|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 16, 2013 9:51:35 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 17, 2013 9:08:45 GMT 12
I think it's important to remember that the time of the ACF being disbanded were relative good times economically for the country. The past 5 years have not been, for obvious reasons.
Regardless, both are poor choices and the NZDF has suffered as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 23, 2013 14:48:37 GMT 12
If you go and look at government budget figures since the downsizing at the end of WWII, it's interesting to see who put the boot into defence the most in a financial sense.
The two worst Ministers of Finance in that respect have been Robert Muldoon (both as Finance Minister under Keith Holyoake and as Finance Minister in his own government from 1975-1984) and Bill English. Both have engaged in continuous defence vote cutbacks throughout their respective tenures as Minister of Finance.
By way of comparison, when it comes to doing the least financial damage to defence, or at least increasing the defence vote, or keeping up with inflation (from year to year in each budget), one of the best Ministers of Finance was Michael Cullen.
The government's own financial figures from year to year speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Feb 24, 2013 16:46:04 GMT 12
The scrapping of the ACF by the Cullen government dented the RNZAF reputation both internationally and nationally you just have to read the leaked Strafor comments about NZ to get an idea. At least this government is investing in restoring /increasing capabilities such the ANZAC frigate upgrade and the P3K2 ASW upgrade ,Advance pilot training etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 24, 2013 19:15:16 GMT 12
At least this government is investing in restoring /increasing capabilities such the ANZAC frigate upgrade and the P3K2 ASW upgrade ,Advance pilot training etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 24, 2013 19:28:00 GMT 12
Agree Bruce. Slashing Vote: Defence is not good and makes NZ look bad in eyes of US and Australia. Current govt should be standing up new replacement ACF. I think they only doing the P3 ASW upgrade because hard word may have been put on them after RIMPAC 2012 by certain allies. We should also be looking at third frigate, maybe off the Spanish - a new F100 type. Equip it with US weapons and Aussie CEFAR. That way we beccome three frigate navy and this frigate will last 30 years ad we will have staggered replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 24, 2013 21:25:41 GMT 12
Slashing vote defence is not good. Doing away with an entire capability - that's worse, even worse when economic times are good and you are supposedly the lot that 'don't slash' vote defence.
Cullen didn't have to deal with the effects of a massive worldwide recession or devastating earthquakes in the country's 2nd largest city either.
The idea that the government should be standing up for new replacement ACF just isn't going to fly with Joe Public one bit I'm afraid. Certainly not with other pressing priorities.
Either way, defence suffers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 25, 2013 8:44:39 GMT 12
Well said Ken.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 25, 2013 13:20:09 GMT 12
I realise that times are tough and that there is an economic depression and I live in Christchurch. I was really pointing at the responsibilities that the current govt is actively avoiding with regard to Defence. Vote: Defence should be at 2% GDP plus inflation, but it's nowhere near it and it shouldn't lose around 20% of its operating budget, in forced savings to fund future capital expenditure. This govt is gutting NZDF.
If by some miracle it decided to stand up an ACF today, it would take a goodly amount of time before one would reach FOC. In line with that, any expenditure would also be be spread out. Same if it decided to acquire a third frigate ,which is around NZ$1 billion, if you were to get the Spanish F100 and remove the AEGIS component that we don't need. Again this is expenditure over time, so you don't have to stump the money up today. Joe public gets a distorted view of defence issues and what defence means to the country. No-one has really spelt out the security issues that NZ & NZ Inc face now and will face in the future; and why we have to work with Australia, US, Singapore etc. People and the polies forget, or don't realise, just how important our SLOC are to us and that they don't stop at the Australian 12 mile limit.
As stated elsewhere on this forum we cannot depend on other nations to pull our arses out of the fire when the manure hits the fan. They will look to their own interests first. We must be in a position to look to our own interests and at the present we plainly cannot bcause we do not have the tools nor the people. Maybe they will figure that out when the cargo ships and oil tankers don't arrive at our shores. Bit late then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 25, 2013 13:36:01 GMT 12
But the Government cannot even afford its responsibilities as they are now, they are borrowing millions on a weekly basis as it is and still not being able to cover everything - schools are closing, thousands of people are being laid off weekly, the nation is pretty much broke, so why should they be expected to stump up more cash for defence when there is none? There are higher priorities to society as a whole which are also going without the adequate funding, so it will never wash with the public.
As for another frigate, you're dreaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 25, 2013 14:47:57 GMT 12
Maybe about the frigate and the govt could increase it's income but that is politics Dave and I also very aware of other spending priorites. I'm just arguing the defence case.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 25, 2013 20:22:37 GMT 12
Well argued too. Unfortunately NZ pollies do not see defence as a priority and as 'vote friendly' as other areas they like to spray money around on.
Would love to see it enshrined in the NZ Constitution the votes Defence is set at 2% of GDP. It'll never happen, but you can but hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 26, 2013 12:45:57 GMT 12
I've been thinking about that and I think it would be dangerous to have something about defence enshrined in the constitution. You have to be extremely careful around the miltary and the constitution and if you remeber your oath of allegiance it is not to NZ or the crown but to the Queen and her heirs and successors. Not to any political organisation. I think you have to keep a very big distance between the military and the constitution and the military and any political process because that provides some protection for the people from the military being used for nefarious political purposes, such as suppressing the population.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 26, 2013 20:49:27 GMT 12
A very important distinction made there, thanks.
|
|
