unless they radically change the format to mostly Q+A, I wouldn't waste my time signing up for the next webinar.

Progress I know, but it's like watching your kids learn to walk.
I am glad I didn't sign up then. This "public consultation" has all the appearances of going through the motions and IMHO in the end the public views will be conveniently ignored, especially if they contradict already held views and assumptions of the DPM&C officials drafting the NSS document. It is important that such a document should be drafted but first of all it should have cross party support and it should take the widest possible view of National Security, not the siloed prescribed view given by the Royal Commission.

A National Security Agency is a good idea, but before one is formed the legal definition of National Security and a National Security Strategy along with the associated Act of Parliament must be formulated and made law. Otherwise you are having the cart before the horse and it will be a complete fubar. It will be complicated legislation and the current government doesn't have a track record for drafting good quality legislation. I think that this is possibly because they don't appear to have someone in Cabinet who has a really good legal mind, like Chris Finlayson in the Key / English National govt, Margaret Wilson in the Clark govt, or Geoffrey Palmer in the Lange government. However David Parker did law at university. So I am not to worried if the draft isn't released until near the election because of that.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
WTF... not much to say about this really, other than don't expect any increase in Defence spending if this is how the Nats feel...
Hmm, I don't necessarily think that this is the way the current National Party thinks. Key is speaking from a personal interest because I strongly suspect that he has significant money invested in the PRC and such investments may be looking shaky now.
Bumbling Brownlee had already come out with a nugget of a similar vein. Yes politics but very relevant to this thread methinks!
Brownlie is somewhat out of touch here and IIRC he's retiring at the next election so his views will no longer hold weight within the caucus after that. In this particular case his political instincts have gone walkabout and such comments will not go unnoticed in Canberra and Washington. He or Luxon will have to walk these back and the sooner the better.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
It is important that such a document should be drafted but first of all it should have cross party support and it should take the widest possible view of National Security, not the siloed prescribed view given by the Royal Commission.
Where do you think (to steal the following phrase) "sovereign defence capability" comes into the National Security Strategy? If at all?

Obviously not truly "sovereign", as realistically and ideally NZ would need to link to Australian strategies (due to geographical closeness, existing shared commonalities and arrangements, and where as much as practical interoperability with defence assets, support and training etc), as we would be reliant on certain technological developments that we wouldn't or couldn't necessarily fully emmulate ourselves (for example complete high-tech munition or missile system production etc).

One advantage NZ has, as per the linked article above to an "engineering services and technology solutions company" is that Australian (and international) linkages already exist eg with regional offices here. But perhaps we could do more eg with technical training institutes and programmes being funded for this sort of focus (and have exchanges with our trans-Tasman industries)?

So could it be a matter of making the pollies understand there are other considerations such as this (and energy resilience etc) that must be factored in?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A National Security Strategy, as I see it, covers everything from security threats through to natural hazard threats to the Realm of NZ. So it covers things like the spook services (NZSIS, GCSB NZDIA etc.,) Defence, Civil Defence, threats to the economy, military and security threats, biological threats, natural hazards, (storms, cyclones, tsunami, inundation, volcanic events, seismic events, land slips etc.,) resilience, recovery etc. It's an all of government approach. Sovereign Defence Capability as such would be one part of it.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
In what I would call a unprecedented interview the CDF Air Marshall Kevin Short gave an interview on the dire state of the NZDF’s readiness and attrition crisis. Some great comments by ex DefMin Ron Mark, and a lack lustre statement from the office of the MinDef A very interesting article I’ll post when I’m able. For now, for those following along in NZ I recommend the Newshub play again tonight.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In what I would call a unprecedented interview the CDF Air Marshall Kevin Short gave an interview on the dire state of the NZDF’s readiness and attrition crisis. Some great comments by ex DefMin Ron Mark, and a lack lustre statement from the office of the MinDef A very interesting article I’ll post when I’m able. For now, for those following along in NZ I recommend the Newshub play again tonight.
Has TV3 / Newshub put a link up for it yet?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
This is a very serious situation, but it is not limited to Defence. The current financial situation is having impacts across the board, I expect next year it will really bite.
It is very telling that our Minister is not prepared to front up, has he ever? But I was very surprised that this interview even occurred.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Ministry of Defence has released a RFI for the integration of C4i suites into the NZ Bushmaster vehicles. Responses are to be submitted by 1400 NZDT 4th November 2022.

