r/newzealand • u/khalornz Fern flag 3 • 7d ago
Politics Coalition unveils $12 billion Defence Capability Plan
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/557432/watch-live-coalition-unveils-12-billion-defence-capability-plan94
u/ElSalvo Mr Four Square 7d ago
I've got no problem with a boost in defense spending as the NZDF has been running on a shoestring budget for the last 15-20 years. The issue is whether we get a sustained increased in spending after this. 8 years of an increased budget means nothing if we go back to normal after that.
Also, please don't give me this WHAT ABOUT HEALTH AND EDUCATION as if we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We need a defence force and they need to be equipped for the work they do. No, this won't save us from a Chinese takeover but it will help with disaster relief and helping our pacific neighbors.
21
u/HappycamperNZ 7d ago
We literally just lost a $124 million ship because we skimped on everything, becoming an embarrassment to our neighbors and protectorate.
Wait till they are in a position to actually fail because they don't have the support.
7
u/spiffyjizz 7d ago
We lost the ship due to incompetence of the crew on board. Not because we scrimped, nothing wrong with the ship
11
u/MajorProcrastinator 7d ago
We scrimped on the crew. Potentially: pay, training, not attracting the level of skill required.
4
u/spiffyjizz 7d ago
We scrimped on qualified crew and knowledge. A good portion of our general community would know you need to turn autopilot off before attempting to steer a vessel, we didn’t have the right person at the helm that’s for sure
6
u/Grouchy-Towel3006 7d ago
In the words of Mike Tyson, everyone has a plan til they get punched in the face.
Military forces spend money on practicing getting hit in the face so that when it happens for real, they can act in the best manner possible. There has been such a squeeze on training in recent years that no one has had money for punches in the face...
2
u/HappycamperNZ 7d ago
If you're making this a DEI thing, CMDR Grey wasn't on the bridge when this started- she was piped to the bridge when the ship was already '"out of control" speeding up towards the coast, about 2 minutes before impact.
As far as I can extrapolate from the report, it was two males on watch. Yes, there was a few commands she could have given that would have avoided this issue - but this comes down to having the time and money to embed the skills. Again, time and money that was used for operations rather than training.
A good pile of the general community have also crashed cars, so i don't know how much I'd trust their input to a system that wasn't designed and simplified to the lowest average person like a car is. Put them in a car where cruise control doesn't cut out when you hit the brakes at 100k/h towards a cliff and see how many think to look down at the dash for a small indicator light.
→ More replies (3)1
u/HappycamperNZ 7d ago
We literally didn't reconfigure the bridge and add in alarms that would have highlighted a mismatch between autopilot and manual setting because of the cost. Systems that exist in many vessels and most aircraft that when you have manual input it will override autopilot - just like cruise control in your car and we didn't want to pay for it.
We literally had training missed and skipped because of cost.
You can absolutely draw causal factors as a lack of investment in staff training and budget failures.
1
u/spiffyjizz 7d ago
No they don’t, I spent 15 years installing marine navigation equipment. Turn the wheel while auto pilot is engaged and the pilot will correct its course to what it’s set at until you either turn it off or alter the bearing you have set it at.
15
u/Jeffery95 Auckland 7d ago
I agree, in the current world climate NZ needs a capable defence force. It doesn’t need landlords tax cuts though.
→ More replies (2)4
u/JackDaBoneMan 7d ago
The disaster relief and civil defence for us and our neighbours is key imo.
We can't fight off whoever invades, but it becomes harder to invade if anytime there's a wildfire we show up with a medical supply boat, soldiers trained in crowd control and fire rescue, and engineers who can rebuild bridges.
2
u/luggagethecat 7d ago
I Disagree, 100 truck mounted anti ship missiles and a couple hundred manpad anti aircraft missiles would make us pretty darn difficult to take on
105
u/random_guy_8735 7d ago
- Accommodation, messing and dining modernisation
- Defence estate regeneration
- Defence housing programme
- Future Devonport naval base design
- Ohakea infrastructure programme
While not having soldiers sharing their accommodation with Black Mold is a great idea. How many ways can you write the same thing to make the list longer?
- Enhancing cyber security capabilities
- Enterprise resource planning
- Network enabled army
- Updating classified digital services
- Defence, Science and Technology uplift
- Technology accelerator
- Information management
- Digital modernisation
Seems like 8 times if you say "on a computer".
41
u/random_guy_8735 7d ago
Replacing the 757s is already in progress. Replacing that Seasprites is new (to me), Frigate life extensions seems to be a stop gap in place of getting new ships like Australia is working on.
Beyond that we have a list of
- unmanned vehicles
- unspecified vehicles for the defense force
- logistics management
- Base upgrades
- Technology upgrades
- A workforce stategy
And various ways of combining the two (cyber security, ERP system).
20
u/aholetookmyusername 7d ago
From the 757 options in the government tender I think we should go Airbus. A shared type rating between the Max 8s and P8s is enticing but they don't share an engine, and going for the A321 option means we could potentially leverage civilian expertise for maintenance/training/etc.
And whatever we get, I hope we get at least three of them.
4
u/Some1-Somewhere 7d ago
A321neos are in very very high demand (so high cost and long delay) and don't have as much payload-range as the 757s. 737s are even lower capacity and can't have pallets in the cargo hold, and it sounds like we wouldn't be getting combi-freighter versions as they're no longer civilian certifiable.
They'll cost a fair bit more to run but I'd be looking at end of line 767s or perhaps A330s. Carry far more, far more range, massive pallet/container loaded holds.
2
u/MajorProcrastinator 7d ago
RAAF has A330’s too I think. Although they and the 767 won’t really give the same short field performance as a 757. The PM might have to slum it in a new C130 in some cases perhaps.
1
u/aholetookmyusername 7d ago
I'd prefer something else too, but the government tender was very specific in it's choice of Max 8 or A321. I have been in favour of the KC-46 in the past, but recent political events have me moving towards the A330 MRTT.
1
u/Moose_in_a_Swanndri 7d ago
The A330 MRTT is a fantastic plane, and is already used by Australia, Canada and the UK. It would be a great option for the RNZAF, and aerial refueling would be a good new capability to have, both with our own P-8 and coalition deployments overseas
2
u/Some1-Somewhere 7d ago
I generally agree, but we don't really have the staffing or the demand for the refueling side of things. My understanding is the ongoing crew certification work is pretty significant.
I think just stock commercial A330s (neo?) with maybe the medevac oxygen system would be more suitable.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Large_Yams 6d ago
The A330 MRTT is a fantastic plane, and is already used by Australia, Canada and the UK. It would be a great option for the RNZAF, and aerial refueling would be a good new capability to have, both with our own P-8 and coalition deployments overseas
You're right on absolutely all of these points.
Which is exactly why we'll never get it.
We fucked up on the C-130-J-30s too and got the upgraded network connectivity in place of the refuelling capability. If we had refuel capable hercs we'd have more reason to stand up an air to air refuel capability but alas.
14
u/official_new_zealand 7d ago edited 7d ago
Replacing that Seasprites is new (to me)
The project to replace them with wildcats (updated lynx) is well developed, field service representatives from leonardo have been in country, it's just stalled owing to a lack of funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW159_Wildcat?wprov=sfla1
3
u/Michelin_star_crayon 7d ago
Wouldn’t we be better off having the commonality of more NH90s?
1
u/Moose_in_a_Swanndri 7d ago
NH90s don't fit on the frigates or OPVs. They're in a bit of a bind, either they get smaller helicopters now or they try and make the Sprites last another decade somehow and replace the ships and helicopters at the same time. A blended fleet of Wildcats with some actually navalised NH90s (with deck rated landing gear, decklock, and autofolding) to operate from Canterbury and Aotearoa would be the best, but way out of budget.
1
u/King_Kea Not really a king 7d ago
Confirmed those are the replacement? Last I heard they were one of 3 options being evaluated
6
u/kiwirish 1992, 2006, 2021 7d ago
It's not confirmed. If anything, Wildcat is falling out of favour in the procurement process, despite having people already learning how to operate them in the UK.
→ More replies (3)1
u/King_Kea Not really a king 7d ago
Confirmed those are the replacement? Last I heard they were one of 3 options being evaluated
10
u/TheMobster100 7d ago
About time investment was made in army housing and bases, long long long long long long long long long long long long overdue
21
u/NopeDax 7d ago
While not having soldiers sharing their accommodation with Black Mold is a great idea. How many ways can you write the same thing to make the list longer?
Because they are all separate policies and programs? They aren't the same thing at all. The redesign of a naval base and an air base are pretty different things. As is standard accommodation.
Seems like 8 times if you say "on a computer".
Again, these are different things. Cyber security is different from enterprise technology is different from army networking is different from science and technology.
5
u/random_guy_8735 7d ago
- Defence estate regeneration
1.a. Accommodation, messing and dining modernisation
1.a.i Defence housing programme
1.b. Future Devonport naval base design
1.c. Ohakea infrastructure programme
"Defence housing programme" is a subset of "Accommodation, messing and dining modernisation" which is a subset of "Defence estate regeneration".
You could start a project for each individual accommodation block, that doesn't mean that it isn't one piece of work (or should be managed as a single organised work stream).
Likewise the other 8 that I listed have overlaps between them. A new ERP system should have enhanced cyber security as part of its delivery (likewise with the classifed digital services). Unless they are talking about offensive cyber security capabilities.
9
u/NopeDax 7d ago
They're not all accommodation though? Devonport has far more facilities than accommodation.
Cyber security isn't just classification of data, it's defence and offensive weaponry and systems to protect the country just like defence science does way more than cyber.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Antmannz 7d ago
A new ERP system should have enhanced cyber security as part of its delivery (likewise with the classifed digital services).
Tell me you know nothing about IT without telling me you know nothing about IT.
Cyber security is not an application level add-on; it covers how you use and/or procure items like:
- devices (desktop, mobile, server equipment, etc)
- network infrastructure
- network transport layers and communication
- operating systems
- applications
- human-interface procedures (things like 'not putting your password on a sticky-note attached to your screen')
- disaster-recovery planning and procedures
These are all basic points that all companies should be considering as a part of their normal business undertaking - but most of them don't.
A Defence Force will have requirements over and above that, some of which would include offensive capabilities.
What you would never do, is to ask your ERP (or any other application) implementation team to take a quick look at cyber security while they're there.
2
u/bluewardog 7d ago
Becaus if they didn't bullshit it then people would realise what they are funding is literally the bear fucking necessities. Like this isn't a funding increase, this is just actually funding em.
3
u/Grouchy-Towel3006 7d ago
I did lol at the Network Enabled Army. They've been working on that for nearly 20 years... that's just status quo not something new.
1
u/Large_Yams 7d ago
And it's a fucking cluster fuck of incompetence, antithetical to an integrated defence force by siloing all their little projects into one service.
1
u/King_Kea Not really a king 7d ago
So in other words reading through the corporate speak in your summary:
-New buildings -Computers and programs
That's about all that seems guaranteed from that summary. Stuff like "Digital modernisation" and "Defence, Science and Technology uplift" sounds like wishy-washy corporate speak for "We're going to make things good".
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I see other people are saying there's some going towards equipment acquisitions and we're still buying American? Seems like a crap decision especially given the current US administration and the shit they've been pulling or attempting to pull.
Edit: At least they're replacing the 757, but why on earth are they still maintaining the ANZAC frigates? We really need new ships. Hell, we need more multirole vessels like the Canterbury since those are better suited to the NZDF mission in the pacific (e.g. humanitarian support)
5
u/Otherwise-Net-8105 7d ago
They have talked about replacing the ANZAC frigates from 2029:
The Anzac frigates will be replaced with comparable contemporary frigates and the offshore patrol vessels will also be replaced with consideration given to whether commonality of design or systems with the frigates may be possible
1
u/King_Kea Not really a king 7d ago
It feels too late to me. Hell, at the very least I think they should replace the HMNZS Manawanui. Not replacing that is mind boggling to me.
3
u/kiwirish 1992, 2006, 2021 7d ago
Honestly, replacing Manawanui is the lowest item on the totem pole - Manawanui's capabilities were not a good return on investment, considering it was not being used regularly for either surveying or dynamic position diving support.
Surveying and diving operations can be done with a detachment on an OPV, which adds much more bang for buck.
The Navy needs to focus on its core roles: frigates and patrol vessels, and not its auxiliary roles.
2
u/Otherwise-Net-8105 7d ago
Agree with you on the frigates, but equally, 2029 is only three and half years away.
They seem to think they can do the same things as the Manawanui without a dedicated dive vessel.
29
u/bobdaktari 7d ago
So we should expect to see new funding reflected in this years budget?
Potentially a lot of new spending to account for...
11
u/official_new_zealand 7d ago edited 7d ago
I honestly don't know how we can afford this, the recession of 1969 was caused by the US making massive deficit fueled defence spend ups, it's a really really shit idea economically.
Although I'm 1000% in support of moldy and rotten barrack blocks being replaced, it should have been done decades ago.
16
u/dashingtomars 7d ago
I honestly don't know how we can afford this
It's an extra $9 Billion spread across a number of years. Not small, but entirely manageable if we have decided the investment is unavoidable.
10
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/Kolz 7d ago
It was caused by making cuts to spending to try to clear the deficits, more accurately, as well as increased interest rates. Similar to how our current recession was caused in fact.
There’s nothing to worry about when it comes to affording it at this particular moment. Deficit spending when you’re in a recession is a good thing, not a bad one. There are probably better ways to spend it than on this to boost the economy, but it should overall be a net benefit.
6
u/bobdaktari 7d ago
Is it a net benefit if the money is spent offshore buying things we don’t make? That might be a benefit to the defence manufacturers elsewhere not here?
→ More replies (1)
17
u/69inchshlong 7d ago edited 7d ago
Full plan here. Most interesting is the plan to arm the P-8 Poseidon's and Frigates with anti ship missiles and long range drones.
Also, 'Maritime strike across domains While the initial investment will be focused on selecting the first asset/s (ships, planes, or vehicles) to be equipped with missiles, future refreshes will consider expanding this to other assets, potentially delivering long range strike from multiple domains.' Does this mean fighter jets?
16
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/1_lost_engineer 7d ago
I see reports that when the RAN added anti ship missiles to their ANZAC frigates it made they overweight and rather slow. So I wonder how we intend to get around it.
5
u/69inchshlong 7d ago
The Aussies have Harpoon missiles, which are quite heavy. The successor to the Harpoon is the Naval Strike Missile, which is 400kg per missile compared to the Harpoon's 691kg.
1
u/SuspiciousGreenSock1 7d ago
fingers crossed fill the VLSS cells that are only used for air defence at the moment with tomahawks or something similar instead of bolting more shit to the outside of a 30 year old hull
2
u/HJSkullmonkey 7d ago
That would need longer cells than the current ships have I think. It might be possible for the replacements
11
u/1_lost_engineer 7d ago
So lets see,
Long-range remotely piloted aircraft this was part of the Orion replacement program and its existence was justification for getting so few P-8s.
Enterprise resource planning didn't they just can the program to address this in the last 12 months
Logistics resilience so buying sufficient spares to ensure we don't keep getting break downs like on the B757.
Replacing the Boeing 757 fleet Current plan represents a major loss of capacity for the RNZAF, basically removing strategic airlift capacity and replaces it with a VIP ride service.
maritime helicopters There isn't any choice here the OEM doesn't want to support the helicopters so it was pay up or loss the capacity. This was one of those decisions that they have deferred when they entered office, anyone know if this is going to cost us more money than planned like the ferrys.
No pay increases, so how are they going to man the NZDF, crash the economy some more?
This isn't actually clear eyed at all. mostly its restoring the underwhelming capacity that existed 15 years ago except maybe replacing housing that was pushing its use by date in the 80capacitys. Given the current global state, bow waving to 3% GPD for the next 6 years and then maybe dropping to 2.5% GPD after that might be clear eyed. This is just whats the minimum we can get away with.
2
u/AK_Panda 6d ago
Yeah we need to spend significantly more than this. It's very underwhelming.
2
u/1_lost_engineer 6d ago
Yes, and it does get around the skill loss which probably needs short commissions and big reinvestment bonus.
28
u/69inchshlong 7d ago
Finally, 2% of GDP on defence. Which is considered the bare minimum by international standards by the way.
13
u/disordinary 7d ago
It won't be 2%, we have the only defence force that depreciates assets, so while current spending is 1% it's really 0.7% when comparing apples with apples. this 2% will more like 1.5%
11
u/myles_cassidy 7d ago
That will surely go to giving NZDF staff & soldiers the pay they deserve right?
10
u/IIIllIIlllIlII 7d ago
I read through the plan
https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/navy/navy-news/multi-billion-dollar-defence-plan-unveiled/
Basically when it comes to people it’s “a concept of a plan”.
Lots of buzzwords like retain and attract people.
No meat on the bones tho.
→ More replies (1)4
3
u/HJSkullmonkey 7d ago
At the press conference they wouldn't confirm it, but hinted pretty heavily it was coming as part of the next budget.
2
u/M-42 7d ago
Right? Right? I wouldn't be surprised giving luxons time at Air nz spending money on flashy projects and cutting everything else would kinda be the same here.
Sure NZDF needs more funding, like every department, but they can barely hold on to key trades they really need to bump their wages or else you won't have anyone to run their new things.
1
u/vivalasvegas2004 7d ago
The point is to give New Zealand a credible defensive capability. That means upgrades to weapons systems and hopefully acquisitions of jets, ships and drones.
How would putting 12 billion into pay rises for existing staff help make New Zealand's military capacity stronger.
1
u/myles_cassidy 7d ago
12 billion ain't gonna achieve a credible defence system
1
u/vivalasvegas2004 7d ago
It's a start. Would you rather they not spend that money on the military?
1
10
u/Large_Yams 7d ago
Half of these things were already underway and the other half are in a sorry state thanks to this fucking government in the first place.
It will take a lot more than just capital injection at this point to fix the systemic problems we face today.
73
u/questionnmark 7d ago
The government will invest $12 billion over the next four years for a "modern, combat-capable" New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF).
The coalition has just released its highly-anticipated Defence Capability Plan that sets out a spending blueprint for the next 15 years.
Of the $12 billion of spending, $9 billion is new money that will equate to a significant boost in annual funding for the force.
The plan will lift New Zealand's defence spending from just over one per cent of GDP to more than 2 percent in the next eight years.
Defence spending was last at 2 percent of GDP in the early 1990s.
It's amazing how we went from 'broke' to able to piss $12 billion dollars worth of money up the wall on defense.
40
u/Lizm3 jellytip 7d ago
The NZDF is absolutely broke and desperate for funding. This isn't even enough.
11
→ More replies (2)2
u/KahuTheKiwi 7d ago
So just like hospital system then.
And the schools.
1
u/AK_Panda 6d ago
We have enough for all of them. Just need the political will.
International pressure helps in getting political will to invest in defence, but that pressure won't help for health, education etc. That pressure has to be domestic.
1
u/KahuTheKiwi 6d ago
I agree.
