Is our investment in defence value for money?

Written By: - Date published: 4:31 am, May 29th, 2024 - 30 comments
Categories: AUKUS, climate change, defence, disaster, FiveEyes, Pacific, Peace, war - Tags:

By Marie Russell, reposted from Newsroom

Opinion: All up, defence cost us more than $6.7 billion in 2023/24.

There were 14,996 people working for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) at June 2023, while others dealt with procurement and policy in the non-military wing, the Ministry of Defence.

Why does our small, remote country have such a costly defence force? Is this investment rendering it fit for purpose – and in 2024, what is that purpose?

The 2023 Defence Policy and Strategy Statement saw two significant threats: strategic competition, and the impacts of climate change.

In terms of strategic competition, New Zealand’s current enemy has been identified for us by our Five Eyes allies, some of whom are readying for a war to ‘contain’ China. China is our major trading partner, so for New Zealand this is a diplomatic balancing act, not a clear military pathway.

There is a further balancing act. Keeping our once-traditional allies happy about our contribution to their geo-political strategic goals puts at risk our post-Anzus ‘independent foreign policy’, with its Pacific focus. The recent pressures to join the Aukus alliance suggest that our last vestiges of independence may be on the way out.

Our large allies don’t actually need us for their military ventures, but are concerned about the appearance of the Anglosphere sticking together.

In the meantime, what is our military actually doing? Last century, overseas deployments were most often for United Nations-organised peacekeeping. In the past 20 years, our troop deployments were more likely to be led by individual countries (especially the USA) and coalitions, not the UN.

According to the Defence Force’s deployments map, there are up to 95 personnel in Europe, supporting Ukraine, and 63 in the Middle East; that is, pretty much all on the other side of the globe and well away from our neighbourhood. Smaller numbers are deployed elsewhere.

In March some 30 personnel were in California, “re-imagining warfare” with the US military. This meant trying out novel missile drones, new communications systems and the like. Later this year, the NZDF will again take part in RIMPAC – the two-yearly Rim of the Pacific war games led by the US military and supporting US purposes.

Given the pressures around Aukus, perhaps it was no coincidence that New Zealand was chosen to host the RIMPAC Commanders’ conference in February this year.

As well as overseas war games and training, there’s a certain amount of travel for ceremonial purposes. Forty army band players went to Gallipoli for this year’s Anzac Day. Last year they flew to Basel, Switzerland, for a Military Tattoo; in 2022 it was to Edinburgh. The Air Force and Navy have their own bands and they get around as well. The bands are very good, but appear nice to have, rather than essential.

Being geared up for war only addresses one of the two significant threats that defence talks about.

The impacts of climate change barely get a look in. A ‘combat-capable and combat-ready’ military force cannot ‘win’ against the effects of climate change.

Yes, some young, fit, and disciplined teams with good transport and equipment would be very useful in climate disasters or after earthquakes. But on recent evidence, the NZDF appears poorly prepared for work with civilians in disaster zones at home.

For example: the Army was brought in to guard MIQ facilities during the Covid lockdowns. One third of those leaving the army in January to October 2021 – and despite being paid an additional pandemic allowance – cited the pandemic deployment as a reason for leaving. Evidently, helping at home in a crisis wasn’t what they had signed up for.

Deployment during Cyclone Gabrielle saw the Navy shipping water supplies to Gisborne. However, Defence Force personnel couldn’t distribute drinking water because they didn’t comply with the regulations governing such work.

Afflicted residents were dismayed that the thousand soldiers in the cyclone area were not all actually helping: soldiers were stood down from helping clean up properties “because of health concerns and insufficient PPE”. These are the same resolute forces expected to go into combat.

In other ways, all is not well. This year, the Auditor-General’s office criticised the Defence Force’s reporting. Numerous performance targets, for example, were achieved by altering the previously-agreed targets.

Where an awkward target was lowered to what had actually been achieved – in one case to ‘zero’ – it was misleadingly recorded as ‘met’. The Auditor-General’s assessment was that the NZDF’s reports were “entirely unreliable”.

We do need ships, aircraft, sturdy vehicles, and trained workers: for fisheries patrol, search and rescue, getting to and from Antarctica, and providing help around the Pacific and within New Zealand. But those workers don’t need vastly expensive equipment, or to be trained and armed to kill, and the vehicles don’t need to carry weapons.

Last week, the Defence Force flew to New Caledonia to evacuate New Zealanders. You don’t need sophisticated weaponry to do that, just a plane and pilots.

Marie Russell is an honorary senior research fellow at the Department of Health, University of Otago, Wellington.

30 comments on “Is our investment in defence value for money? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bearded Git 1
    29 May 2024 at 6:57 am

    NZ's defence spending was 1.3% of GDP in 2022 and has generally been trending down for a long time. Maximum annual spending has been US$3 billion up to 2022, that is NZ$5 billion. See the graph here:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/NZL/new-zealand/military-spending-defense-budget

    If NZ has indeed spent NZ$6.7 billion in the year 23-24 that is high and a significant increase against the trend. But this is probably a blip because NZ is replacing one-off things like the Hercules, and it is still only 1.6% of GDP. (Though I would prefer 1% personally….we could use the money to build state houses instead).

  2. SPC 2
    29 May 2024 at 9:31 am

    A foreign policy independence, free from security alliance association, would require withdrawal from defence alliance with Oz, Five Eyes and also connection to NATO via NATO+ status.

    Such are seen as part of (western) democratic nation state multilateral collective security – something expected of the UK, US and France as members of the UNSC.

    Participation in tech development co-operation is not joining a military/security alliance. And involves no compromise of an independent foreign policy.

    People tend to get confused on this point because some noddy had the silly idea of making it part of AUKUS – which is UK and US sharing existing tech with Oz (as to modernisation of its submarine fleet – part of its "defence" forces).

  3. Belladonna 3
    29 May 2024 at 9:54 am

    Ms Russell seems to have entirely missed anti-piracy operations from her analysis.
    Something which has been growing over the last years, and is certainly hitting the headlines regularly.

    If she doesn't believe that NZ, a country which is entirely dependent on shipping trade, and which is at the very end of extensive shipping routes, needs to participate in policing shipping lanes – then she seems to be missing an important world-view perspective.

    Note: there is no point in unarmed vessels engaging in anti-piracy operations. The pirates certainly have weapons, and are not afraid to use them.

    If she proposes that NZ should freeload off the efforts of others – then she should say so. And do some analysis of the possible consequences of that attitude.

    [I can forsee several: one would be an insurance premium loaded for shipping protection, which would be rebated for those countries participating in actually doing that protection. Meaning that shipping costs to and from NZ might well double. I leave to your own imagination what that would do to our trade, and inflation figures.]

    If she also believes that NZ should not participate in any peacekeeping efforts – then she should say that as well.

    • Anne 3.1
      29 May 2024 at 10:55 am

      Agree with your synopsis.

      This is a sticky issue, but with Climate Change etc. we need the armed forces more than ever. They are not only going to be required to assist with the ever increasing major weather events – one of which is forecast to hit some of us this afternoon – but also CC has the potential to throw large parts of the world into chaos. It is going to require huge peace keeping and other major military efforts to help maintain a semblance of international law and order.

      NZ must play its role in such a scenario, and we need a highly proficient army, navy and air force, ready to go at a moment's notice, for both national and international calamities and events After all, we would expect other countries to come quickly to our aid if it became necessary.

  4. Belladonna 4
    29 May 2024 at 10:02 am

    I also find it appalling that essential supplies in a disaster were held up because of bureaucratic red tape. The Navy wasn't an accredited drinking water supplier, so couldn't distribute water. [I almost couldn't believe this was true]

    Note, there was no question that the water wasn't safe to drink – it was the same water that Navy personnel were drinking, and that would be supplied to a disaster overseas. The only issue was a piece of paper.

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/03/17/cyclone-gabrielle-documents-reveal-issues-with-nzdf-response/

    This has nothing to do with the capability of the navy to assist in times of emergency. And everything to do with the emergency administration not being able to cut through red-tape when needed.

    It should have been one call to the Emergency Response Centre – to issue an exemption – and be distributing water 10 minutes later.

  5. Ad 5
    29 May 2024 at 10:28 am

    Hilarious this columnist wants a defence force without the ability to defend itself.

    As per New Caledonia last week, or Fiji or PNG potentially, sometimes weapons are required to suppress societal breakdown. Be real.

    Few if any other countries have to service from the equator to the Antarctic. We are very lucky Australia enables strong interoperability.

  6. Belladonna 6
    29 May 2024 at 11:50 am

    The author would appear to have no qualifications for her opinion piece: i.e. her opinion is worth no more than the average woman-in-the-street.

    Marie is a qualitative researcher currently studying breastfeeding policy, and women and cycling. Other research interests include firearms policy, public transport, workers' history and children's wellbeing.

    https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/staff/marie-russell-department-of-public-health

    None of those areas of research enable her to provide an expert opinion on anything to do with the defence force.

    • Obtrectator 6.1
      29 May 2024 at 1:02 pm

      On the other hand, it is possible for someone from a non-military background to acquire expertise in a defence-related field to the extent of becoming a trusted consultant on the subject:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Baxter

      • Belladonna 6.1.1
        29 May 2024 at 1:09 pm

        Indeed. However Ms Russell appears to have neither musical nor defense expertise.

        Unless you've managed to unearth some which is not listed in her official employment bio.
        Unlike Jeff Baxter for example, who has a substantial listing of defence expertise in the Wiki page you linked.

        Note: I never claimed that a military background was required – simply some expertise in the subject.

    • Maurice 6.2
      29 May 2024 at 1:24 pm

      Otago University – Wellington Campus – Public Health Department … says it all to those of us who have dealt with them in the past.

      • Incognito 6.2.1
        29 May 2024 at 1:45 pm

        Pray tell.

        • Maurice 6.2.1.1
          29 May 2024 at 2:09 pm

          Been to seminars there. Vegan only 'food' – fortunately was pre-warned and brought thick Corned Beef sammies. Let then know it was personally home killed and brined so not commercially produced.

          The whole place was pervaded by an Ivory tower stench of misandry to my nose.

          • Ad 6.2.1.1.1
            29 May 2024 at 5:09 pm

            🙂

          • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1.2
            29 May 2024 at 5:59 pm

            fortunately was pre-warned…

            That was fortunate. How great you avoided woke vegan food without going hungry (that'll learn 'em). It's more difficult to learn when hungry, apparently.

            The whole place was pervaded by an Ivory tower stench of misandry to my nose.

            Ah, the "stench" – a new low. Sounds foul – I'd stay upwind if I were you.

            … says it all to those of us who have dealt with them in the past.

            Indeed is does. Here's another one at the UoO (Wgtn) Public Health Dept.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)#Honours_and_awards

            Like many things taken for granted, NZ's university industry is past its peak, although a few vocational degrees will continue to do well enough – for now.

            Before the Collapse (2020)
            A Guide to the Other Side of Growth

            No man loses anything by the frowns of Fortune unless he has been deceived by her smiles. – Seneca

            What Seneca tells us is that you should never fall into the trap of believing that, since things have always been going in a certain way, they will keep going in that way. Your fortune is never granted and what goes up tends to go down, especially if it has been going up fast and high.

            And so, the Seneca Strategy is simply about understanding that there is just so much you can do to make the world go where you would want it to go. If you are at the beginning of the asymmetric Seneca curve, the collapse has not yet come and you still have a chance to slow down the climb and avoid it altogether. If you are at the highest point, the Seneca Peak, it is too late to avoid the Seneca trap, the coming cliff, but know that the more you struggle to avoid it, the steeper you are making it. And if you are sliding down already, there is little else you can do but follow the flow.

            As we approach a critical time for our whole civilization, we need to think of the future of humankind rather than that of our individual existences. We can help our children and their children to have a better future by acting now in the right manner: simply by leaving to them something of the bounty that our planet has handed to us and that we have wasted so stupidly, up to now. What we do now for those who will come after us, will echo in eternity.

            But not everything we do now – like avoiding vegan food – what a hero wink
            I’m well past my peak, but it’s no biggie smiley

            • Maurice 6.2.1.1.2.1
              29 May 2024 at 6:34 pm

              Ah! Marcus Aurelius Antoninus:

              “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil.”

              The Stage does not change – only the players …..

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                29 May 2024 at 7:33 pm

                The whole place was pervaded by an Ivory tower stench of misandry to my nose.

                What Aurelius could have done/been with your nose for misandry smiley

                The Stage does not change – only the players …..

                The 'players' have changed, rapidly, and are redesigning the set – consarn it!

          • Incognito 6.2.1.1.3
            29 May 2024 at 8:50 pm

            Nice anecdote about your networking at those public seminars. Can you set your feelings aside and comment on the Post?

    • Incognito 6.3
      29 May 2024 at 8:58 pm

      Any opinion’s worth is based on the strength of its arguments. However, it’s surprising to see the prominent placing of the logo of the University of Otago, one of Newsroom’s Partners, suggesting it is an “Expert opinion from University of Otago” [emphasis added]. I think this is stretching the truth a little too far.

  7. Mike the Lefty 7
    29 May 2024 at 1:08 pm

    Defence is one of those areas where you always have the question how much is enough?

    Health, aged care, education, social services can be budgeted on rough estimate figures at worst, but how do you budget defence and what do you base it on? The probability of attack by a hostile force?

    The basic argument on defence spending has traditionally been do we spend sufficient to make our armed services a fully equipped vital force capable of defending the country if attacked, or do we go the way of spending and equipping our services if we need them for national emergencies and/or watching over our coastal territorial limits and fishing grounds?

    I don't think we have ever really resolved this argument so defence spending gets treated like insurance premiums – you hate to pay them but you fear worse if you don't.

    • Anne 7.1
      29 May 2024 at 1:47 pm

      … we need them for national emergencies and/or watching over our coastal territorial limits and fishing grounds?

      Looking to the future, I think that is going to remain their primary task.

      I spent 5 years working on a RNZAF base some 30 years ago, and it was pretty much their primary task back then – transporting people and equipment to regions that needed them. It includes the navy, and the army frequently use air-force planes to travel from one place to another. Surveilling the oceans for unwanted guests and illegal fishing expeditions was another important task and of course rescue missions to all manner of places.

      Given our geographical isolation it becomes even more important we have the forces and equipment to carry out these tasks to a satisfactory level.

      That's my advertising on behalf of the Defence Services done and dusted. 😉

  8. Sanctuary 8
    29 May 2024 at 3:32 pm

    It is surprising the number of people who don't grasp the primary mission of the military is to fight wars, not do search and rescue. To call for unilateral disarmament just when everyone else seems to be tooling up for a big fight is the height of folly.

    Our defense budget is really peanuts compared to what it could be. Our best defense is the same it has always been – thousands of miles of ocean from anywhere. Remember, it took 7,000 ships and a couple of hundred thousand sailors to transport the Allied armies less than 200km from the UK to France in 1944.

    A point usually missed is that post cold war NZs defense spending has been shaped by being an integral part of a global alliance and contributing usefully in areas where our allies might be thin. For example, our four P-8A aircraft constitute a fully 25% of the available aircraft of this type to the ANZAC alliance. Our special forces were in high demand in the 2000's and 2010s as elite troops completely integrated down to the most granular level with US, UK and Aussie special forces. And of course, our well-funded role in five eyes plays an important role in intelligence gathering. This is why we don't have attack jets – our allies have plenty of better ones than we would ever would be able to provide.

    The wider issue of when and where we might be involved in the big fight is a sharper debate, because our isolation means inevitably an expeditionary force and our small numbers makes any major war an existential emergency. NZ has for it's entire post 1840 history assumed it would be part of or closely aligned with a global empire whose naval supremacy has both guaranteed the security of our sea frontiers and ensured unquestioned freedom of passage for our exports. We've so taken this for granted that it scarcely enters into our consciousness let alone is discussed – but the implications of a nation that isn't our friend controlling the world's trade routes is pretty frightening if you ask me. Our main allies remaining the dominant naval powers is a key security concern of New Zealand, and that in turn shapes where we might fight and our force structure – hence the P-8s again and the upcoming eye watering cost of replacing the ANZAC frigates.

    The second reality is NZ has never shied away from the noble principle of defending freedom in the face of brutal dictatorships. Public opinion massively favours the people of Ukraine in their struggle against Putin's mad regime, with the wannabe Tsar in the Kremlin bent on genocide and lawless wars of aggression in a manner that was all too familiar to NZers of the 1930s and 40s. Should we stand aside while the free people of Taiwan are subjected to attack from China? I don't think so – Taiwan is a peace loving democracy, and we should make common cause with them against a repressive dictatorship all day long.

    Finally, our fate is inextricably intertwined with Australia. hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders live there. It wouldn't be overly dramatic to say we range ourselves without fear beside Australia. Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand. So if the Aussies get themselves into a sticky tangle we simply wouldn't stand aside as ballistic missiles rained down on cities full of New Zealanders – we'd be in as well. That requires again the need to have armed forces capable of fighting high intensity warfare in some sort of expeditionary capacity – by that measure, we are woefully unready to fight with our key ally.

    • Ad 8.1
      29 May 2024 at 5:15 pm

      Back in the day the entire focus of the left was to be just as internationalist; to support the good but motly crew trying to roll back a Fascist state in Spain in the 1930s.

      Remember when the left had the confidence to carry a gun not just a pamphlet?

      • Obtrectator 8.1.1
        29 May 2024 at 6:01 pm

        " …. trying to roll back a Fascist state in Spain in the 1930s."

        The Fascists in Spain were never a "state", not until after they'd won the war, anyway. They were rebels against a properly-constituted (but highly incompetent) left-wing government.

    • Anne 8.2
      29 May 2024 at 6:47 pm

      It is surprising the number of people who don't grasp the primary mission of the military is to fight wars, not do search and rescue.

      Just because some of us can see a future where the wars we have to fight are going to have their genesis in Climate Change upheavals and related problems does not mean we are dimwits who can't perceive the primary mission of the military is to fight wars. Search and rescue plus surveillance activity all comes into play when we fight the wars of the future.

  9. Michael who failed Civics 9
    29 May 2024 at 4:15 pm

    The NZDF isn't "costly" – it's done on the cheap and has been for many years under successive governments. It's warfighting capabilities are minimal while the threat to our national interest grows.

    Instead of squabbling over the kit the NZDF needs, a task most of us are incompetent at (I left the NZDF more than 30 years ago and freely admit my incompetence at force structure), we should debate which of our national interests are worth defending with violence. Some people will say we have no such interests (they need to say why not), but most of us, I believe, will say we do have interests worth fighting for.

    Once we reach that point, we can ask: with what do we fight to protect those interests?

  10. Maurice 10
    29 May 2024 at 10:22 pm

    Why does our small, remote country have such a costly defence force? Is this investment rendering it fit for purpose – and in 2024, what is that purpose?

    One purpose is interoperability – the ability to operate with any other alliance military.

    My great nephew flies a helicopter older than himself and constantly amazes personnel from other militaries as to how well the aircraft is maintained and how he flies something they have only read about. The constant problem is keeping such old air frames air worthy and safe.

    Many of our personnel put their lives on the line simply to keep our military operational. If we as a nation do not invest in the military then the ability to be relevant and helpful in Local and regional operations becomes even more fatally compromised.