There is movement on the Northland Dry Dock. On 25th May a notice of a Future Procurement Opportunity was published on GETS by the Ministry of Transport.

The opportunity
The proposition of a dry dock large enough to service New Zealand’s bigger commercial vessels (e.g. interisland ferries) has been considered for several years. Currently, larger vessels need to travel offshore to Australia or Southeast Asia to get serviced, which presents resilience issues and produces additional carbon emissions. Northport have been progressing with their consenting process, but the question remains as to whether a dry dock is something that the Government should invest in. We are seeking your expertise to inform future decision making.
What we need
The Ministry is seeking an experienced provider familiar with the Treasury’s Detailed Business Case process to lead work exploring the case for Government supporting the development of a dry dock in Northland. This business case needs to identify the strategic benefits of a dry dock for New Zealand, and what wider benefits it would bring to Northland and New Zealand as a whole. Considerations around ownership structures and financing will be beneficial.
What’s important to us?
The Ministry is looking for credible providers who have the capability and understanding of purchasing large infrastructure and who can build a robust case for potential investment. Engagement will be an important aspect of this work and bidders need to be prepared to engage with a wide range of stakeholders. Preferably you will have relevant maritime experience, such as relationships with shipping lines and ports and an ability to quantify the wider economic and strategic benefits of a dry dock. A proven track record to deliver a Detailed Business Case is preferred, as well as international experience.
Why should you bid?
This is a unique opportunity to influence Government investment in a large infrastructure project that could help to shape Northland’s economy and support New Zealand’s shipping industry. It will be a great opportunity to engage with New Zealand’s ports and shipping lines to better understand the commercial realities of a dry dock.

On Thursday a RFP was issued with the following:

Background
Constructing a dry dock at Northport has been considered since at least 2015, when it was included in Northport’s ‘Vision for Growth’ 30–40-year port expansion strategy. Since 2012, there have been various reports that suggest building a modern dry dock at sites, including Northport, Port Taranaki in New Plymouth, Shakespeare Bay near Picton, and Port Chalmers near Dunedin.
New Zealand’s largest dry dock, Calliope graving dock, is situated at Devonport Naval Base, and is operated by Babcock under contract to the NZDF. The Calliope graving dock is not large enough to accommodate NZDF’s largest vessels, HMNZS Aotearoa and HMNZS Canterbury, or the inter island ferries. Larger vessels are typically sent to Singapore or Australia.
[1] The Captain Cook graving dock in Sydney is operated under contract to the Royal Australian Navy and New Zealand commercial ship operators often struggle to secure bookings due to preference given to Australian Navy vessels.
Devonport is constrained by its location in a residential area and the graving dock is a listed heritage site, placing limits on its operating hours and the noise it can generate. Expanding the site into Auckland Harbour would require significant consenting and would likely be met with resistance by locals and heritage authorities.
The alternative option is a month-long return trip to Singapore (plus time in dock), which has been estimated to cost operators between $500,000 and $850,000 for the fuel costs alone. This does not include labour costs, steaming time or the opportunity cost of foregone revenue. Nor does it take into consideration the emissions profile associated with such a trip.
A dry dock at Northport would provide an alternative to these options with the potential to provide additional resilience (less time out of New Zealand waters), reduce emissions[2], save on operating costs. Northport has previously been indicated as a preferred location in New Zealand and situating it in the Northland region would support the region to build on existing industry, diversify economic activity and retain skilled labour (in light of job losses due to the refinery closure).
A dry dock would also align with work on-going with the New Zealand Freight and Supply Chain Strategy, specifically the low emissions, resilience, and productivity and innovation drivers. The strategy issues paper noted that the international environment is increasingly unstable and unpredictable with the impacts of climate change and geopolitical volatility, where connectivity to overseas facilities may be increasingly disrupted. The paper also identified coastal shipping as a lower emissions mode of transport, which could contribute to New Zealand’s decarbonisation goals if used to shift more freight, but will require investment to increase their attractiveness to freight users. The dry dock is one example that could make coastal shipping more attractive in New Zealand and realise this ambition. A dry dock could also be strategically important as New Zealand shifts towards a hub and spoke port model which could see more domestic coastal ships in service.

[1] These issues apply to the Cook Strait ferries operated by KiwiRail, Bluebridge, and other large commercial ships (cement carriers etc).

[2] The Climate Change Commission’s report on reducing emissions within the transport sector noted the significance of New Zealand not having a large enough dry dock facility for many of New Zealand’s coastal vessels.

The opportunity
The proposition of a dry dock large enough to service New Zealand’s bigger commercial vessels (e.g. interisland ferries) has been considered for several years. Currently, larger vessels need to travel offshore to Australia or Southeast Asia to get serviced, which presents resilience issues and produces additional carbon emissions. Northport have been progressing with their consenting process, but the question remains as to whether a dry dock is something that the Government should invest in. We are seeking your expertise to inform future decision making.
What we need
The Ministry is seeking an experienced provider familiar with the Treasury’s Detailed Business Case process to lead work exploring the case for Government supporting the development of a dry dock in Northland. This business case needs to identify the strategic benefits of a dry dock for New Zealand, and what wider benefits it would bring to Northland and New Zealand as a whole. Considerations around ownership structures and financing will be beneficial.
What’s important to us?
The Ministry is looking for credible providers who have the capability and understanding of purchasing large infrastructure and who can build a robust case for potential investment. Engagement will be an important aspect of this work and bidders need to be prepared to engage with a wide range of stakeholders. Preferably you will have relevant maritime experience, such as relationships with shipping lines and ports and an ability to quantify the wider economic and strategic benefits of a dry dock. A proven track record to deliver a Detailed Business Case is preferred, as well as international experience.
Why should you bid?
This is a unique opportunity to influence Government investment in a large infrastructure project that could help to shape Northland’s economy and support New Zealand’s shipping industry. It will be a great opportunity to engage with New Zealand’s ports and shipping lines to better understand the commercial realities of a dry dock.
Beginning days, but we shall see what happens.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
While we wait for a spare part from Timbuktu so that our only operational FFH can be sea-worthy (RNZN thread today-sorry, I know, the valiant navy is trying its best with limited resources), and bask in the enlightenment of knowing that National Security equates to scaring ourselves silly over a few right-wing nut-jobs and not the CCP (above), take a moment to digest this piece from La Stuff:


The time-line to complete this thoroughly absorbent body of work is at a nice peace-time, Government service, benign 'environmentie' battle rhythm: "The review was expected to product numerous strategy documents and conclude in half-way through 2024."

Small rant, Go: At the risk of further enraging my previous Station Commander, during happy hour of course, and suggesting that the way we flew tactically sucks ("that sounds like a couple of flight lieutenants cobbling together arse') but could this review not be done in 10 minutes on the back of a fag-packet by a trio of operational senior-service/ground swine/junior-service O6 types?

And the funniest part, ala "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined one", is the composition of this Review; it reads like an old Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman joke: it includes an ex Army boss type who knows about UN and digging the poor deceased out of mines; an academic; and a tourism advisor for part of NZ. Absolutely, tip-top, awesome.

I am willing to put money on the outcome of this review: It is all very difficult but we are exceptionally fulfilling, in a difficult economic climate, national security requirements; We are fearlessly independent, supporting the ever-successful UN and rules-based world; Going to investigate side-shows like Cyber, Gender warfare, and Space; NZ is punching above our weight by telling our stupid neighbors to keep their SSNs away from our virgin shores; Climate change is more of a threat than the PLAN; Due to our special spidy-sensors, we are the only nation on this non-judgmental green planet that can understand the Pacific Way. etc.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I am willing to put money on the outcome of this review: It is all very difficult but we are exceptionally fulfilling, in a difficult economic climate, national security requirements; We are fearlessly independent, supporting the ever-successful UN and rules-based world; Going to investigate side-shows like Cyber, Gender warfare, and Space; NZ is punching above our weight by telling our stupid neighbors to keep their SSNs away from our virgin shores; Climate change is more of a threat than the PLAN; Due to our special spidy-sensors, we are the only nation on this non-judgmental green planet that can understand the Pacific Way. etc.
You forgot to add, "that while the world is in a challenging strategic environment, we do not see any direct threat to NZ". The standard back up, so the pollies don't have to do anything :rolleyes:
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Minister of Defence Interview on Q & A WRT the defence Policy Review. It's interesting.


Defence review release. Advisory panel appointed for the Defence Policy Review

Terms of Reference. https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/...-Reference-DPR-Ministerial-Advisory-Panel.pdf

The Ministerial Advisory Panel comprises of the following:
  • Sir Brian Roche (Chair) chaired the 2015 Defence White Paper advisory panel, and he has also subsequently led three reviews of Defence procurement;
  • Professor David Capie, Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington;
  • David Gawn, Chief Executive of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), and former Chief of Army;
  • Sir Don McKinnon, former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Secretary-General of the Commonwealth;
  • Christine Stevenson, Chief Executive and Comptroller of NZ Customs Service; and
  • Pania Tyson-Nathan (Rongomaiwahine, Ngāti Kahungunu), Chief Executive of NZ Māori Tourism.
Do not ask me why the CEO of NZ Maori Tourism is on the panel. I have no clue.

Interesting bits from the interview.
  • Minister is placing HADR priorities above combat capabilities.
  • Covid-19 has had a large negative impact upon NZDF.
  • Pacific is Minister's geostrategic area of concern. He won't name the PRC or Russia.
  • He was avoiding questions about the PRC.
  • Claims defence attaches have meaning impacts. According to him we don't have enough of them.
  • Says NZDF is fit for purpose.
  • At 09:34 into the interview when asked "Is there a foreseeable scenario in the future when NZ will reintroduce an air combat wing?" He replied "potentially" and then went on to say that's up to the review. He was pushed on it. If anything his boss will not be happy about that. :D
  • He said the current attrition rate is some of the worse that NZDF has seen in its history. He said some of the reasons are:
    • A white hot labour market at the moment,
    • He personally thinks NZDF personnel aren't paid enough,
    • MIQ deployments during Covid-19 lockdowns were last straw for many in NZDF so they're voting with their feet.
    • Conditions, housing etc.
His claim that NZDF is fit for purpose is laughable, as is his claim about defence attaches in the context of the question being asked.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Moved from RNZAF thread.

... many thanks for posting these TV1 Q&A clips. Interesting, to say the least, especially in the context of the defence minister seemingly waking up now to his official responsibilities.

It's a pity that he didn't start his period in cabinet with the same engagement and has been MIA for large sections of his time conducting other business. I'm sure that he is a nice chap, and would be a character over a beer, but clearly his cabinet responsibility to this nation is significant, during a period of deteriorating strategic environment (which started @2005), after four decades of 'armed (yeah right) neutrality' as our default national security policy.

Ref:
RNZN FFH "Our navy foot print ... is meaningful ..." and "... is fit for purpose." (@7 & 9min)
RNZAF ACF "potentially" (@9:30min)
CDF quote problems with personnel retention "need to grow middle management ..." (15:50min)

Sadly, the most striking thing to me is the defence ministers lack of urgency, what a balanced fighting capability looks like, and his threadbare grasp of his portfolio; beyond HADR, which is obviously the only mission that NZDF is now scaled for. Possibly, this says more about the dearth of relevant professional knowledge within cabinet, NZ MoD, and NZDF, after being thrown out of ANZUS and experienced warrior-leaders being culled.

Given that the NZ election cycle is happening again next year during yet another difficult financial period, and our past history of inwards looking exceptionalism, for what it is worth I can not see a sea-change soon in the maturity of our national security. Definitely not eye-watering amounts of mulla, accelerated FFG purchase x many, a fighting army Brigade, or a regenerated ACF. If we are lucky, perhaps a few more P-8A and C-130Js and a third FF(something).
 
Top