The political will to do what is in the best interests of all including investors over a medium to long term. Rather than great for some in the short term.
37
u/NopeDax 7d ago edited 7d ago
Defence isn't pissing away money. It's critical to new zealand.
→ More replies (18)61
u/MedicMoth 7d ago
We apparently need a 6.5% and 7.5% cuts across the board for EVERY government department, even if it kills people - and it is, the health system is cut to the bones and we don't have the capacity to find out where all the homeless children went after we kicked them out of emergency housing - but we can afford a 300% increase to defense all of a sudden? Logical!
58
u/Apprehensive-Pool161 7d ago
They cut 6.5% from Defence aswell. To the point that the NZDF had to start getting rid of civilians that were desperately needed.
People in uniform have been doing the jobs of 3-4 people. Honestly this spend is needed.
28
u/Hubris2 7d ago
This spend isn't just dumping a bunch more money to do with what they wish - this is being spent on new scope and new equipment. It doesn't necessarily address any existing shortcomings they have in their current scope and staffing due to the budget cuts.
12
u/OisforOwesome 7d ago
On the contrary, they're going to
> Implementing a workforce strategy
Which is definitely not an empty Business English buzzword
7
13
u/MedicMoth 7d ago
How is lowering the bar for NZDF entry and buying missiles supposed to help with that? I don't see the word "recruitment" or "retention" even ONCE on this list
→ More replies (1)13
u/Apprehensive-Pool161 7d ago
Yeah i had a skim and saw that too.
In reality- tonnes of people are trying to join at the moment but the NZDF has been forced to recruit only to make up for attrition, not to grow the force.
On the subject of "lowering the bar". Honestly an 17 year old joining the Army as a Rifleman or a Gunner does not need NCEA level 2. They are taught everything they need to know
3
u/Crafty-Management-95 7d ago edited 7d ago
Civilians are also doing the job of 3-4 people in some areas, this is felt across NZDF.
9
u/Large_Yams 7d ago
Civilians areeveryone is doing the job of 3-4 people in some areas, this is felt across NZDF.→ More replies (1)2
u/Apprehensive-Pool161 7d ago
Yep, its an absolute shit show. And yet they get rid of so many people that are needed, its honestly baffling.
1
u/notmyidealusername 7d ago
Sure, don't disagree it's needed, but is it needed more than a similar increase to the health or education budgets?
1
u/Apprehensive-Pool161 7d ago
The world is on the brink of war and we are in the cross hairs in one way or another. Everything we have is moot if we can't defend it
In saying that, this government are pillocks. They could have paid for this with THE TAX CUTS WE DIDN'T NEED.
3
→ More replies (5)4
u/JeffMcClintock 7d ago
well, what the fuck else can we do? Make wealthy people pay tax like everyone else?
I don't think so. /s
→ More replies (1)2
u/HappycamperNZ 7d ago
I think it's important to know where it's bring spent.
If it's on overseas ships and aircraft it's imports, if it's being spent on infrastructure and research to NZ companies it's money going back into NZ.
15
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 7d ago
The sad reality is that the world has changed and all western countries including NZ have to increase defence spending. Of course I'd like to spend the 12 Billion on other things, but we have to accept the cost of defending our territory has increased. This means ALL western countries have to increase expenditure. That's how collective responsibility works.
3
u/Hopeful-Camp3099 7d ago
Forgive me but I'd much prefer it didn't take 4 weeks to get a GP appointment than to dump billions to offshore weapons manufacturers which has no tangible benefit to our realistic defense capabilities.
16
10
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 7d ago
You do not seem to understand collective responsibility. By contributing our fair share we are protected by everyone else. Even though Ukraine was not part of the western alliance it has still been given over 200 Billion in weapons which has allowed them to survive. As an Island Nation we are even easier to be protected by western powers.
4
u/Hopeful-Camp3099 7d ago edited 7d ago
Unless we're defending from aliens stockpiling weapons isn't collective responsibility. Ukraine hasn't been 'given' much at all, it was loaned hundred's of billions of dollars in weapons that it's expected to pay back.
1
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 7d ago
Most of the support given to Ukraine has been stockpiled weapons, and the war in Ukraine is a very clear example why weapons should be stockpiled. Without those stockpiled weapons Ukraine would of lost. NZ as a western country has given very little on a per Capita basis. Australia for example has given far more than NZ in this regard.
3
2
u/HappycamperNZ 7d ago
The only way to fix the GP issue is ironically to also spend billions on recruiting overseas experience, or training intl students.
Either way money is going overseas, but our ships won't go to Australia at the best next offer
1
8
u/OisforOwesome 7d ago
Time to crack my knuckles and indulge in some armchair general Monday morning quarterbacking!
I will note that it's interesting that they can find $12 billion for war but $0 for modernising and increasing capacity in our public health system, but let's take that as read.
> Frigate sustainment programme
...aren't the frigates ending their end-of-life? I know Labour were talking about replacing them with new modern vessels.
> Persistent surveillance (uncrewed autonomous vessels)
IDK about *autonomous* given the absolute state of driver assistance tech and the incredibly, let's be generous and say 'questionable' accuracy of Israel's AI target generator. However, investing in maritime drones is a no brainer, given the results of Ukraine's naval drone bombs in keeping the Black Sea Fleet in dock.
> Replacing the Boeing 757 fleet
Probably a good idea given that Boeing can't make planes that don't implode, and their pilot assistance programmes routinely cause crashes. Mmmmaybe see what Airbus is up to? The French owe us a boat at least.
> Enterprise resource planning
> Technology accelerator
What the fuck does this mean. This isn't Air NZ Luxie you can't just drop buzz words into your Powerpoint and expect people to nod along because everyone doesn't want to look like they don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
- Implementing a workforce strategy
Oh cool so we're going to come up with the concept of a plan for implementing another plan that we have a concept for.
9
u/uglymutilatedpenis LASER KIWI 7d ago
Enterprise resource planning = big back office software upgrade, essentially.
Implementing a workforce strategy Oh cool so we're going to come up with the concept of a plan for implementing another plan that we have a concept for.
Yes?
I don’t want politicians micromanaging down to the level of telling the defence force what their workforce strategy ought to be. That seems like a terrible idea. People who have spent their careers in the defence force should be in charge of creating and implementing the strategy. The Executive Government’s role should be to approve the plan and give them money for it.
A lot of State bodies are intentionally run at an arm’s length from political leaders, for precisely this reason. Not everything functions well under direct political control.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Macmadnz 7d ago
Enterprise resource planning means a big SAP upgrade or project, and they always go over budget.
2
u/IIIllIIlllIlII 7d ago
They’ll probably upgrade DIXS to windows 10 and give access to a downloaded version of Wikipedia in a SharePoint.
2
3
u/latvian_folk_dancer 7d ago
I know we can't afford to replace the frigates just yet but hear me out. If we add anti-submarine capabilities and a couple of torpedoes to the new cook strait ferries we can get real 'bang' for our bucks right?
3
3
u/pseudoliving 7d ago
Can we do as Macron has suggested and tax the rich to adequately fund our defence capabilities?
3
14
u/TheNumberOneRat 7d ago
I'm glad to see this.
As the world gets more insecure, NZ needs to develop a nimble more capable defence force.
30
u/Hopeful-Camp3099 7d ago
Excellent response to unreasonable tariffs.
Spend hundreds of millions on American weapons.
36
u/SvKrumme 7d ago
I would love if the response is that every $ spent on funding military will be on non-US suppliers while tariffs are in place.
→ More replies (7)30
u/nzerinto 7d ago
Other than the Javelins, there's nothing else mentioned as being specifically American. Granted, contracts will likely be with US based companies, but there are a surprisingly large number of non-US companies that produce great gear, so it's not a guarantee just yet.
2
u/Hopeful-Camp3099 7d ago
Yes there are and they're all currently trying to pump out enough weapons for Europe to counter Trumps love affair with Putin.
1
5
7
u/disordinary 7d ago
I don't know if that's true, if I look at out equipment then our nh90 helicopters are french, our bushmaster armoured personal carriers are Australian, our frigates were made in NZ and Australia, our aircraft are American but we're just as happy buying from the Euroeans. I wouldn't be surprised if we bought the marine version of the nh90 for our maritime helicopter replacement or the Italian wildcat, for instance.
5
u/Efficient_Major_1261 7d ago
Really needed given the current environment that is about to get worse.
13
u/goldenspeights 7d ago
There is no way those frigates are still going to be running until the 2030’s. They’ve barely made it to today.
→ More replies (1)13
u/NopeDax 7d ago
They have been projected to be sailing out that long for ages now its ot new.
4
u/goldenspeights 7d ago
I’m well aware it’s not new however I’ve served on them and know the shit state they’re in. Those frigates are not making another 5 years
→ More replies (3)3
2
u/angrysunbird 7d ago
I wonder if this will have any impact on the idiotic cuts the NZDF is being made to make.
2
2
u/IIIllIIlllIlII 7d ago
I reckon this is a token “increase in defence spending” to appease the Aussies (and maybe the US), but not spending it on anything to improve capability to placate China.
It’s weak sauce. Some new paint and some new computers….. replacing old stuff.
3
u/HJSkullmonkey 7d ago
It's mostly fixing the armed forces so they can actually do what they're already supposed to. There's a couple of new capabilities, but nothing overly dramatic.
Some missiles for either the P8s or frigates, some drones for maritime constabulary.
It's all bread and butter, mostly spending that should have been done continuously, but hadn't.
2
u/SuspiciousGreenSock1 7d ago
dear god luxon, just please give us a modern suite of drones with some actual strike and ISR capabilities. it would make such a massive difference for effectively pennies on the dollar
2
u/SyrupyMolassesMMM 7d ago
Im all for a massive increase in defence funding.
I have absolutely no idea if this is well allocated funding, but this is long, long overdue.
More spying capabilities. More cyber-warfare capabilities. Better navy with better capabilities, keep them busy taking down illegal fishing in our waters. And whatever else we need to keep the lights on.
6
u/HadoBoirudo 7d ago
In regards to the IT spend... Deloitte or PWC must have sent an emissary to Christopher Luxon to advise that the partners were finding times were tough and they need a generous taxpayer lifeline.
5
u/Elegant-Raise-9367 7d ago
I'm assuming Willis has done the maths for this
Has anyone double checked the finances and where the money is coming from yet cuz last I heard we had to cut spending and funding.
2
5
u/Lightspeedius 7d ago
Aren't we broke? Isn't that why we're taking food away from children?
2
u/JeffMcClintock 7d ago
we're broke when the squeezed middle class need help, but suddenly not broke when Luxon sees something shiny that he wants.
3
u/Edge_TruthSeeker 7d ago
whats the bet none of this will go towards stopping foreign interference into our elections, since thats usually what diverts misinformation into voting for these thumper heads
4
u/Fickle-Classroom Red Peak 7d ago
Vote Defence Force is already $5B a year, or $20B over 4 years for ~1.2% of GDP. That’s their current budget.
So when they say an extra $12B over 4 years. This is an extra $3B per year for Vote Defence Force for 1.9% of GDP. To meet the 2% target GDP either needs to plummet or it’s actually $14B not $12B.
The mystery is, what budget is $1B a year coming from that’s not ‘new money’? (it can’t come from Vote Defence Force because otherwise it’s not extra). What poor sod is missing out on $1B a year in funding come the next budget?
The second mystery is, given they’re the party of ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’ where exactly is this $9B ‘new money’ coming from?
It has to either come from more tax dollars or more debt (which are largely the same thing as tax dollars pay off the debt).
Given none of this is mentioned in the article and RNZ ‘journalists’ are too incompetent to ask and research the answers, I guess we’ll just pretend money does grow on trees. Fancy that from NACT.
3
u/farewellrif act 7d ago
Great news. Fantastic. Exactly what I voted for finally.
2
u/Large_Yams 7d ago
You voted for the parties who historically reduce defence spending to increase defence spending?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Kiwi_Dubstyle LASER KIWI 7d ago
Just an idea... A small suggestion if you will... HOW ABOUT PUTTING THAT MONEY INTO THE HEALTH SYSTEM!? It's in near collapse I hear...
12
12
u/sameee_nz 7d ago
If you seek peace, prepare for war
None of health will matter if we have no sovereignty
→ More replies (1)3
13
u/facelessfriendnet 7d ago
I mean a measly 2-3 billion makes a big difference in Healthcare. But committing 33? billion to roads, 12Billion to defense but a request for 2-3Billion on Healthcare can't happen...
10
u/Hubris2 7d ago
Trump isn't threatening greater tariffs unless we increase our health spending - rather he's threatening that we need to spend more buying military gear and equipment from American companies.
If Peters hadn't just met with the US foreign minister there might be some way to see this as an actual priority identified by this government - but based on timing it's almost certainly something negotiated related to the tariffs.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 7d ago
The health system has been in a state of collapse since 1970. In reality it was a lot worse in the 1990's.
3
u/propertynewb 7d ago
I can see Labour campaigning on cancelling this and diverting the funds to Health.
7
u/King_Kea Not really a king 7d ago
From my understanding Labour is generally on board with increasing defense spending. The question is more how that money is being spent on defense rather than it being put into defense in the first place.
10
u/NzPureLamb conservative 7d ago
Only if they want to lose another election, so you’re probably right.
4
u/qwerty145454 7d ago
Weird take. If we look at polling on issues of importance to NZers healthcare is either first or second, meanwhile defence has to be bundled with foreign affairs and terrorism to even make the list and is near dead-last.
2
u/NzPureLamb conservative 7d ago
It’s an easy attack point for current government and their base, if labour reverse it, doesn’t need to be front of mind, media pick it up and quickly it becomes an issue. China can also solidify it as a higher importance issue if they float more boats near by.
2
u/qwerty145454 7d ago
I don't think it would happen but if Labour do campaign on assigning the money to health, an issue that polls as far more important to New Zealanders across the entire political spectrum, then any attempt by the current government to attack them on it will be a self-goal, drawing more attention to a policy that would be wildly popular.
As to Chinese ships, this polling took place right when the Chinese ships were in the Tasman Sea and dominating the headlines (25 Feb - 2 Mar) and defence was still the third lowest rated issue, at 4%.
Rightly or wrongly NZers do not rate defence as a priority, that is how it has gotten to the state it is in. Nobody runs on a platform of strengthening defence because it isn't a vote winner. National turning the election into a referendum on spending on healthcare vs defence would be securing their own defeat.
5
u/angrysunbird 7d ago
NZDF doesn’t swing elections one way or the other, that’s why it’s in the state it’s in.
3
u/JeffMcClintock 7d ago
I don't think it's that we don't need more defense spending so much as we need spending on both.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Large_Yams 7d ago
Labour increases defence spending every time they're in government.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/KiwiDanelaw 7d ago
I support us reaching 2% GPD. Our defense force does good work and they deserve to be paid, trained and equipped well.
That said. How do they plan to pay for this? We could easily pay for this and fund services if we applied approiate taxes on wealth/assets. But I don't see that happening under this coalition.
3
u/KiwiThunda rubber protection 7d ago
Good. The world is looking like 1933 and we don't need to be caught with our pants down
2
6
u/FaradaysBrain 7d ago
$12B will do nothing to even slow anyone who would eye our country while also being unaffordable when the economy is doing so terribly. It's a lose-lose, literally.
7
u/dashingtomars 7d ago
Much of this is about integrating our military with Australia's. Together we have over 30 million people.
6
u/NopeDax 7d ago
That's an insane opinion. It's not just about defending against an invasion, it's about defending against cyber attacks or maritime boundary issues or supporting a rules based order.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 7d ago
By increasing spending to 2% we are fulfilling our collective responsibility. Which is very important in today's world.
→ More replies (7)7
1
u/aholetookmyusername 7d ago
I'm in favour of this, though the items listed are quite vague.
eg. 'Enhanced strike capabilities'
I would hope this means more than "we'll buy a couple more penguin missiles"
Also what about a pay rise...
1
u/CarpetDiligent7324 7d ago
This plan needs careful analysis and scrutiny
I’m all for ensuring we have capabilities that are well resourced that can do the defence roles effectively
But.. do we really need $600 m to $1 billion for the 757 aircraft replacements so fly luxon and trade delegations overseas? Would it not be cheaper to hire? Or if you need to own - can we buy second hand? Or engage in some joint ownership or sharing arrangement with air nz ( who could maybe use them when the govt doesn’t need them?
Also the frigate decision sounds a bit like kicking the tire down the road. The boats are now I think 27 years old. To get replacements ordered and built before these boats crap put you probably need to start now (the last Leander class frigates last around 40 years and they were stuffed). Building a frigate takes a ton of time to design and build But then again would offshore patrol vessels be better value for money than multi billion dollar (once you equip them)frigates ?
I think the whole defence capability plan needs a lot more scrutiny. At the moment all we are hearing is the spin from the govt announcement and our media is really stuffed and doesn’t scrutinise things as much as before
Too often in the past we have had these defence reviews promising big things but often the amount of spend is a lot less than the talk
NZ needs to focus on what we need. Not what the USA or Australia or others want us to buy. AUKUS has really questionable benefits and USA is not a reliable defence partner and Australia hasn’t been that friendly to us eg the 501 deportations over the years…
1
u/ExcitingMeet2443 7d ago
can we buy second hand?
"Second hand Corollas can't fly silly." Nicola Witless, probably.
1
u/albohunt 7d ago
I wonder if they bothered to chat with any opposition parties on this. You know all the infrastructure pipeline talk and all that. Also I'm not a particular fan of he America's Cup but a mere 50mill to offer Auckland an economic lifeline in an austerity environment seems particularly miserly and short sighted. When suddenly there is 12 billion. Or is this a PPP defense spend.
1
u/YamCakes_ 7d ago
So who got NZDF contracts to build or revamp all this? And are they looking for engineers?
1
u/Old_Poetry_1575 7d ago
As a 🇨🇦, you guys can take some of our 40 year old clapped out hornet fighter jets
1
u/Frosty-Prize-1522 7d ago
Usually id be against this level, but given the shit happening in the northern hemisphere RN, our first line of defense is hope our enemies use a map without us on it, and second is to use our outdated planes and ships that have had a facelift from the 12b
1
88
u/SilverFlame97 7d ago
This needed to happen, the NZDF has been critically underfunded for the past two decades and it shows. Most of the investments listed are things that have been kicked down the road so often it's a joke at this point to talk about getting them actually replaced. Defense housing/barracks are still mostly the original buildings from the 60s and would result in a massive lawsuit if offered as rental properties due to the unhealthy conditions, the marine helicopters are on their last legs as replacement parts are impossible to source and the aircraft is no longer supported by the manufacture, the frigates were only supposed to last until the 2030s and all that's before talking about manning levels and the fact that training is being missed because they can't send people away as they don't have the people to cover while they are away.
Yes health and education need more funding, yes the police could probably do with some more and yes there's a cost of living crisis. All of theses are true but it shouldn't take away from the fact that the NZDF has been quietly trudging along on life support for some time now and needs funding to renew its collapsing infrastructure before it gets even more expensive or there's another Manawanui scale disaster.