A huge investment into our services, $12 billion over the next four years for a modern combat capable New Zealand Defence Force, $9 billion of that 12 is new money. Where is it going to come from? Who knows? All will be revealed. It's an unprecedented investment into services and it will certainly bring them into the 21st century. Morale must have gone through the roof. So to the grandad that texted in yesterday and said we've just encouraged our grandson onto a Pathways Programme into the Navy, have we done the right thing? This time yesterday morning, no. Today? Abso-bloody-lutely!
The Defence Capability plan released yesterday afternoon will see all sorts of things. It will see the ailing Boeing 757s replaced – that'll cost between $600 million to $1 billion. Other smaller vehicles, including light armoured vehicles, will get around the same – $6 million to $1 billion in funding. The maritime helicopters will be replaced, that'll cost $2 billion plus. There'll be uncrewed autonomous vessels. There'll be javelin anti-tank missile upgrades, enhanced strike capabilities, long range remotely piloted aircraft, space capabilities. You name it, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The Governments chosen not to replace the two Anzac frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha, certainly not in the first part of the plan. Instead, they're going to spend around $600 million to keep them going.
Former Defence Minister Ron Mark says he sees NZ First’s hand in the defence commitment. He said there would have been a lot of nudging, a lot of feeing on, a lot of encouragement from NZ First, and he told Mike Hosking this morning that this significant commitment to our defence will only enhance our standing with our long term allies.
The Defence Capability plan released yesterday afternoon will see all sorts of things. It will see the ailing Boeing 757s replaced – that'll cost between $600 million to $1 billion. Other smaller vehicles, including light armoured vehicles, will get around the same – $6 million to $1 billion in funding. The maritime helicopters will be replaced, that'll cost $2 billion plus. There'll be uncrewed autonomous vessels. There'll be javelin anti-tank missile upgrades, enhanced strike capabilities, long range remotely piloted aircraft, space capabilities. You name it, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The Governments chosen not to replace the two Anzac frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha, certainly not in the first part of the plan. Instead, they're going to spend around $600 million to keep them going.
Former Defence Minister Ron Mark says he sees NZ First’s hand in the defence commitment. He said there would have been a lot of nudging, a lot of feeing on, a lot of encouragement from NZ First, and he told Mike Hosking this morning that this significant commitment to our defence will only enhance our standing with our long term allies.
“This will play well with our strategic partners globally. I mean I'm thinking right now ASEAN, FPDA, and the Indo Pacific. I'm thinking of security comfort that the South Pacific Defence Ministers will get. Five Eyes also, and NATO, can't forget NATO. But it's also going to enhance the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs ability to secure our economic future. You can't have prosperity without security and right now we're living in possibly the most insecure times that we've seen since the Second World War.”
Amen to that. He also told Mike that he wanted to get the contract signed as soon as possible so that in the event of a Labour/Greens coalition there wouldn't be a U-turn on this defence commitment. But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he broadly agreed with the plan as it stood on Monday. He was interested in seeing how it would be paid for, as indeed are we all, but what would he care about that? Didn't bother him in the past where the money came from. He basically sees an increase in defence spending as an extension of Labour's 2019 plan, and they did put in a considerable sum of money, again, probably as part of the coalition commitments.
I guess when you see Chris Hipkins saying he broadly agrees with it, political leaders with an ounce of experience and pragmatism, who are not blinded by ideology, understand that the world is indeed a precarious place. We have to be willing and prepared to play our part in helping ourselves and helping our friends, and with that commitment yesterday we're certainly showing that we're willing to do so.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
We see announcements like this every few years or so from either flavour of Govt. The big Cheeses still focused on platforms, when the service personnel continue to get glossed over every single time. Continued erosion of 'Conditions of Service' are a big part of rock bottom morale. A monstrously top heavy heirachy that soaks up significant $$ on salaries (more Lt Cols than section commanders FGS!!!) and aging infrastructure where service personnel live and work. Additionally, our Defence Force is run like a business, instead of like a necessary institution of our Nation. The Govt claws back a not insignificant lump of whatever $$ they allocate to Defence: Capital charge, gst, annual registration of all military vehicles, and so it goes on.
If the key issue of service personnel 'conditions of service' are not addressed in a fundamental way then all the toys in the world will not make any significant difference to our actual capability
There appears to be at least one thing missing from all this. Our politicians still seem to have no idea of exactly what they want the Defence Force to do! If you don’t know where you want to go I guess any road will do. At whatever expense.
Please stop the drivel.
The armed forces should NOT be promoted as a long-term career.
Thats a terrible concept to sell. The defense forces should be deliberately managed and operated with intentional high turnover rates.
If you can't work out why then I'm not going to tell you.
Most ex-military personnel rarely spend more than a few years in service. They use that time to make themselves marketable in the private sector if they are wise. And that's the way it should stay.
Perhaps slightly better pay and condition might help with recruitment.
But only the very elite should be chosen to advance up the ranks, for when they reach that certain level when their brain and heartbeat needs protection.
Do you get the hint now?
All that new hardware, if bought tactically, should easily reverse the trade deficit with the US, or at least until the current insanity has run its course. Better yet, it makes a compelling argument for the US to give us a free-trade deal to boost our exports and help us pay for the kit. If not, well I guess Airbus make perfectly good stuff.
I'm instantly reminded of the comments of Dr Jordan Peterson when I read how the New Zealand Armed Forces have dumbed down their entry standards. Vocational success or failure is intimately related to a person's IQ. Jordan observes that decades of testing by the US Military have led to them rejecting anybody with an IQ of less than 83. That represents roughly the bottom 15% of the population that are deemed incapable of being taught anything meaningful by the military. So why should New Zealanders be any different? Peterson observes that jobs that were once considered simple are becoming more complex, requiring higher levels of cognitive ability. The demand for cognitive power is increasing, not decreasing. The armed forces are no exception, as the current war in Ukraine clearly demonstrates. So why should our armed forces think they cab buck that trend?
Post a Comment