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.

READ MORE

• Clark and Braz jointly criticize the current prime minister's radical shift in foreign policy
• Defence Force confirms voluntary redundancies citing budget hole
• Time to commit to real, substantial investment in capabilities
• Why NZSAS and the Defence Force are struggling and what it will take to fix

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.