Not fit to fight
August 31st, 2004 at 4:05 pm by David FarrarThe Government should be ashamed that five years into its term, the Defence Force annual report reveals the Armed Forces are “not fit to fight”.
Apart from effectively abolishing the air force, the long litany of shortages in almost every area is something they must take accountability for.
As a percentage of GDP New Zealand now spends less than 1%, only 0.8%.
And yes National did cut defence spending also, but that was well over a decade ago, and because NZ was faced with a huge $5 billion deficit. Now that we have a $6 billion surplus there is simply no excuse. From 1995 to 2000 expenditure stayed stable at 1.1%, and has reduced to 0.8% since.
To give some idea of how low 0.8% is, here’s a list of the entire OECD:
Turkey 5.3%
Greece 4.3%
United States 3.9%
Australia 2.8%
South Korea 2.7%
France 2.6%
United Kingdom 2.4%
Portugal 2.3%
Czech Republic 2.1%
Sweden 2.1%
Finland 2.0%
Italy 1.9%
Norway 1.9%
Slovakia 1.9%
Hungary 1.8%
Poland 1.7%
Denmark 1.6%
Netherlands 1.6%
Germany 1.5%
Belgium 1.3%
Spain 1.2%
Canada 1.1%
Japan 1.0%
Switzerland 1.0%
Ireland 0.9%
Luxembourg 0.9%
Mexico 0.9%
Austria 0.8%
New Zealand 0.8%
Iceland 0.0%
Yep the only country that spends less than New Zealand is Iceland. They don’t have armed forces – they just pay the US to protect them (seriously). Maybe we should just do the same.
Most infromed commentary I have seen is that we should be at around the 1.5% of GDP level. Now the difference between 0.8% and even 1.1% (where we were in 2000) may not seem much but it is a whopping $420 million a year which would make a huge difference to the safety and ability of our defence force personnel.
No tag for this post.
August 31st, 2004 at 5:25 pm
I have heard estimates of an increase to 1.2% being enough for current spending, retaining the air strike capability and buying a third frigate.
Is Israel not part of the OECD? Anyway, last I saw they spend over 11% of GDP on Defence. Seems like a justifiable aim.
Vote:August 31st, 2004 at 5:47 pm
Israel is not a member of the OECD (not sure why). They are at around 9%.
Vote:August 31st, 2004 at 7:33 pm
LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa
LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa
That’s the leftie defence policy wheels calculating their next clever move.
Vote:August 31st, 2004 at 7:36 pm
And we will have Aunty Helen to thank when our men and women are wearing UN Berets armed with nothing more than sharp sticks under the control of Eleventy Star General Mumbungle Butthole from the Republic of Bulimia….. (with apologies to PJ O’Rourke)
Vote:August 31st, 2004 at 9:28 pm
I see no problem with us being at or near the bottom of that list, we are the most isolated and least threatened state in the OECD so it makes perfect sense.
I’m at risk of sounding like an apologist for the government, but they appear to be dealing with some of the big ticket items and some of their problems are related to being unable to recruit enough people when unemployment is low – the solution to this seems pretty obvious to me…but apparently you need to have some sort of enquiry or something to work out that you aren’t offering the troops enough dough. Its also going to take some time to overcome the effects of the military being run down in the past.
That said, we need to make sure that the forces we do have are able to look after themselves and do the job. If we send troops overseas, they have to have the equipment and training to be able to work effectively with our allies. It is worth spending the money to make sure this happens otherwise we’ll have soldiers coming home in body bags.
Feelings on recent troop deployments aside, If it turns out we are sending troops overseas ill equipped and ill trained there is no excuse for that…especially when we have a big surplus and are happy to spend money on the Community Employment Group and iwi handouts…I mean development.
Vote:August 31st, 2004 at 10:49 pm
Our defence spending should be in line with the US or at least Australia. A 300% increase to get us in line with Australia, plus a huge cash injection to re arm the air force strike wing, and the re opening of the air force base at Auckland and one in the South Island will ensure that any enemy detected would be destroyed before it reached our shores. We should have a spend up on upgrading our surveillance aircraft, and our transport aircraft should be able to carry the LAV-3′s that the government invested in instead of planes.
Vote:Some big frigates would be nice, and some smaller cruisers to intercept faster vessels. A Navy air force equipped with harriers to surprise enemies before an air force strike force arrives would also be nice.
And get ANZUS back on track.
Then I think we will be safe from any enemy who wants to take us on, except perhaps China.
