NZDF General discussion thread

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gerald Hensley and Air Marshal Jamieson were doing a great job working those back channels in 84/85. Lange basically deliberately went AWOL - being on a RNZN vessel in the Pacific and not being able to contact WLG was total BS. The Aussies did help to stuff it all up by leaking the visit in NZ media which blindsided Palmer who was not briefed by Lange about the visit of the carefully selected USS Buchanan. Palmer was not aware of the finessing that Hensley and Jamieson had worked through. Basically the RNZN would confirm for the Prime Minister that it did not have nuclear weapons, which other than a latent capability to launch nuke depth charges. Sir Geoffrey is an old school black and white letter law professor, he was not a radical, just methodical i's dotted and t's crossed, the nuances were missed because they were not explained.

Quiz Question: Who was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in 1985? (Ten points for the first correct answer and don't google it. ;)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ah, bugger I thought it was when Lange was in Oxford. Helen Clarke at a guess for said Chairman if it was the select committee. Either her, Phil Goff or Mark Burton.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Ah, bugger I thought it was when Lange was in Oxford. Helen Clarke at a guess for said Chairman if it was the select committee. Either her, Phil Goff or Mark Burton.
Yes. Helen Clark. She was the one egging Palmer on to ban the visits with Fran Wilde as her henchwoman. 10 points for you NG. :)
 

Shanesworld

Well-Known Member
Gerald Hensley and Air Marshal Jamieson were doing a great job working those back channels in 84/85. Lange basically deliberately went AWOL - being on a RNZN vessel in the Pacific and not being able to contact WLG was total BS. The Aussies did help to stuff it all up by leaking the visit in NZ media which blindsided Palmer who was not briefed by Lange about the visit of the carefully selected USS Buchanan. Palmer was not aware of the finessing that Hensley and Jamieson had worked through. Basically the RNZN would confirm for the Prime Minister that it did not have nuclear weapons, which other than a latent capability to launch nuke depth charges. Sir Geoffrey is an old school black and white letter law professor, he was not a radical, just methodical i's dotted and t's crossed, the nuances were missed because they were not explained.

Quiz Question: Who was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in 1985? (Ten points for the first correct answer and don't google it. ;)
....... A Prime minister who later decided on the acf? 10 points for that answer as well. ;)

Cheers MrC
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
2021 Defence Assessments appear to be complete, if not yet released.

Defence Assessment 2021 - KEA - Knowledge Enabled Army

The Assessment recommends New Zealand’s defence policy approach should shift from a predominantly reactive risk management-centred approach to one based on a more deliberate and proactive strategy, with explicitly prioritised policy objectives. A more strategy-led approach would better enable Defence to pre-empt and prevent, as well as respond to, security challenges. A more proactive and prioritised defence policy would enable Defence, as part of broader national efforts, to shape the strategic environment to protect and promote New Zealand’s interests, as well as maintain readiness to respond to contingencies.
The Assessment recommends New Zealand’s defence policy and strategy should focus on New Zealand’s immediate region, and in particular on the South Pacific. This should include a more explicit emphasis on proactive operations alongside more familiar response activities, and will increasingly require the use of sophisticated military capabilities that have previously been considered as more appropriate for operations further afield.
Be great when more is released.
Current gov't has an excellent trackrecord of ignoring the policy recommendations of the public service.
MSM is reporting that NZ was not invited to take part in AUKUS. Much will be made of the 'growing divide", but AUKUS seems to be larrgely about delivering nuclear powered subs for Aust
Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies

I think nuclear subs will offer australia a great deterrent and long range strike option.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Have seen it and to be honest it reeks as business as usual.

There is a fundamental flaw in that whilst on one hand NZ regards its trade arrangements as so important so vital economically - yet this so called assessment fails to link the real security interests of trade relationships and moreover the critical SLOC / ALOC with the very markets / source security that is well beyond the "South Pacific" backyard myopia. There are 50 shades of grey zone out there and reading this it seems they can only understand one!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
MSM is reporting that NZ was not invited to take part in AUKUS. Much will be made of the 'growing divide", but AUKUS seems to be larrgely about delivering nuclear powered subs for Aust
Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies

I think nuclear subs will offer australia a great deterrent and long range strike option.
Yes agree, NZ MSM coverage has generally been "positive" about the announcement yesterday and was prominent throughout the day (and is still gaining support on this mornings talkback radio - not all Kiwi's are ignorant or wish to be subserviant or disarmed pacifists it seems), and as you say the NZ MSM is pointing out this divide. (Who would have thought that?! I guess even the NZ MSM is weary of a dominant CCP, and have been highlighting various "issues" (defence/trade reliance, undue influence/funding etc) particularly in the last few years).

So the only group letting NZ down seems to be our political ruling class.

The optics of the article you linked to is somewhat "alarming" i.e. "Aukus submarines banned from NZ ....".

Here's the thing, when our political ruling class enacted the ban 30-odd years ago now, one could argue a significant element was due to "anti-American sentiment" (as the 60's anti-Vietnam protesters became senior politicians and achieved power to make meaningful change). Yes there were also the idealists who opposed UK/US/French nuclear testing in the Pacific from the 1950's-60's (on in the case of the French, up to the 1990's).

But I don't wish to rehash this, I'm simply mentioning an abbreviated backstory.

So fast forward to today, no-one then (in the 1980's when legislation was enacted) could have possibly foreseen that NZ's closest neighbour and ally Australia could be operating nuclear powered submarines!

NZ is now in a position where Australia will be conducting the "heavy lifting" and a resulting benefit is it will inadvertently be keeping "NZ safe".

So NZ can't hide behind this anti-nuclear sentiment (that our Prime Minister mentioned). Especially not when our region is undergoing change and the US cannot necessarily be expected to be in all places at all times.

It's time for that legislation to be amended (I agree with NgatiMozart a few posts back that any party "repealing the antinuke legislation would be committing political suicide"), but changes can be made.

I believe the best method to enact change would be on the diplomatic front (eg Aust & NZ Prime Minister private discussions) and I believe the best Party to enact change is the Labour Party, as this is all their doing (and with a "beaming" PM Ardern she could spin (the change) like a top but it seems, incredibly, no-one gets dizzy, as her MSM cheerleaders applaud)!

Why only a few years one of the Labour architects of the antinuke legislation, ex-Labour Deputy PM Geofrey Palmer was supporting making changes in order for the US Navy to resume visits to NZ ports!

It can be done ... but as when our Govt was caught with its pants down over 5 Eyes a few months ago ... a bit of frank (behind the scenes) discussion from our allies can see the NZG make changes.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Much will be made of the 'growing divide", but AUKUS seems to be largely about delivering nuclear powered subs for Aust
Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies
And it is not just about these subs. I never take the reporting and the spin doctoring off the DPM&C as a sole NZ based source which is why the NZ public only think this is about buying nuclear sub technology.

The Nuke powered subs is just the start of this.

There are if one listens to the press conference of the OZ-US DefMins in DC that a stream of projects will follow over the next decades, that will embrace other technologies, technologies that in terms of cyber, space, Quantum, AI, and undersea capabilities. It is the what next that they are locking themselves off from - and the both the direct commercial opportunities and benefits.

As I said on another thread I that this is the most bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting piece of foreign policy in my lifetime in fact since the decision in 1942 to bring ADF troops home from the Middle East.

My personal opinion is that the current government will eventually fall, but the next one after that is the one that will need to also make an equally bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting move, like Australia has done with respect to regional security, and put it into play with some haste.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am sure that there only has to be one change to the nuclear legislation and that is to allow specified nuclear powered vessels into NZ. They could specify the power plant types in a schedule or similar and that way control who can add cannot enter NZ waters on reactor safety grounds. For example the schedule could limit vessels to PWR-3 or newer reactors. That's a simple ammendment and the only ones who will get their panties in a twist will be the Greens and the far lefties. Generally the great hairy unwashed would see it as a pragmatic option.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And it is not just about these subs. I never take the reporting and the spin doctoring off the DPM&C a sole NZ based source which is why the NZ public only think this is about buying nuclear sub technology.

The Nuke powered subs is just the start of this.

There are if one listens to the press conference of the OZ-US DefMins in DC that a stream of projects will follow over the next decades, that will embrace other technologies, technologies that in terms of cyber, space, Quantum, AI, and undersea capabilities. It is the what next that they are locking themselves off from - and the both the direct commercial opportunities and benefits.

As I said on another thread I that this is the most bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting piece of foreign policy in my lifetime in fact since the decision in 1942 to bring ADF troops home from the Middle East.

My personal opinion is that the current government will eventually fall, but the next one after that is the one that will need to also make an equally bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting move, like Australia has done with respect to regional security, and put it into play with some haste.make an equally bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting move, like Australia has done with respect to regional security, and put it into play with some haste.
The real problem is will a next government have the wisdom and intestinal fortitude to "... make an equally bold, ballsy and sacred cow busting move, like Australia has done with respect to regional security, and put it into play with some haste." TBH I cannot currently see any future government in waiting with the courage of foresight to do that. They are still to wedded to the past.
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
“TBH I cannot currently see any future government in waiting with the courage of foresight to do that. They are still to wedded to the past.”

I’m not really convinced.
I’m thinking this has already gained momentum that would be very difficult to alter.
The sub program has recruited Australias biggest allies, & they’ve stood up and publicly invested in it.
I don’t think Australia can slide away from that anymore, & I have to assume the the Opposition has access to security picture interpretations, so they probably wouldnt want to change things anyway.

Times are different from when the Opposition were in power, and failed to build a ship.
IMHO, the simple employment, economic and capability benefits engendered by the continuous ship program even makes that initiative very difficult to reverse.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
“TBH I cannot currently see any future government in waiting with the courage of foresight to do that. They are still to wedded to the past.”

I’m not really convinced.
I’m thinking this has already gained momentum that would be very difficult to alter.
The sub program has recruited Australias biggest allies, & they’ve stood up and publicly invested in it.
I don’t think Australia can slide away from that anymore, & I have to assume the the Opposition has access to security picture interpretations, so they probably wouldnt want to change things anyway.

Times are different from when the Opposition were in power, and failed to build a ship.
IMHO, the simple employment, economic and capability benefits engendered by the continuous ship program even makes that initiative very difficult to reverse.
You are confusing Australian politics with NZ politics. We are discussing NZ politics.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I am sure that there only has to be one change to the nuclear legislation and that is to allow specified nuclear powered vessels into NZ. They could specify the power plant types in a schedule or similar and that way control who can add cannot enter NZ waters on reactor safety grounds. For example the schedule could limit vessels to PWR-3 or newer reactors. That's a simple ammendment and the only ones who will get their panties in a twist will be the Greens and the far lefties. Generally the great hairy unwashed would see it as a pragmatic option.
Yes, sounds logical! Took a look at the legislation and section 11 is quite clear that nuclear propelled ships are prohibited (no mention of nuc submarines though! So maybe there is a loophole anyway? :D). IIRC the prohibition only applies to within the 12 mile limit (not eg 200nm). Anyway if we look at other parts of the legislation it talks about "government approvals" (military ship/aircraft visits in general) .... so there is leeway there (for other purposes) which means there is no reason leeway could not be applied to nuclear propelled vessels.

For example (using my laymans terms - I'm sure others here could write it better), section 11 could be amended to be something like:

"Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power is prohibited." .... "unless dispensation has been approved by the NZ Government" (or similar).

Which could apply to the RAN (and USN - thus resolving a major brickwall in NZ/US political relations and naval visits/exercises to our shores). Presumably nations would discuss this dispensation diplomatically (i.e. it wouldn't be a blanket "un-banning" for "everyone" as that would make section 11 irrelevant). If so I would imagine Australia and the USA would be the two main country's with such a dispensation. Unsure about the UK and France because I doubt they would want to bring their nuc powered subs to our shores but at least there is a mechanism there should they wish to (presumably the UK could in principal, simply to align with their AUKUS partners, and give them options should they wish to take them up). On the other hand I can't see CCP or Russia asking for dispensation!

It's also important to remember that sentiment has changed - the "fears" of the cold-war 1980's is different to today. Kiwi's are much more aware of CCP "issues" in the Indo-Pacific region (and their own imprisonment of ethnic minorities). Kiwi's wouldn't be worked up about a change in the legislation - I would say a majority would view it favorably and practical for these times. (Granted the "peace-movement and Green Party would be upset but what's new about that, there's no pleasing them, ever)!

Interestingly the NZ MSM is starting to ask similar questions. Today one of Stuff's better senior politcal journalist's Luke Malpass is raising this very subject. To quote some of Mr Malpass' fine writing:

But while it won’t affect New Zealand that much right now, it could in the long run. That in turn raises the strategic question of whether the ban on nuclear-powered (not armed) vessels should be allowed here. It is one thing to continue a ban on the Americans; it is another to effectively institute one on our closest ally.

In other words, there has been a certain puritanism about New Zealand’s nuclear stance that may have to be revisited in the new era of sharper geo-strategic competition.



Another Stuff journalist Lucy Craymer gives us context to (CCP) issues in our wider region (Pacific) that is impacting Pacific Forum nations and ourselves. (My point here being Kiwi's are more aware now of issues that will and are impacting us. And they ain't gonna stand by and do nothing)!



Finally in another Stuff article today, Nicholas Khoo (Politics, Otago University) gives us plenty of food for thought in his opinion piece, for example:

What are the implications of these developments for New Zealand?

First, whether we like it or not, great power politics cannot be wished away. It’s high time we asked ourselves some hard questions. A few spring to mind.

Now that our top trading partner, China, is in an open rivalry with Australia, our treaty ally since 1951, do we need to make any serious changes in our foreign policy?

What is our view if China responds to Australia’s move by establishing a greater diplomatic and military presence in the South Pacific? What about a China-Fiji alliance?


Finally looking through the political lens, it is somewhat fortuitous for our PM Jacinda Ardern that Scott Morrison is the Australian PM (imagine if she was dealing with a Bob Hawke or Paul Keating type)! ScoMo has an affinity with NZ and Ardern so this is a good time for the two of them to work something out (on nuc sub visits/amending legislation). It would be win-win for both nations. For Australia it means NZ won't be a hinderance and is being supportive of its ambitions (and could better partake etc). For Ardern she would need a "win" too, perhaps for example she could strike a deal with ScoMo on the 501 issue, or have Australia stop deporting people with low-level convictions (wasn't a kid deported recently, with his family still in OZ? Honestly Australia's image over here can be mud sometimes). Or maybe something dear to Ardern's heart, refugees! A win for her would see her adoring media cheerleaders proclaim her as NZ's greatest PM ever! (o_O)! As for the US (for USN visits to resume largely unhindered), perhaps Ardern could use it as a bargaining chip for free-trade talks? Anyway so many possibilites and opportunities are there, which Labour can capitalise on (potentially giving them the mandate to be re-elected time and time again)! :eek:
 
Last edited:

Arclighy

Member
AFIK Australian subs are rare visitors to NZ ports anyway. I can't see any real reason to see why this would change. Australia's eyes are firmly pointing at places other than NZ regarding submarine ops.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
I think in general there is no need to change the anti nuc legislation. as above, the new Aussie subs will generall be pointing north. In exceptional circumstances- times of war, Aussie submariners lives being in danger- the current legislation seems to allow the sitting gov't to make exceptions.

However, this should be taken as a further prompt to strengthen our defence forces and military alliances with AUKUS members. From our perspective, the subs are a a further deterrent to Chinese incursion in our region- which is great for us. Rather than continuing our history of hiding behing Au and US muscle for our security, we should show commitment to our geopol friends by investing in our cababilities (4 combat capable frigates etc). This will put us inline for the future benefits of the AUKUS partnership outlined by Mr C ("cyber, space, Quantum, AI, and undersea capabilities"). This is morethan the single no-nuke issue the way it has been spun by MSM. The DPM&C benefits from this being seen as a soley no-nuke issue because it shows NZG adhereing to 'kiwi values' (anti nuke) and 'independent foreign policy'. NZ's independent foreign policy largley seems to me to consist of repeating that we have an independent foreign policy without really articulating or doing much else.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Internal waters are those enclosed by the baseline drawn for the country concerned; in non archipelagic cases states (ie NZ) they are typically harbours, River estuaries, places like Milford Sound. The territorial sea (the 12 mile limit) is outside that and separate from it. Plus there is a concept known as “international straits” which can cut through either internal waters or territorial seas; Cook Strait is one of those.

So if what was quoted is the entirety of the restriction imposed by the legislation then in theory a nuclear powered vessel could enter NZ’s territorial sea while conducting innocent passage and pass within one centimetre of the baseline and comply with the law (that’s impractical; and there are other considerations which apply to government flagged vessels but these are not relevant to the nuclear discussion). And they could also pass through the Cook Strait.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have read those Stuff articles that @MrConservative has linked and where comments are allowed I noticed that the United Front trolls were out in force. For those who don't know the United Front is a CCP political and propaganda organisation that works in foreign countries to ensure that the CCP version of events is promulgated and adhered to. It also monitors and disciplines Chinese nationals in foreign climes. They are out force in NZ at the moment trying to turn the message.
 
Top