Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[sirbean]

Its got nothing what so ever to do with insurance....lets say we had like everyone on here wants some Super Hornets say 12.
In a major conflict want use would 12 Super Hornets really be?
This country has changed path and thank goodness this current Government seems to want the same path as the former Government and to concentrate on low level peacekeeping.
As I said these are my views only,I just see what most of you have no idea about on a day to day basis.

[nige]

Sir Bean

If we look at the real figures (as opposed to making them up to suit one's agenda), then from this data:

www.policy.net.nz/ftn.shtml

Defence spending has gone from $2.0B in 2002/03 to $2.5B in 2007/08.

Education has gone from $7.7B to $10.3B in that time.

Health has gone from $8.3B to $11.6B in that time.

Social Welfare has gone from $14.9B to $24.5B in that time. (And more so nowadays post depression etc).

And so on (i.e. see the other categories).

So my question is, how much more do you want to cut defence to fund health? Clearly you have an agenda at play here.

Whilst I sympathise with your plight in the health industry, and I do agree it is shameful that over many decades Govts of all hues don't support the aged as well as they ought to ... but at the end of the day we're comparing apples with oranges.

Again how much more do you want defence to be cut to prop up health? Even if we cut defence to zero and disbanded everything, health is a bottomless pit and the $2.5B saved will still not stop the health rot. What then is your next target?

How about I answer and say that we need to be a more prosperous nation. People (also with agendas) need to stop whinging about foreign investment, mining on conservation land, off shore oil drilling etc etc. If you can support NZ growing its income, then we can afford much better health and education and defence services/expenditure etc. You need to think about how your Labour, Alliance, Green allies are so much opposed to NZ becoming truely prosperous, as their solutions seem to be more tax and spend, which is simply digging the NZ debt hole deeper.

[Chris F]

This is all very dazzling stuff........but maybe if we stopped giving out Billions in treaty settlements we would be a much better off country!

[nige]

Raptor, I also find your continuous comments on treaty settlements, Iwi, and so on, quite offensive and unnecessary for this forum. There's a reason why there are treaty settlements, whether personally we agree or not, but I suspect if we (and you) took the time to understand the issue properly, we wouldn't be criticising Iwi/maori and their settlements etc. In fact we'd probably find they got less than what ought to, in the real commercial world. Remember also Treaty settlements are investments for NZ i.e. the money generally stays in the country, and the more Iwi/Tribes get their financial house in order, in some respects the less Govt/taxpayer money needs to be found via traditional means etc. Last week I attended a seminar on Maori Accounting (in a conference support capacity not an attendee) and saw the (mainly young/middle aged) attendees their and management from E&Y etc, it is good to see the new generation of future Maori leaders taking on board international best-practice - for the future benefit of their iwi and NZ society as a whole.

[Chris F]

What ever mate!
Most good maori are still going without in this country.
And why I get angry about this is because my poor kids will still be paying out in many years to come.
Enough is enough.

[sirbean]

nige...your facts are correct with spending amounts but if it was your nana,mum or what about this your child suffering in an under funded health system how would you feel?
There is huge waste in health with company cars and huge amounts of management teams and consultants.
But you are right we need to be productive and invest in areas that will make us wealthy as a nation and lets hope we can get over our differances for the betterment of the nation.

[obiwan27]

Ahhhh we are getting off the thread topic here guys. My 5 cents worth on the above is that no matter how much more money we throw at education, health and welfare the same complaints/problems exist. Defence isn't perfect necessarily but we do get great value for taxpayer $$$. One thing that frustrates me is the growing attitude that people are 'owed' some kind of living or should get a handout 'because I'm in a low paid job', or 'it's expensive bringing up children'. Well no shit!! Life is a do it to yourself project and your life is shaped by the choices you make. No one is holding a gun to your head making you stay in your low paid job or have children/more children.
Anyway, on the Defence White Paper we await announcements in due course ;-)

[Bruce]

... its like trying to convert a Jehovahs Witness... no one is going to change their opinion and its just frustrating everyone!

(no offence intended to JWs...)

[sirbean]

obiwan27 if this was correct then we should as taxpayers let south canterbury finance go!
You are right we do get value for money defence wise and the White Paper will only be a guide to future requirements only.
As Bill English as rightly said as a country and as indivduals we need to reduce our debt and save.
This is why I see no major change in Defence spending.

[obiwan27]

Sept 2, 2010 11:09:03 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

nige...your facts are correct with spending amounts but if it was your nana,mum or what about this your child suffering in an under funded health system how would you feel?

Personally, as a family member I would rally other family members around and pay for the hip-op myself/ourselves if it ever came to that. There is far too much reliance on 'the taxpayer' and not enough self reliance imho thanks to government largesse. Governments change, 'the taxpayer' remains the same. As already pointed out though, this is not the topic of this thread!!

[sirbean]

Truely understand people need to take responsibility for their own actions and have shall we say their "house" in order.
Its just not everyone is like that...sad but true.
But as a country and individuals we really do need to stop spending pay off debt and save save save for our retirements and our future health needs cause in years to come I cannot see a public system or a Government pension...just facts.
So lets save save and pay back our debts.

[corokid66]

Sept 2, 2010 10:28:56 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

Its got nothing what so ever to do with insurance....lets say we had like everyone on here wants some Super Hornets say 12.
In a major conflict want use would 12 Super Hornets really be?
This country has changed path and thank goodness this current Government seems to want the same path as the former Government and to concentrate on low level peacekeeping.
As I said these are my views only,I just see what most of you have no idea about on a day to day basis.

In am pleased you asked this question Bean, Twelve Shornets would have considearable effectiveness as part of an ANZAC / Singaporean joint strike package in a warfare situation.

But also considerable capability in screening out an opposing force/belligerents in a UNSC Chp VII operation. Think back to ET when Aust Hornets led CAP's and provided the protective screen for C-130's to ingress Dili and ships like the Toobruk to disembark soldiers and equipment against TNI elements. That is what the front end of modern "peacekeeping" under UN mandates is about.

Low level peackeeping / SASO type i.e UNSC Chp VI - this is not prevailent as much as before and has not been since 1990 - more difficult UNSC operations are involving Chp VII peace enforcement ROE are the strong trend. This is the fiundamental flaw in the previous governments defence policy. Might have been a wonderful idea in 1993 just after the end of the Cold War when Labour cobbled together this policy however even by the late 90's (before 9/11) it was redundant. Post 9/11 and Post the emergence of the Brazil, China and India with the resurgence of Russia and the strategic incompetence of the United States during the past decade we have entered into a post post cold war period.

I think that the current government are transforming defence to a more realistic footing. However I think that they will need to anchor their policy in a bit more real politque and hedge their bets. In fairness I would have to say that during the time in Labours term they did get more real in terms of defence particularly once Goff replaced Burton as the Minister.

Nevertheless, you are politically naive if you think that the current government are just going to continue what Labour have done. I do not think that the government are as politically naive as you are though. The government will retain 2 out of the three services with an element of combat capability so as to operate at the high end of the Chp VII spectrum - and they may be able to provide for local training with Air / maritime assets in such an environment. If they do that by utilising the Macchi's that will be a win for operational and strategic sanity. However eventually they will need an air combat component for both a maritime support and land combat support environment. It problably is going to take a "considerable" lesson learnt in both the bodybag and economic stakes to over come the current naivety and ignorance, but unfortunately is what it is going to take. The political fallout immense.

[sirbean]

I here your point I even see it.
However Dr Mapp has already and Mrs Roy has aswell said that a return to fast jet operations is not feasible.
On those comments I see no future in ACF.
Again these are just my views and I see no change in Defence direction at all.
As you would have seen with the mining and in a recession with lots of jobs on offer New Zealanders opposed and defeated the Government on this.
Any major change or spend up in Defence would rattle the public...I see it as a no go area for politicians...thats all.

[vs]

the phrase "quit while you are ahead" comes to mind!!!!!!

[Chris F]

So true!....move on sir/madam and be nice to one another you never know when you need a hand.

[skyhawkdon]

Why is he still here?

[Chris F]

Because its a democratic country where everyone is entilted to their view.

[corokid66]

Sept 2, 2010 11:48:09 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

I here your point I even see it.
However Dr Mapp has already and Mrs Roy has aswell said that a return to fast jet operations is not feasible.
On those comments I see no future in ACF.
Again these are just my views and I see no change in Defence direction at all.
As you would have seen with the mining and in a recession with lots of jobs on offer New Zealanders opposed and defeated the Government on this.
Any major change or spend up in Defence would rattle the public...I see it as a no go area for politicians...thats all.

Yes they have specifically ruled out the A-4's returning. However if the Machhi returns it is a defacto fast jet capability. (If a Batch II upgrade was undertaken it would give it a degree of combat capability as well.)

Actually I dont think that defence is the big bad bogey it once was with the public. New Zealanders are a hell of a lot more schooled up than in the 1980-1990's and more supportative of defence people in general. People today tend to get their information from more and more from direct sources of interest rather than using the MSM media - which though more positionally strident in its political advocacy either left or right - is less trusted and less influential amongst the public.

Mining - only schedule 4 was knocked back. Personally I was anti the mining of Schedule 4 land but pro mining in non schedule 4 areas as long as it weighed up OK with ss5-9 of the RMA. The minister was a buffoon thinking that idea was a flyer.

[smithy70]

I hope the White Paper down grades the so called defence force even further/A sheer waste of money!

[Peter Lewis]

Sept 2, 2010 10:30:09 GMT 12 nige said:

Education has gone from $7.7B to $10.3B in that time.

My ex-wife is a primary school teacher.

Around that time - early 1980s - the teachers union produced a car bumper sticker for their members that read "It will be a great day for education when Schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to run a cake stall to buy a new bomber".

My popularity sank to a new low when I pointed out that the last 'new bomber' that the Air Force actually got was around 25 years previously (the Canberras). "Don't confuse emotion with the facts", I was told.

Mind you, in my experience most people in the education system do not have a firm grasp of economic logic. A prominent member of the same group trumpeted loud and long that 'everything should be subsidised'. When I tried to point out that this was probably not a sustainable economic strategy I was more or less ostracized.

I wonder why she is now my ex-wife?