NZDF General discussion thread

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
NSM was specifically designed to be lightweight, easy to install and to fit into existing weight and space margins. It may even be doable for Australia to do this for them, as the CMS is already integrated. It's basically physically putting launch boxes onto the ship. If weight and space is an issue, its possible to configure it as 2 lots of 2xNSM launch boxes. But even the NSM x4 launcher is a much much lighter than the harpoon x4 launcher. I suspect that the NZ ships are still within the original engineering space/weight margin allocations for the Meko ships designs. They haven't customised the hell out of them like Australia has.

Australia has bolted on NSM onto Hobarts and Anzacs. This isn't beyond that capability and experience. But I would presume almost anyone could, the Norwegians, the Poms, the germans, the Canadians would all be happy to bolt them on.

Canadians can workout consoles and software for firing. They can probably do that from Canada via software. They are multifunction after all. If if that took ~12+ months to sort out, and a test firing wasn't scheduled for 18 months, it shouldn't really impact NZ operation and deployment, as software development can happen away from the ship, and outside of the ship in drydock.

Personally I think if the NZ increases defence spending, it should be spread across all 3 services. You don't need to rob peter to pay paul, and that just breeds infighting and hostile solos. It doesn't have to be equal. The NZ army can acquire useful maritime capabilities as well. Including its own NSM launchers. It could look at artillery, amphibious vehicles, air defence, helicopters, all of which would be useful in a maritime domain as well. Plenty of other armies have acquired significant capabilities in this space.

As for air force, NZ wouldn't be interested in 36 slightly used Superhornets would they?
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Re land vs nonland capabilities. If we are talking bout defending our or nearby island nations from an invasion force we have already failed to a large extent.
 

Hawkeye69

Member
I read that Australia now have more MR-60R Seahawks than decks to land them on, I would not be surprised if both Australia and NZ Government officials have not been in some form of discussion on a NZ short term lease of a few of the excess platforms while we await our new builds.Pilot conversion training could easily take place in Australia.

You will see I show no faith in the Wildcat, its a lemon product from europe.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Re. NSM Australia will manufacture the joint strike missile variant. Us acquiring this from them would be a win-win in terms of interoperability, trans Tasman relations and supply security. Makes it a good competitor with LRASM for nzdf. Would be prudent to have capability and training, experience operating both from our p8s at least.

Integration to our ANZACs make sense if it is quick light and cheap, or in Australia and our ships are not out of action for long.

My preference is to steam ahead with the replacements, pending the RAN GP frigate decision my
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
I read that Australia now have more MR-60R Seahawks than decks to land them on, I would not be surprised if both Australia and NZ Government officials have not been in some form of discussion on a NZ short term lease of a few of the excess platforms while we await our new builds.Pilot conversion training could easily take place in Australia.

You will see I show no faith in the Wildcat, its a lemon product from europe.
Not exactly.

Don't forget training requirements, plus the Supply Class and Canberra Class.

Theoretically the two Canberra class could carry and operate the entire fleet between them.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Not exactly.

Don't forget training requirements, plus the Supply Class and Canberra Class.

Theoretically the two Canberra class could carry and operate the entire fleet between them.
Not to mention the maintenance requirements. In the original Australian MH-60R order back in 2011, 24 were ordered to ensure that there would be eight available for service from RAN vessels, the normal 3:1 ratio to permit aircraft & crews being rotated for training and maintenance cycles as well.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
NSM was specifically designed to be lightweight, easy to install and to fit into existing weight and space margins. It may even be doable for Australia to do this for them, as the CMS is already integrated. It's basically physically putting launch boxes onto the ship. If weight and space is an issue, its possible to configure it as 2 lots of 2xNSM launch boxes. But even the NSM x4 launcher is a much much lighter than the harpoon x4 launcher. I suspect that the NZ ships are still within the original engineering space/weight margin allocations for the Meko ships designs. They haven't customised the hell out of them like Australia has.

Australia has bolted on NSM onto Hobarts and Anzacs. This isn't beyond that capability and experience. But I would presume almost anyone could, the Norwegians, the Poms, the germans, the Canadians would all be happy to bolt them on.

Canadians can workout consoles and software for firing. They can probably do that from Canada via software. They are multifunction after all. If if that took ~12+ months to sort out, and a test firing wasn't scheduled for 18 months, it shouldn't really impact NZ operation and deployment, as software development can happen away from the ship, and outside of the ship in drydock.

Personally I think if the NZ increases defence spending, it should be spread across all 3 services. You don't need to rob peter to pay paul, and that just breeds infighting and hostile solos. It doesn't have to be equal. The NZ army can acquire useful maritime capabilities as well. Including its own NSM launchers. It could look at artillery, amphibious vehicles, air defence, helicopters, all of which would be useful in a maritime domain as well. Plenty of other armies have acquired significant capabilities in this space.

As for air force, NZ wouldn't be interested in 36 slightly used Superhornets would they?
Perhaps another 5EYE might be interested;) although IOTUS would probably block it.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
The YT amateur aussie defence analyst video posted a page or so back regarding the DCP shows Andurils UUV but thjis wasn't picked up for any folow up discussion on the thread.

These would be great for us: deployable, persistent stealth underwater ISR with some potential lethality. Here's a video about Australian Anduril UUV
This is exactly the kind of capability we are looking for but the thread has been strangly silent on this. Maybe some of the older hands still find the idea or unmanned and autonomous strange, better to stick with 2nd hand 4th gen fighters for the future ACF ;) I would suggest that a fleet of these could be cheaper and have more deterrent value that 3 new frigates.

Anduril has been mentioend as an alternative to legacy defence supplies/aquisition in covereage of the DCP (unsure but I think Collins mentioned them by name at a press conference). They are setting up acropss the Tasman. Job opportunities and sector growth potential here as mentioned in DCP.

Also testing Anduril C-UAS in Australia
. Look at the test facility. Their should be something like this at Waiorou for MOUT training.
Also Anduril Barracuda 500 as a compettitor/complimentary capability to our future LRASM/JSM. And could be used with a Rapid Dragon system on out C130s. "The system has been successfully used with C-130 and C-17 cargo planes to strike both land and sea targets with armed and test version JASSM-ERs. " Hence no need to buy overpriced manned fast air. We see the threats early with our improved maritime domain awarness (UUVs as part of this mix) and we prosecute them early at safe standoff ranges with multiple AShMs with superior standoff range.

Disclaimer: despite all the links to Andurils youtube, I do not work for or hold shares in Anduril or any of their subsidiaries. Just a fan that wants a credible combat capable deterrent NZDF.
 

downunderblue

Active Member
The YT amateur aussie defence analyst video posted a page or so back regarding the DCP shows Andurils UUV but thjis wasn't picked up for any folow up discussion on the thread.

These would be great for us: deployable, persistent stealth underwater ISR with some potential lethality. Here's a video about Australian Anduril UUV
This is exactly the kind of capability we are looking for but the thread has been strangly silent on this. Maybe some of the older hands still find the idea or unmanned and autonomous strange, better to stick with 2nd hand 4th gen fighters for the future ACF ;) I would suggest that a fleet of these could be cheaper and have more deterrent value that 3 new frigates.

Anduril has been mentioend as an alternative to legacy defence supplies/aquisition in covereage of the DCP (unsure but I think Collins mentioned them by name at a press conference). They are setting up acropss the Tasman. Job opportunities and sector growth potential here as mentioned in DCP.
Also testing Anduril C-UAS in Australia. Look at the test facility. Their should be something like this at Waiorou for MOUT training.
Also Anduril Barracuda 500 as a compettitor/complimentary capability to our future LRASM/JSM. And could be used with a Rapid Dragon system on out C130s. "The system has been successfully used with C-130 and C-17 cargo planes to strike both land and sea targets with armed and test version JASSM-ERs. " Hence no need to buy overpriced manned fast air. We see the threats early with our improved maritime domain awarness (UUVs as part of this mix) and we prosecute them early at safe standoff ranges with multiple AShMs with superior standoff range.

Disclaimer: despite all the links to Andurils youtube, I do not work for or hold shares in Anduril or any of their subsidiaries. Just a fan that wants a credible combat capable deterrent NZDF.
Just on Rapid Dragon, I had a look on it the other day and it's not quite their yet. I'm not sure what the blocker is but it's budget is still with the Air Force Strategic Development Planning & Experimentation (SDPE) office and despite what appears to be an obvious benefit there doesn't seem to be any urgency here. The theatre commands seem to be focusing on other capabilities atm.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Kiwi entrepreneur sells $70m of drones to UK military, for use in Ukraine

Congrats SYOS aerospace.
From the limited coverage I have seen online I am definitely a fan of the acquired quantum systems vector UAS systems.
But it would be good to see NZDF supporting a local buisiness (manufactured in UK). "Vye confirmed Syos was in talks to sell its drones to the NZ Defence Force, and other friendly countries – though he was unwilling to disclose details yet."

Quantum vector/scorpion is proven in Ukraine, weighs 3kg as per NZDF youtube and has a 3hr flighttome with electric motor
Syos SA5 is in the <25kg class, has an 8hr flight time and runs on 4 stroke. Complimentary capabilities rather than competitors.
Bot can operate from ships.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Kiwi entrepreneur sells $70m of drones to UK military, for use in Ukraine

Congrats SYOS aerospace.
From the limited coverage I have seen online I am definitely a fan of the acquired quantum systems vector UAS systems.
But it would be good to see NZDF supporting a local buisiness (manufactured in UK). "Vye confirmed Syos was in talks to sell its drones to the NZ Defence Force, and other friendly countries – though he was unwilling to disclose details yet."

Quantum vector/scorpion is proven in Ukraine, weighs 3kg as per NZDF youtube and has a 3hr flighttome with electric motor
Syos SA5 is in the <25kg class, has an 8hr flight time and runs on 4 stroke. Complimentary capabilities rather than competitors.
Bot can operate from ships.
SYOS interview on TVNZ Q & A 27/4/25

Their R & d facility is based in Mount Mounaganui. Great for us. Love the naieve kiwi reporters moral concern re arming drones- if they are armed we are allready at war FFS. Someone might get killed. Our pilots/crews that were in bomber command in WW2 were heros but strapping a low colateral precision munition to a drone is Terminator 2.

also: local implications of hybrid warfare in the Baltic canvassed by Phil Pennington RNZ
I had no idea the private sector maintained a 24/7 patrol forces guarding our strategic infrastructure. Looks like one of the Moa Class is still seaworthy after 40 years.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
SYOS interview on TVNZ Q & A 27/4/25

Their R & d facility is based in Mount Mounaganui. Great for us. Love the naieve kiwi reporters moral concern re arming drones- if they are armed we are allready at war FFS. Someone might get killed. Our pilots/crews that were in bomber command in WW2 were heros but strapping a low colateral precision munition to a drone is Terminator 2.

also: local implications of hybrid warfare in the Baltic canvassed by Phil Pennington RNZ
I had no idea the private sector maintained a 24/7 patrol forces guarding our strategic infrastructure. Looks like one of the Moa Class is still seaworthy after 40 years.
Yes this point on ethics was discussed earlier. Put an 81mm mortar bomb from a standard mortar tube onto an area target destroying anything alive within it’s kill radius? Sure, no problem.

Put that same 81mm mortar bomb on a UAS and hit a specific target? Well, hang on! I have an ethical concern about that…
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes this point on ethics was discussed earlier. Put an 81mm mortar bomb from a standard mortar tube onto an area target destroying anything alive within it’s kill radius? Sure, no problem.

Put that same 81mm mortar bomb on a UAS and hit a specific target? Well, hang on! I have an ethical concern about that…
Average Kiwi journalism, they are mainly left wing and at least a decade behind reality. A survey some years ago found 2/3's of NZ journo's where left wing and as above they simply have not caught up with modern reality and are still using Helen Clarks play book.:rolleyes:
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
More anti military agitation from the commies in the media.
tIs the nzdf top heavy
I imagine it probably is after COVID. Comparatively we seem to have a good ratio of NCOs compared to our allies despite what you hear re cost of COVID response. However they immediately say you cannot use the he comparative figures for comparison o_O. Anyway the brass ensures us they have their eyes on things and you cannot compare us to our mates. I guess we are special.

Phil Pennington of rnz does regular longer form pieces of defence related stuff and seems to have contacts in nzdf
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
More anti military agitation from the commies in the media.
tIs the nzdf top heavy
I imagine it probably is after COVID. Comparatively we seem to have a good ratio of NCOs compared to our allies despite what you hear re cost of COVID response. However they immediately say you cannot use the he comparative figures for comparison o_O. Anyway the brass ensures us they have their eyes on things and you cannot compare us to our mates. I guess we are special.

Phil Pennington of rnz does regular longer form pieces of defence related stuff and seems to have contacts in nzdf
Actually they are correct. NZDF is far too top heavy with far too many one stars and above. When I was in the RNZAF during the 1970s and 80s we had one two star (Air Vice Marshall) who was CAS (Chief of Air Staff) and three, maybe four, one stars (Air Commodores) 1 x DCAS, 1 x AOC (Air Officer Commanding) Operations Group, one AOC Support Group, and I think 1 in a NZDF purple position. Sometimes we had a RNZAF three star (Air Marshall) who was Chief of NZDF. At that time we had 4,300 service personnel in the RNZAF, whereas today it is about 2,500, and eight squadrons (No's 1, 3, 5, 14, 40, 41, 42, 75) plus various support elements such as Flying Training Wing and Navigation and Air Training Squadron at Wigram. Now we have No's 3, 5, 6, 14, 40, 42 squadrons with both 5, 6, 42 Sqn reality a flight comprising of four (5 & 42 Sqns) or five (6 Sqn) aircraft each. One problem with the plethora of senior sirs is the cost. People cost money and the higher up the food chain they are, the greater the cost.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Do you feel NZDF, or at least their marketing people, don't get it:
[QUOTE]The RNZAF’s four Poseidons can conduct a range of tasks including aerial surveillance of vast areas such as the Exclusive Economic Zone, the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean. They are also used to support the community and our neighbours with contingency capability for tasks such as search and rescue and support in the event of natural disasters.[/QUOTE] The first paragraph of NZDFs lates media story at time of writing.
One of our few platforms that have any potentoal combat utility or deterrrent value, hopefully soon to be armed with a credible AShM, within the context of increasiung geostrategic instability, and the are still pushing the HADR angle. They should have a marketing campaign that features uniformed personell in N95 masks passing out meals to people in managed isolation hotels- "keeping the community safe"

New copy: The RNZAFss four Posideons can and will be armed with antiship missiles that can destroy those trying to destroy our Kiwi way of life from hundreds of kilometers away.
 

Catalina

Active Member
Average Kiwi journalism, they are mainly left wing and at least a decade behind reality. A survey some years ago found 2/3's of NZ journo's where left wing and as above they simply have not caught up with modern reality and are still using Helen Clarks play book.:rolleyes:
Hi Rob, you are right on the money.
Here's the graph showing the of the strongly left wing political bias of NZ journalists.
It is taken from the Worlds of Journalism Study 2.0. Journalists in Aotearoa/ New Zealand MASSEY UNIVERSITY October 2022 report.

Political bias.png
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
A similar chart of NZ DT posters would lean hard the other way. Does that mean our commentary is no good?

Nzdf in Aussie ex on ADF YouTube channel. Would have been good to see this on nzdf media. Would be interesting to see exactly what we contributed. Looks like a good exercise, relevant
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually they are correct. NZDF is far too top heavy with far too many one stars and above. When I was in the RNZAF during the 1970s and 80s we had one two star (Air Vice Marshall) who was CAS (Chief of Air Staff) and three, maybe four, one stars (Air Commodores) 1 x DCAS, 1 x AOC (Air Officer Commanding) Operations Group, one AOC Support Group, and I think 1 in a NZDF purple position. Sometimes we had a RNZAF three star (Air Marshall) who was Chief of NZDF. At that time we had 4,300 service personnel in the RNZAF, whereas today it is about 2,500, and eight squadrons (No's 1, 3, 5, 14, 40, 41, 42, 75) plus various support elements such as Flying Training Wing and Navigation and Air Training Squadron at Wigram. Now we have No's 3, 5, 6, 14, 40, 42 squadrons with both 5, 6, 42 Sqn reality a flight comprising of four (5 & 42 Sqns) or five (6 Sqn) aircraft each. One problem with the plethora of senior sirs is the cost. People cost money and the higher up the food chain they are, the greater the cost.
Something that concerns me about discussions of top heaviness is the assumption that these senior people are not cost effective and somehow wasteful.

If a person is doing something that needs to be done, and they are suitably qualified and experienced, why shouldn't their rank and pay reflect this?

My performance review this year was a case of, keep doing what you are doing, you are appreciated and valued, you are good enough to be promoted but there are not any suitable roles, your opportunity will come.

My response, this is where I have been since I was first rated as good enough, six months after joining the organisation in 2017. Think on that, seven years of not working at my full potential, not earning what I should be earning, and above all, of missing out on other opportunities because I didn't make that first rung.

Would, or even should, a talented, competent, capable, high performing individual stay at rank for seven years despite being good enough to be promoted, just because of an arbitrary cap?

Once they leave their knowledge experience and ability is lost and you end up paying more to get them, or maybe someone not as good as them, back as a consultant, at even greater cost.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Budget Day was today. Budget 25/26 appropriation for Vote Defence Force is $5,030 million for NZDF and $164 million for Veterans Affairs. For Vote Defence (the Ministry of Defence) $26 million (policy, managing procurement and refurbishment, audits etc) and $470 million for procurement.

DefMin Collins' press release outlines further figures:
“To achieve this, the Government has allocated $2.7 billion of capital and $563 million of operating funding for priority projects identified in the Defence Capability Plan we released last month.

“This includes the replacement of maritime helicopters and complements the $957 million for defence activities, personnel and estate previously announced,” Ms Collins says.

“This previous announcement, and today’s commitments, brings the total investment in Defence to $4.2 billion in Budget 2025.
The DefMin also indicates the counter uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) to be purchased "that can be set up in fixed locations and is able to disable drones/UAS that could pose a threat to personnel, aircraft/vehicles and infrastructure" will consist of "interoperable missile systems".

(With commentators here pointing out we still have a gap in the (land) air defence capability ... could the counter-UAS system be the first step in a layered air defence system? If not, why not)?

The Budget 25/26 Summary of Initiatives (for the Whole of Govt) indicates their new spending initiatives to be funded in FY 25/26 and for NZDF (page 24) they are:

Critical Estate Sustainment: This initiative provides funding to sustain the New Zealand Defence Force Estate through addressing some deferred maintenance activities to maintain safe and compliant infrastructure for operations, training and accommodation.

Defence Capability Plan – Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Protective Capability: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to purchase a credible Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems protective capability that can detect, track, identify and – when necessary and legally permitted – defeat any unauthorised systems that pose a safety hazard or security threat.

Defence Capability Plan – Enhancing New Zealand Defence Force Cyber Capabilities – Tranche 1: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to deliver an initial uplift to the defensive cyber capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force.

Defence Capability Plan – Enterprise Resource Planning Capability for a Modern, Integrated Defence Force – Tranche 1: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to enable the completion of preparation and foundation tasks for the replacement of the resource management and planning capability of the New Zealand Defence Force.

Defence Capability Plan – Future Air Mobility Capability – Strategic (757 Replacement): This initiative provides funding held in contingency for the replacement of the two Boeing 757 aircraft currently operated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force. The new aircraft will have enhanced range and reliability, allowing increased availability for strategic air mobility missions.

Defence Capability Plan – Future Naval Base Programme –Tranche 1a, Design and Enabling Works: This initiative provides funding for planning, design and decommissioning work at Devonport Naval Base across eight priority projects. This initiative forms the first stage of the Future Naval Base Programme which will regenerate infrastructure at Devonport.

Defence Capability Plan – Garrison and Training Vehicles Project – Tranche 1, Phase 2: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to purchase vehicles to replace Unimog trucks used by the New Zealand Army Reserve and training units. The investment will allow the New Zealand Army to continue to support emergency responses within New Zealand and generate forces that can be deployed overseas.

Defence Capability Plan – Homes for Families (Part 3): This initiative provides funding to lease homes, and funding to commence design work to build and modernise fit for purpose homes. Additional funding has also been set aside in a tagged contingency for the delivery and lease-back of planned housing in Waiouru.

Defence Capability Plan – Information Management Programme – Tranche 1: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to transform the New Zealand Defence Force’s data, analytics and information management capability through investment in technology, people, and processes. It forms part of the Information Management Programme, which will ensure access to accurate, timely information for better decision-making and continued data interoperability with security partners.

Defence Capability Plan – Maritime Helicopter Replacement –Tranche 1: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to fund the replacement of the New Zealand Defence Force’s current fleet of eight Seasprite helicopters with a fleet of new maritime helicopters. The new helicopters will provide a modern naval aviation capability to conduct combat operations, search and rescue operations and contribute to humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

Defence Capability Plan – Medium Range Anti-Armour Weapon System (Javelin, Refresh Phase 2): This initiative provides funding held in contingency to maintain the New Zealand Army’s anti-armour capability through the purchase of Command Launch Units for the Javelin Medium Range Anti-Armour Weapon System.

Defence Capability Plan – Small-scale Defence Projects: This initiative provides funding to implement ten small-scale capability projects. These projects cover countering explosive hazards, engineering plant, logistics systems, secure networking and data links, soldier protective equipment, space operations, aircraft maintenance and special forces equipment.

Defence Capability Plan – Operationalising the New Zealand Defence Force Workforce Strategy – Phase 1: This initiative provides funding for critical change initiatives to the New Zealand Defence Force workforce system, model and technology tools to ensure an adaptable, scalable and resilient workforce is available.

Defence Capability Plan – Upgrade Army Communications Tranche 3 Phase 1: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to purchase replacement radios for the New Zealand Army and additional equipment for deployable headquarters. This will continue the transformation of the New Zealand Army into a networked force and enable deployment on operations in support of the Government’s defence and foreign policy objectives.

Defence Capability Plan – Upgrading the Regional Supply Facility and Logistics Model at Burnham Military Camp: This initiative provides funding held in contingency to deliver the Burnham Regional Supply Facility: a centralised warehouse to house deployable supply, a regional equipment pool, and goods-distribution function.

Maintaining Air Capability: This initiative provides continued funding to increase flying hours across the Air fleet, recruit and train additional personnel, address critical repair and overhaul gaps, and restore engagement and training with our partner nations.

Maintaining Information Capability: This initiative provides funding to address gaps in New Zealand Defence Force’s digital information and capability and to maintain it at levels required to operate effectively, including with international partners in a rapidly changing global technology environment.

Maintaining Land Capability: This initiative provides funding for combat capability through additional field exercises, participation in multinational planning activities and exercises, recruiting and training additional personnel, and addressing critical repair and overhaul gaps.

Maintaining Maritime Capability: This initiative provides funding for additional patrols across the Naval fleet, regeneration of an Offshore Patrol Vessel, recruitment and training of additional personnel, and addressing critical repair and overhaul gaps.

New Zealand Defence Force Overseas Deployments to Advance New Zealand’s Interests: This initiative provides increased funding for anticipated future New Zealand Defence Force overseas deployments. The use of the funding will be subject to Cabinet approval of specific deployments.

Partner Interoperability and Commitments: This initiative provides funding to maintain essential engagement with the armed forces of international partner nations, and to protect and enhance New Zealand’s reputation and our ability to work with partners.

People and Organisation Support: This initiative provides funding for military organisational support functions (cadets, Defence sports, educational resources, coursing), to provide support for the security services at Defence Force sites, and to improve governance and oversight of military deployments.

Remuneration – Civilian Personnel: This initiative provides funding for remuneration uplifts to enable the New Zealand Defence Force to meet future pay costs.

Remuneration – Military Allowances: This initiative provides partial implementation of a new allowance framework to recognise the unique nature of the activities and engagements that the Defence workforce undertakes.

Veterans’ Affairs: This initiative provides temporary transitional funding for additional personnel to enable Veterans’ Affairs to process and manage applications for support from veterans in a timely manner. This funding is time-limited, as the increase in the volume and complexity of claims needing to be processed is expected to be temporary.
 
Top