And we don’t really have a labour shortage, there is still 4% unemployment (160,000 people is a sizeable army) and twice as many on the sickness benefit, many of whom should not be. Then there’s the unemployed who are not on the dole, and the public service.
I’m not in favour of big government spend ups except on military and roads.
August 31st, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Stupid icelanders paying the US to protect them. They should just freeload like we do.
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 10:24 am
Hmmm…….who’s “the enemy” exactly? Are we facing imminent invasion and I don’t even know it? Here’s a bigger concern: the fact we’re being bought up by Australian’s, American’s and South East Asian’s at a tremendous pace. Why would they invade a nice little money-earner like us?
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 11:00 am
Who’s the enemy exactly? Someone asked. Dumb and dumber. It’s whoever tries to have a go, for what ever reason. Today it might be Islamic extremists, twenty years ago it was potentially Indonesia, tomorrow it might be Lululand. Who cares? France has just found out how safe a benign strategic environment can really be. Ask them your damn fool questions.
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 12:45 pm
I’m not sure that we need be too preoccupied with International comparisons. They tend to reflect differnt geo-political realities (including the fact that NZ is “girt by” real seas – as opposed to the pathetic “coastal lagoons” to the north of our Western Neighbour. What matters is that our defence forces are well equipped for the tasks we expect them to carry out and in a position to “upgrade” reasoanably rapidly (years rather than decades) in the event of a major change in regional politics / security (eg a hardline military coup in Indonesia). If that means increasing our expenditure to (or a little higher than) Canada, Japan and Switzerland I, for one, have no problem with that.
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 12:49 pm
What’s the point of spending an extra $420m a year if many of our soldiers are too fat and lazy to complete a fitness test. Seeing the NZ Army boys often hanging out at the fast food bar on Great North Road, I’d recommend a healthier and cheaper diet first before going all gaga on our low OECD ranking.
Vote:Any high earners here willing to pay a few extra cents in income tax to finance the $420m? Or should it, again, come from us? Defence seems the one thing libertarians don’t have a problem with forcing on the lower paid to finance (in money as well as in blood)
September 1st, 2004 at 2:05 pm
France spends 2.6% of its GDP on defence? I didn’t know white flags were so expensive these days…
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 3:28 pm
US spends 3.9% and it still can’t win a war (unless it’s against Grenada).
Vote:September 1st, 2004 at 9:33 pm
Mike: thinking we don’t need to spend as much on defence because we are isolated is a very oen dimensional view of defence needs. Defence is no longer about stopping the navy sailing into our harbours. It is being able to contribute to regional and global security.
Rob: same comment – do you really think invasion is the entire rationale for having a defence force? If that is the case all of Europe should now disarm.
Hans – are you really suggesting that high earners do not pay enough tax? Are 8% of taxpayers paying 50% of tax not enough? And libertarians tend to agree that the main reason you have a government in the first place is to provide for collective defence. A Government which can’t do that, fails it most basic task.
Vote:September 2nd, 2004 at 10:29 am
David: those 8% are screaming the hardest for a defence spending increase, so they can put their money where their mouths are instead of bludging off the middle classes and the poor.
Vote:September 2nd, 2004 at 3:46 pm
David: The top 8% of taxpayers paying 50% of total (income) tax probably is enough in fact it sounds just about right (especially since the figure will come down when you include GST). According to http://www.treasury.govt.nz forecasts for the current fy the top 8% of taxpayers means everyone earning over $70,000 and about 1/3 of the 60-70,000 group. They currently pay about 41% of total income tax.
Another $1.5 billion from this group should just about do it and, by a neat coincidence, that would put our defence spending nicely on a par with Australia.
Vote:September 2nd, 2004 at 4:48 pm
David: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a defence force, but I do think there’s something seriously wrong with being pushed into funding a combat-oriented Army/Navy/Airforce. Adolf honestly believes we’re in imminent danger of being invaded, probably because it gives his life a little purpose. Every zealot worth their salt needs something to keep their brain occupied.
“Indonesia might attack! Or…..or Islamic extremists might strap C4 to themselves before boarding a Link service bound for Dannevirk”.
The reality is the US and Australia would never let New Zealand be invaded, and we’ll never have the economy to finance a defence force that might stand a chance repelling, say, Indonesian forces. 6 F/16′s aren’t enough. A few Apache helicopters won’t be enough.
Much smarter to refine the scope of our defence force so it focuses on peacekeeping which people mistakenly believe to be benign and pointless. That seems to be where we’ve played the best role.
Vote: