Labour – NZFirst deal details announced

60 comments on “Labour – NZFirst deal details announced ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dv 1

   24 October 2017 at 3:59 pm

   On first blush that looks pretty good.
2. ianmac 2

   24 October 2017 at 4:01 pm

   “record a Cabinet minute regarding the lack of process followed prior to the National-led government sponsorship of UNSC2334”
   What is UNSC2334?
   • Stunned Mullet 2.1

     24 October 2017 at 4:03 pm

     Regarding Israel settlements in Palestinian territories. – a Meh.. although some people will get excited one way or t’other about it.
     • One Two 2.1.1

       24 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

       Why did you focus on that specific point, by attempting to diminish it?
       • Stunned Mullet 2.1.1.1

         24 October 2017 at 6:42 pm

         ianmac asked a question – i answered it and provided my opinion of the in coming governments action point.
     • ianmac 2.1.2

       24 October 2017 at 6:53 pm

       Thanks Stunned Mullet. Probably the first of many times that UN lacks the power to insist on decisions being enforced. Sad really.
   • Psycho Milt 2.2

     24 October 2017 at 4:27 pm

     A lot of Israel enthusiasts were outraged that NZ sponsored a UN resolution pointing out that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal. I presume that’s where this has come from.
3. Stunned Mullet 3

   24 October 2017 at 4:01 pm

   Some good, some meh, some utterly daft – the usual..
   • Antoine 3.1

     25 October 2017 at 12:44 am

     Well said, I agree.

     Also too much stuff here, I suspect a lot of it will not get done in the first term or indeed at all.

     A.
4. marty mars 4

   24 October 2017 at 4:10 pm

   Wow just think back a few months ago when this coalition could barely even be conceived – well done to everyone. Now adding the Greens in is so good – strength through diversity and difference.
5. cleangreen 5

   24 October 2017 at 4:22 pm

   As I am listening to Radio NZ at 4pm I hear that National cling-on idiot Jim Mora is sounding very confused about the policy agreements signed at parliament today between Labour and NZF.

   When it came rail as below he asked “is this for passenger light rail or north rail or port rail?”

   Well Jim Mora!!!!

   Here is one of the Regional Rail policies NZF have promised on their transport policy which you can see easily iof you just click on the NZF site you will be informed.

   One regional rail investment policy NZF has promised is for the restoring of the Gisborne Napier Port rail freight and passenger services that Winston has been comming to this region for years offering us all.

   http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/transport

   RAIL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

   “Develop Railways of National Importance (RoNI) backed by full electrification.
   Build a rail spur to Auckland International Airport connecting it to the main trunk line.
   Complete the rebuild of Northland’s rail network and build a spur to Northport.
   Reinstate the Gisborne to Wairoa rail line and upgrade other lines.”

   MODERN PORTS AND SHIPPING
   Legislate for the Port of Auckland to relocate to Northport by the end of 2027.
   Require KiwiRail to purchase purpose built road and rail ferries and not cast-offs.
   Boost New Zealand’s mercantile marine fleet with tax and fiscal incentives.
   Integrate our Ports, roads and Railways of National Importance.

   • Rail: Significant investment in regional rail.
6. Stuff The Politicians 6

   24 October 2017 at 4:34 pm

   The agreement looks to be great news for the regions which have been allowed to run down for the last thirty years.

   And Forestry, very good news re opening up the Forest Service.
   Old grizzle guts Prebble will be on his high horse again.
7. Ad 7

   24 October 2017 at 4:43 pm

   Pretty substantial Cabinet haul for that team.

   • Foreign Affairs
   This enables Ardern to concentrate on the domestic agenda

   • Infrastructure
   Because Twyford is going to need all the help he can get. Presumably however it also includes irrigation and slides into ….

   • Regional Economic Development
   $1 billion , even over three years, will keep a lot of those smaller councillors very, very keen to be good to this government and not bite their hand. My only question is: can they spend that inside three years? It’s not as easy as it looks.

   • Internal Affairs
   A great mix with Seniors, Veterans Affairs, and Defence. A smart and patriotic trio, with uniforms, Governors-General, and national anthems. Best of luck trying to review the procurement process there Ron.

   • Children
   Very interested to see how this works in with the Prime Minister, since it is front and centre of her policy agenda

   A total gift to bring this in with the Regional Economic Development fund. The Gisborne, Kawerau, Otago, Rotorua, and central plateau local governments and businesses will be a great playground.

   • State Owned Enterprises
   How a Minister might operate the levers of the 51% of the electricity generators when they are seeking a review of electricity pricing will be very, very tempting. My bet is the Electricity Commission gets fully replaced, but the officials there bamboozle any attempt at real change, with regular sprays of analytic fog.

   • Racing
   OMG

   • Associate Finance
   Will do absolutely nothing.

   • Associate Education and an Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Regional Economic Development
   Associate Education will need a really meaningful delegation letter to have any meaning at all. Surely Chippie is prepared to take on the education union pay claims himself

   Under-Secretary Foreign Affairs really does sound like “hold my bags sonny”.

   There’s some very nice packaging of portfolios there, and also looks like the $1 billion Shaw wanted for his fund got sucked away to get the NZF deal done.
8. Exkiwiforces 8

   24 October 2017 at 4:53 pm

   It’s finally good to see that Kiwi Rail gets a leg up and the re-opening of the NZ Forest Service.

   Would’ve like to see the Mines Dept brought back in wake of the Pike River, might have to wait after the re- entry then?

   Only thing I hate is this “Re-examine the Defence procurement programme” What the heck does this mean?
   • SARAH 8.1

     24 October 2017 at 5:16 pm

     Natz promised $20B over some years (forget how many) to buy new toys for the military, so I am presuming it’s to do with this as Peters has said there is something suspect in it. For a country of 4+M it’s far too much to be spending when we have other concerns.
     • exkiwiforces 8.1.1

       24 October 2017 at 5:58 pm

       $20B is just the bare minimum to maintain current outputs, as someone who has done peacekeeping (2 tours to ET 99-00, 2006 and 1 tour to South Sudan. I’m not incl my tours the Middle East Area Operations which were in a support role) for real. You won’t get much change out $20B for a well prepared, well equipped and trained Defence Force for UN peacekeeping for Chapter 1 to Chapter 7 missions comes with a big price tag than most people here realise.

       That’s before you throw in Climate Change, HADR effects etc.
     • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2

       24 October 2017 at 11:27 pm

       That $20 billion over, IIRC, 15 years wasn’t anywhere near enough. You probably don’t like the idea but Trump is right when he says that a nation should be spending ~5% of GDP on defence. For NZ that would be about $15 billion per year. And most of that would go on R&D.
       • Exkiwiforces 8.1.2.1

         24 October 2017 at 11:57 pm

         That’s some serious cash that you are proposing there, geez I’m happy with just around 2.5% of GDP and I probably could push it to 3% of GDP at a stretch.
         • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.1.1

           25 October 2017 at 10:29 am

           It’s not something we could do overnight but, IIRC, ATM we’re doing something like 0.5%.
       • boggis the cat 8.1.2.2

         25 October 2017 at 1:09 am

         For defence against whom? North Korea?

         New Zealand would be smarter to put some money into a non-aligned movement, and try to pull other countries out of these pre-World War I mentality alliance blocs.

         You can’t decrease military conflict by building bigger military machines.
         • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.2.1

           25 October 2017 at 10:26 am

           You can’t decrease military conflict by building bigger military machines.

           But you can certainly increase it by building smaller ones.

           If you want peace, prepare for war.
           • boggis the cat 8.1.2.2.1.1

             26 October 2017 at 1:26 am

             There is no evidence to support the argument that building up the military results in peace. Quite the opposite occurs. History is full of factions building up a military response to the other party that makes conflict inevitable — politicians use the tools they have, and a viable war-making potential ensures war.

             However, there is considerable evidence that restricting the access to war as a means of dispute settlement does work. Throttling militarism is a requirement if you really want to avoid military conflict. Doing so requires other means of dispute settlement to be available and effective.

             Again: who is New Zealand defending ourselves from that requires a military buildup? Nobody. Our military gets used as a tool of other alliance blocs seeking to impose their will by force. That strategy is not feasible in the modern world, as even a little understanding of present military conflicts makes clear.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               26 October 2017 at 2:14 am

               There is no evidence to support the argument that building up the military results in peace.

               I note that those with a good war machine don’t get attacked even by those who also have a good war machine. Meanwhile those without a good defence capability are readily attacked with those with an over abundance of one.

               The US didn’t even hesitate against Iraq but doesn’t seem quite so willing against North Korea. Probably has something to do with China and Russia willing to step in with their own war machines.

               However, there is considerable evidence that restricting the access to war as a means of dispute settlement does work.

               [Citation Needed]

               Again: who is New Zealand defending ourselves from that requires a military buildup? Nobody.

               Wrong. The answer is actually: Anybody who decides to attack.

               Just because we don’t want war doesn’t others won’t bring it to us and it’s far better to be prepared for such an eventuality even if it never happens than be caught unprepared when someone decides that attacking us is easy because we can’t defend ourselves.
               • boggis the cat …

                 26 October 2017 at 6:57 pm

                 I note that those with a good war machine don’t get attacked even by those who also have a good war machine.

                 Did you completely forget about both World Wars? How about most other wars before and since?

                 Meanwhile those without a good defence capability are readily attacked with those with an over abundance of one.

                 The problem is the “over abundance”. If all that you have is a hammer…

                 Speaking of idiots with hammers but no ideas:

                 The US didn’t even hesitate against Iraq

                 Iran won that war. Oh, and ISIS was spawned by it.

                 but doesn’t seem quite so willing against North Korea. Probably has something to do with China and Russia willing to step in with their own war machines.

                 Russia and China are not interested in going to war on behalf of North Korea, so that has little to do with it. Even the US State Department aren’t stupid enough to imagine some positive outcome from war with North Korea.

                 [Citation Needed]

                 Every conflict between states (or between factions within a state) without access to a viable ‘military solution’ is resolved without war. Even ‘terrorism’ isn’t particularly effective if suitable weapons are not easy to come by. The UN can do effective work if there isn’t a huge military conflict taking place.

                 On the other hand, any simmering conflict that has weapons and mercenaries pumped into it by a third party will inevitably turn into a bloodbath.

                 You are using the same reasoning that pro-gun idiots trot out for everyone being armed ‘because being armed makes you safe’ (from the other armed people). It is quite the opposite.

                 Wrong. The answer is actually: Anybody who decides to attack.

                 Your answer is also nobody, but you are trying to avoid admitting it.

                 Just because we don’t want war doesn’t others won’t bring it to us

                 Who would attack us, and why? You have no answer because there is no answer.

                 Putting resources into preventing conflicts is a better approach than arming to the levels that the US want us to.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   26 October 2017 at 7:32 pm

                   Did you completely forget about both World Wars?

                   No I didn’t. In both the big, well armed country started attacking small less well armed countries.

                   How about most other wars before and since?

                   Most wars since have been the same.

                   Iran won that war. Oh, and ISIS was spawned by it.

                   ISIS started a long time ago when the US funded the Muhajedeen as a proxy to attack the USSR.

                   And I don’t see how Iran won a war they weren’t a part of.

                   Every conflict between states (or between factions within a state) without access to a viable ‘military solution’ is resolved without war.

                   That’s nice. Now, how would you propose to resolve an invasion of NZ by a country that has a viable military?

                   On the other hand, any simmering conflict that has weapons and mercenaries pumped into it by a third party will inevitably turn into a bloodbath.

                   We’re not talking about anything like that. We’re talking about defending NZ.

                   You are using the same reasoning that pro-gun idiots trot out for everyone being armed ‘because being armed makes you safe’ (from the other armed people). It is quite the opposite.

                   And you’re making the same false equivalence that economists and RWNJs make in assuming that countries are identical to individuals.

                   And you still didn’t provide a citation.

                   Who would attack us, and why?

                   Those who want our resources and because we’re in the way of them getting those resources.

                   Putting resources into preventing conflicts is a better approach than arming to the levels that the US want us to.

                   We actually need to do both. It’s not either or.
                   • boggis the cat …

                     27 October 2017 at 12:46 pm

                     You can’t provide an ‘enemy’ that justifies building up a large military, and you don’t understand history at all.

                     Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union, and they declared war on the US. Japan, similarly, gambled on taking on a military superior while already mired in occupation of vast swathes of Asia.

                     The First World War was an even clearer repudiation of the ‘enlarge the military for peace’ gambit. When war broke out it was simply made worse due to the scale of the military forces that had been built up.

                     New Zealand has no resources worth enough to make an invasion economically viable, and the only potential adversaries would have military resources that we would never be capable of matching in any case. You seem to be coy about what foreign powers could be a threat, but I’m not.

                     If Trump decided that we’re a clear and present danger then there is no way to prevent the USMC from rolling in. In such a scenario you can only escalate the amount of bloodshed and destruction, a large part of which would get visited on noncombatants (your family, for example). Even if Peters did his trade deal for Russian missiles, and we bankrupt ourselves arming up with them, we’d run out of those weapons pretty fast against the US. There is no way to win militarily, just worse ways to lose.

                     War is stupid, and spending more resources to build a bigger military to ‘avoid war’ is demonstrably the best way to ensure that war becomes inevitable.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     27 October 2017 at 2:55 pm

                     You can’t provide an ‘enemy’ that justifies building up a large military

                     Building up a military is a precautionary measure. Like having the ability to respond rapidly to ships grounding themselves on reefs is a precautionary measure. We don’t know which ship or when but do know it’s likely to happen at some point and having the ability to respond will better than not having it at the time.

                     It’s not a question of knowing who or when but simply being prepared for if anyone does.

                     Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union, and they declared war on the US. Japan, similarly, gambled on taking on a military superior while already mired in occupation of vast swathes of Asia.

                     France wasn’t going to go to Poland’s aid. The Soviet Union actually didn’t have the military capability to defend themselves when Nazi Germany invaded. As for their declaration of war on the US – well, Hitler wasn’t exactly stable and it probably just preceded the US declaration by a few hours anyway.

                     Japan did try to avoid war with the US but, with that failing, took the only option of trying to hit them hard enough that the US would choose to stay out of the pacific.

                     And then there’s the big question: Would any of those invasions have taken place if the countries being invaded could have defended themselves?

                     New Zealand has no resources worth enough to make an invasion economically viable

                     A few billion tonnes of iron sand that contains a huge amount of titanium just off the West Coast.
                     A large amount of fertile land to grow food.
                     Largish bauxite deposit in Northland.
                     Largish thorium deposits in Te Wai Pounamu.
                     Rare earth deposits around Taupo and Rotorua.
                     Good strategic location for getting at the mineral deposits in Antarctica.

                     And there’s probably more. And that doesn’t even take into account the most likely – that some dictator is using war to maintain their own power and is simply picking off any one who looks weaker.

                     and the only potential adversaries would have military resources that we would never be capable of matching in any case.

                     With the right forces we could certainly make it damned expensive even if we couldn’t stop them.

                     You seem to be coy about what foreign powers could be a threat, but I’m not.

                     All the major players are a threat.

                     If Trump decided that we’re a clear and present danger then there is no way to prevent the USMC from rolling in.

                     We could stop their first strike and use the time gained to ramp up production of weapons to try and stop their second.

                     You’ll note that I’m a firm believer in producing our own weapons systems and this is a large reason why. And producing our own system from our own resources ensures that it won’t bankrupt us.

                     War is stupid

                     Yes it is. That point has been known for millennia. Hasn’t it stopped it yet.
                   • exkiwiforces …

                     27 October 2017 at 6:06 pm

                     boggis the cat,

                     “Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union.”
                     The French Army was largely a static Army,
                     The French Military planning at time was based around the Maginot Line,
                     About 80% of the French Army was largely non- motorized/ mechanized,
                     The French Army wasn’t at its full wartime strength by the time the Wehrmacht had conquered Poland,
                     The French Airforce and its Motorized/ Mechanized Forces were in a such symbolic state one could hardly say they were fit for War.
                     The Brits were playing for time though poor Mr Chamberlain’s appeasement towards Hitler while at the same trying to build up Great Britain war machine,
                     The Germans also had the Siegfried Line and if anybody here is a student of the Wehrmacht military tactics would know they were masters of the offensive and defence. They knew from their Military analysis/ CONOPs, their Military Appreciation Planning (MAP) they could knock off Poland and hold the West very easily.

                     As for Russia they knew from Finland, that the Russian Armed Forces were at a similar state to the French and British Forces if a even worst state from Stalin’s Purge’s of the officer class (Hell even the Great Zhukov somehow manage to avoid the bullet in the head),
                     If wasn’t for Her Hitler’s constant meddling in the East. The war in the East could’ve been very different for example sending Guderian’s Panzer Army south instead of heading for Moscow as the German Army High Command (OKH) knew that Moscow was the Russian Military’s Centre of Gravity (CoG) take that out the whole bloody thing falls down and remember most of the Russia Military Forces still had a large number of White Russians in it which Hitler fail to capitalise on due his racism (read his book: My Struggle).

                     DTB is right on this NZ current resources:
                     few billion tonnes of iron sand that contains a huge amount of titanium just off the West Coast.
                     A large amount of fertile land to grow food.
                     Largish bauxite deposit in Northland.
                     Largish thorium deposits in Te Wai Pounamu.
                     Rare earth deposits around Taupo and Rotorua.
                     Good strategic location for getting at the mineral deposits in Antarctica.
                     And there’s probably more when pours over a NZ Geological Map. I have a copy of the Geology of the Greymouth Area and the Book that goes with the Map. (I just need the Nelson and Haast one now for own my research)

                     Had the Japs attack Peal when the US Carriers (which was the whole idea behind the attack at Peal from the start) were alongside the Pacific War could’ve had a very different outcome. Had the second attack had taken place as planned on the Bulk Fuel Farms and Dry dock/ Repair Facilities at Peal would’ve add anywhere between 6 to 24 mths (maybe more depending on what book you read) to Japs war effort regardless weather the carriers were at Peal or not.

                     “War is stupid”
                     “Yes it is. That point has been known for millennia. Hasn’t it stopped it yet.” It will never stop no matter how hard we try to limit the means to start war. Anyone up for fist fight because i’ll bring spear and my axe.

                     Logistics wins wars, so if NZ ever faces a direct threat. The invading Forces would need to secure the South Pacific Islands before they head South and NZ is Australia’s Backdoor which a number of people here seem to forget, if one wants to Blockade Australia.
                     Anyone up for a Convoy run from the US to Oz at 40Deg and 50Deg South? I sure as shit won’t be doing it after talking to the Old Matelots who did the run to Russia in the Arctic Convoys during WW2 and hats off to those Gentleman to both RN and MN.
                   • Sam aka clump …

                     27 October 2017 at 8:02 pm

                     You don’t win wars by mutilating the land scape. The Soviet Union proved that by attempting to keep pace with the expanding technological sophistication of the Pentagon. Now Washington is doing its best to widen the gap between the Pentagon and the technological sophistication of 3rd world countries. But that strategy hasn’t worked against ISIS or the Taliban. So what happened?

                     Well before Iraq mk2 under Bush the Pentagon was developing an Upgraded package for its Humvees to do with its new Command and Control network (military Internet, C4ISR) which was supposed to light deplorable forces capable of being transported via C130’s. But halfway through the programme 9/11 happened. Meaning pre 9/11 upgrades were caned in favour of disparately needed capability creep, up armoured vehicles, initially with scrap metal, leading to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle we have to day that can’t be deployed on C-130’s making it difficult for the Pentagon to exploit C4ISR to its fullest by having superior communications, moving light deplorable forces via C-130. Bringing maximum force to bear in order to blunt any brake out before adversaries can bring in reinforcements.

                     On a tactical level any time the Pentagon orders a combat deployment the Army is shot in the foot before they even get started. U.S army lost half there Humvees in Iraq mk2 and the MRAP’s they’ve got now can’t be deployed. So the Pentagon has been boxed in with a hotel of heavy capabilities (Tanks and the rest) which are good against peer to peer adversary but totally suck against the $5 bombs being employed buy the groups they’re facing now, ISIS ect. And that’s why the U.S keep falling back to Air Power and other dodgy, low down geopolitical shenanigans that they’ve been doing the whole time. So meddling with procurement processes is a really bad idea. Unless you’ve got the brains.

                     And this was a purely political decision. The pretext for invading Iraq was totally false. There were no WMD’s. The 9/11 commission cleared Suddam of any connection with 9/11, I mean not totally they just said the Saudis didn’t do it.

                     Result is a Middle East in Civil War with the Kurds now replacing ISIS as every ones favourite shooting gallery and a U.S with out any moral integrity or the brains to even make a decision wether to pull out or come up with a plan.

                     And this is our number 1 strategic ally by the way. 5i’s bosom. Whose Nuclear Arsenal has suppressed the Likes of Beijing and Russia from retaliating after the Korean and Vietnam war leading to an ASEAN that is the most heavily militarised region in the world.

                     For the last thousand years they’ve been a great war in each century that effected the world. It’s been 73 years since the world has seen a Great War and I guarantee it won’t take another 73 years. And most of the hardware is on our door step.

                     Now I’m not saying we go full retard with 5% GDP funded NZDF because we don’t have an interventionist foreign policy. Nor should we. Current NZDF funding structures is enough (if you really want to penny pinch) 2% would allow for a more appropriate recruitment and training. In order to give the Government an appropriate response to geopolitical instability. Consisting of an escort capability ( RNZN ocean tasking) EEZ patrol, Combat search and rescue (Peace-Keeping) and cyber security.

                     And if you’d look into NZ1st foreign affairs and defence policy you’d see it too.
   • Patricia Bremner 8.2

     24 October 2017 at 7:31 pm

     Re look at some silly promises to buy IMO
     • Exkiwiforces 8.2.1

       24 October 2017 at 7:55 pm

       And what would they be and when was the last time you did Peacekeeping dealing with rape, murder, hurman rights abuses, vote rigging,child soldiers, state sanctioned murder or digging up dead bodies etc Patricia?
   • Molly 8.3

     24 October 2017 at 8:41 pm

     ““Re-examine the Defence procurement programme” What the heck does this mean?”

     It may also mean to look at the suppliers of equipment and consumables for the Defence Force.

     Remember the issue with the National Government deciding to source the Army uniforms from China, resulting in a downturn for the existing NZ Supplier Swazi, and a loss of jobs from the Levin workshop?

     (It goes without saying that the quality of the uniforms provided was lowered as well.)

     It’s just another interpretation of the sentence, alongside the already suggested budgeted capital expenditure.
     • Exkiwiforces 8.3.1

       24 October 2017 at 9:12 pm

       I have two sets of the New Oz multi cams and they have already starting to fall to bits, even though I hardly any uniform now. Just like bad old days under National in 90’s where Macpac and the likes did a roaring trade as we were buying our commercial tramping gear etc off self because issue shit wasn’t fit for purpose and sometimes direct from the UK as we had the same pattern.

       The Airforce back then were building their own test and repair kits the A4 Kahu’s and for Maccih’s from local Dick Smith shop in Palmy
   • GregJ 8.4

     24 October 2017 at 8:47 pm

     The 1st three points of the NZ First Defence polices were the election were:

     1. Develop a full-spectrum defence force capable of expeditionary warfare and Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HADR) within New Zealand’s vast Maritime Area of Responsibility (one of the largest on earth).

     2. Work within the fiscal parameters of the Defence Capability Plan to return offensive capabilities to the Royal New Zealand Air Force and enhance offensive capabilities of the Army and Navy.

     3. Establish as a minimum the 1:1 replacement of major defence materiel.

     That would suggest to me a possible re-examination of existing defence procurement plans and some change in focus. In the conversation over the Kermadec Sanctuary in the past few days even the Greens were suggesting enhanced capability for the RNZN with regard to the EEZ (Maritime Area of Responsibility).
     • Exkiwiforces 8.4.1

       24 October 2017 at 9:37 pm

       I know Ron is keen to have a 1:1 replacement and the RNZN is keen sort the OPV issue as the current two they are 100ton overweight which effects the carriage of the Seasprite the trips down south as its pushes the ships ice belt too far under the water and also the over weight issue will effect any upgrade for mission support systems.

       NZ maritime surveillance area is the 3rd largest atm and if and when NZ EEZ gets the UN approval to extend its EEZ to 320km Mark or to the continental self whatever come first then it becomes the 2nd or 1st largest in the world and that’s not including NZ SAR responsibilities which is even bigger.

       I’m little concerned on how Ron is going to push the current any future Defence upgrades/ re-equipment though cabinet when every other Government department has also been ran into ground by the bloody NAT’s and their lackeys.
       • GregJ 8.4.1.1

         24 October 2017 at 9:50 pm

         I’m little concerned on how Ron is going to push Defence upgrades though cabinet every other Government department has also been ran into ground by the bloody NAT’s

         Restoring government capability occupied the 1st 2 terms of the last Labour-led administration. I imagine the same challenge will have to be addressed again.

         Perhaps some of the R&D money should be directed into developing our own drone technology to monitor our EEZ. Obviously you still need the ships on the water to enforce it of course – I could see a case for a tripling off our naval capacity if we want to rigorously monitor and enforce our EEZ. NZF defence policy appears to have very much of a focus of a strong & enhanced defence capability in our own backyard.

         How it fits into the many priorities of a new government I’m not sure but Mark has wanted this job for a long-time and I’m sure he will go pretty hard to make sure he leaves his “mark’ on it! It will be an interesting time seeing how defence pans out under NZF leadership.
         • Exkiwiforces 8.4.1.1.1

           24 October 2017 at 10:58 pm

           If Mark Burton wasn’t so incompetent in the handling Project Protector, the LAV’s, NH-90’s, wrecking a world class Airforce Pilot training scheme and C130 upgrade just to name a few during last 1st term Labour government and it took Goff to sort out Burton’s mess in the 2nd and 3rd term of Labour government. Then I would agree with you, but Burton was one of worst MoD since the Cold War ended and he’s up there Paul East, Cooper, Colman and best MoD has been Goff and the Mapp/ Roy team before they got shafted.

           The current RNZN news has the Navy Chief talking about the current Danish OPV’s as the ideal OPV for the RNZN, but only problem the Danish OPV it doesn’t come with a hanger for the Helicopter.

           I did a wee bit of work for Ron back in the 90’s before I left NZ back in 98, so I’m glad he has finally a gig as the MoD.
       • Michael 8.4.1.2

         24 October 2017 at 9:56 pm

         At least someone in government is thinking about Defence again. Re-examining the current procurement programme is a sensible idea – especially if the new government sees the world slightly differently than the previous one. Historically, it’s Labour that actually buys the Defence Force its kit – although it gets no thanks for it. I think Ron Mark is well placed to get some input into procurement from the people who actually have to use the stuff – sometimes in combat, sometimes in missions that are more peacable. The really interesting question in Defence is actually part of the Foreign Affairs enquiry: what roles do we want Aotearoa-New Zealand to play in the world? The roles of the Defence Force and its equipment follow logically from the answers to that bigger question.
         • Exkiwiforces 8.4.1.2.1

           24 October 2017 at 11:16 pm

           You are on the money there! Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence (probably you could add Foreign Aid in as well) go in hand in hand and all three have been out of whack for a long time.

           I fully agree with the rest of your post. NZDF must have utility from War fighting to more peaceful roles.

           Further reading would be the book called: The Utility of Force, The Art of War in the Modern World. By General Rupert Smith a former UN Force Comander or another book called: Key Concepts in Military Ethics, edited by Deane- Peter Baker.
9. tracey 9

   24 October 2017 at 5:11 pm

   Greens will be happy with rafts of this too.
   • GregJ 9.1

     24 October 2017 at 8:41 pm

     Yes – I thought it was interesting how often NZ First & Greens policy seems to overlap. Clearly they have differences but there seems to be a lot they can work together on.

     That, of course, is no surprise to anyone (other than the media) who has spent some time looking at the individual parties policies.
10. mauī 10

    24 October 2017 at 5:52 pm

    Well it looks like NZ First is going to have a sizeable say in this Government. More than they deserve, but it’s a big improvement none the less.
11. Keepcalmcarryon 11

    24 October 2017 at 6:22 pm

    I’m curious about the foreign ownership housing and land, I thought policy was to ban it or is this what strengthening the oio will do?
    Water policy looks weak environmentally but we expected this trade off.
    • Macro 11.1

      24 October 2017 at 6:53 pm

      Anything over 5 Hectares will have to go to the OIO – and the government has said that it will demand that the OIO rules are more strictly applied. To date under both previous Labour and National Govts seeking approval was merely a rubber stamp. Rejection was the rare exception rather than the rule.
      • skyler 11.1.1

        24 October 2017 at 9:54 pm

        I’m bit gutted about this. People already have to seek approval for a purchase over 5 ha. A “strengthening”? What does that mean? Both Labour and NZ First I believe promoted a “ban” on foreign ownership of our land and housing (Labour existing houses). Can’t recall the Greens policy on it right at this very moment. This could have been in the bag! I’m just praying that the “strengthing” thing is because they were unable to define wording prior to press releases with everything else going on and time frames. I voted on this issue.
        • Michael 11.1.1.1

          24 October 2017 at 9:58 pm

          I think “strengthening” will mean “greater restrictions and increased conditions on land sales to foreign interests”. We won’t know for sure until new legislation is introduced. From the content of the coalition agreement, I’d say that will happen sooner rather than later.
        • Macro 11.1.1.2

          24 October 2017 at 10:02 pm

          The purchase of land by an overseas buyer has always had to go to OIO – but it almost always was simply a rubber stamp. The ability to stop purchases from overseas is already there. Now the OIO will be instructed to do its job and not simply rubber stamp every sales agreement. Expect the sale of farms etc to overseas buys to slow considerably.
        • Keepcalmcarryon 11.1.1.3

          24 October 2017 at 11:15 pm

          I was a bit more heartened to hear our prime minister elect on the news tonight saying the intention is to ban foreigners from buying existing houses.
          Benefit of the doubt for now, the signs are positive!
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.4

          24 October 2017 at 11:46 pm

          Both Labour and NZ First I believe promoted a “ban” on foreign ownership of our land and housing (Labour existing houses).

          Labour never said anything about banning foreign ownership (which, from what I saw, pissed off their membership) and only wanted tighter restrictions such as having to build new houses rather than buy existing ones.

          I think NZ1st made noises about a total ban. but could be wrong on that.
12. Macro 12

    24 October 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Just a heads up on the 100 million trees per year. That’s about 100,000 Hectares per year.
    Current planting is around 40,000 Hectares so thats around 2 and a half times the current rate.
    A hectare of pine sequesters about 2,5 tonne of CO2 per year, so a years planting will sequester around 2.5 million tonne of CO2 per year. This will make a huge difference in our emissions in the long term.
    Meanwhile the Green target of reforestation of native forest by targeting wildlife habitat through increased predator control etc will also have a significant effect on our native forests. Possums in NZ eat about 21,000 tonnes of vegetation per day.
13. Patricia Bremner 13

    24 October 2017 at 7:36 pm

    This looks well thought through and there are clear actions named. Very sound.
14. Paul Campbell 14

    24 October 2017 at 9:44 pm

    I bet the waka jumping bill was a requirement put on NZ First by Labour (rather than the other way around) to make the coalition more stable
15. The Chairman 15

    24 October 2017 at 10:35 pm

    The current living wage is $20.20 an hour.

    With NZ First and Labour’s policy not hitting $20.00 by 2021, it’s clearly still going to be lagging behind.

    What happen to addressing inequality?

    Now that they’re in Government, it seems to have hit the go slow.
    • marty mars 15.1

      24 October 2017 at 10:41 pm

      Lol yes and they haven’t fixed poverty, homelessness and climate change either – big lack of commitment – WHEN are they going to fix this and why have they let everyone down already?
      • The Chairman 15.1.1

        24 October 2017 at 10:57 pm

        People are struggling now, Marty. Some are even killing themselves. Hence, I don’t appreciate the sarcasm.
        • marty mars 15.1.1.1

          24 October 2017 at 11:11 pm

          Well i don’t appreciate you putting the boot into the incoming government before they are even sworn in or have a chance to improve peoples lives. But anything or anyone is used by you to score points. Sad.
          • The Chairman 15.1.1.1.1

            25 October 2017 at 12:23 am

            Their wage policy target rate has been announced and the date set, thus they don’t have to be sworn in for us to know where this is going.

            As for putting the boot in, with this piss poor effort (by Labour and NZ First) you and others on the left should be joining me.

            If we don’t hold their feet to the fire and we sit back and accept this, we can’t expect much more.

            Yet, it seems you are not only happy to let the struggling and suicides go on, you’re here defending them (Labour, NZ First) over this. That’s sad.
    • boggis the cat 15.2

      25 October 2017 at 1:23 am

      The living wage varies by region and location. Auckland is horribly expensive (largely due to the housing bubble, which doesn’t seem to being directly addressed) and Christchurch isn’t much better. Some regional centres are also outstripping wages.

      An alternative to trying to push wages up is to create jobs in the economically depressed regions. Rebooting the Foresty Service is an example, but more could be done. Why not subsidise building electric busses in Dunedin, and tap into local expertise before it vanishes completely? People can likely come up with plenty of ideas and take them to their local MPs.
      • red-blooded 15.2.1

        25 October 2017 at 9:13 am

        Labour already has specific programmes for each different region. Just ‘cos it’s not in this agreement doesn’t mean it’s gone away.
16. eco maori 16

    25 October 2017 at 8:09 am

    I have some good Idears for our Regional development not enough time to write about them me thinks they are good .
    Yes Mulls Many Thanks every one on the Rock is a cool Kiwi the give me a sore face every time I listen To the Rock.
    Matty Your are cool to M8 so are the rest of the team one can see you people are celebrating our win .
    Did a bit of sign language yesterday LOL,.
    Tax the shit out of that shit food and drink this is one move to help our Maori Culture.
    Ki ora To all OUR Maori Cultured People we are Going to get a lift up the ladder of life and all the other people to from OUR Great new Leaders But I have Idea’s that will keep US up that ladder of life will reveal them later as It takes me a while to put these up with my brillaint spelling Kia Kaha

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS