A small boost for Defence

April 29th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Government has confirmed $100 million in new funding for the force in the coming financial year – part of a $535 million package for the next four years.

A $100.9 million investment into operating funding for the 2014-15 financial year, has been confirmed in the coming Budget.

“This significant investment in our defence force, combined with the savings and reinvestment achieved through recent reforms, means the Government is addressing the long term funding gap which we inherited,” Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman said.

The Budget, due to be released May 15, will confirm the defence funding approach agreed by Cabinet in November, last year.

The $100.9 million was the first stage of an allocation of $535.5 million operating funding for the NZDF over the next four years.

Our expenditure on defence, as a proportion of GDP, is relatively low for a developed country. The NZDF do very good work around the world, despite our small size.

Tags:

21 Responses to “A small boost for Defence”

  1. wikiriwhis business (4,018 comments) says:

    Apparently we’ll need every cent for defence once the TPP is signed and we’ll be forced betwen Chinese and US interests we’re being told in very strong terms in Herald articles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Our defence spending is a joke promulgated by successive governments. Free load central.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Book Review: Nicky Hager’s “Other People’s Wars”

    According to Hager’s research, the New Zealand military not only pursued a separate political agenda from the New Zealand government, but it also actively manipulated the information it provided to the government in order to make it appear that it was compliant with government policy. The argument of the text is that the NZDF did not serve the interests of New Zealand, that it’s private actions contradicted the reasons it gave the New Zealand public for its actions, and that this involved the deception of the media, of the government and the people.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1109/S00109/book-review-nicky-hagers-other-peoples-wars.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    UT

    And you believe Harger, despite his political views, which, backed-up by his actions and pronouncements are not exactly ‘National Party’ friendly? Notably he says nothing about the NZLP’s defence polices, and its systematic and deliberate destruction of NZ’s military capability. The ommisson is, perhaps, significant….

    BTW: Harger has degrees in physics and philosophy; not exactly sure how they can be a basis for ‘authoritative’ comment about defence matters, but since ‘Dr’ Norman has a Phd. as a result of a thesis he wrote about a political party, perhaps this is not surprising (birds of a feather and all that).

    Thought you might be interested (but then again, as it may not fit with your narrative, perhaps not).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    And you believe Harger, despite his political views, which, backed-up by his actions and pronouncements are not exactly ‘National Party’ friendly?

    The reason I believe Hager is because of the historic security relationship between NZ and the US and the US propensity to mislead the public about the nature of its military operations. The most recent example would be the media blackout of US secretary of state John Kerry’s involvement in a planned conspiracy to start a war with Syria (Suleiman Shah Tomb false flag). The MSM coverage was of the event was superficial and in some cases misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    UT

    Thanks for the reply.

    Therefore, given you find the ‘US’ misleading would I be right in saying that you would rather be ‘mislead’ by someone ‘close to home’ (ie Nicky Hager)? That would seem to be what you are implying, although not actually saying.

    (You would, presumably, have no problems with the Russian media and its ‘interpretations and actions’ – presumably they are much more open than their counterparts in the USA)?

    Just wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    and we’ll be forced betwen Chinese and US interests

    I doubt it.

    1. China is a major creditor propping up the US.

    2. The US is a major trading partner of China.

    3. China is a major trading partner of the US.

    4. China makes most of Americas stuff.

    5. They need each other for their respective economies.

    So relax. We can be mates with both of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Therefore, given you find the ‘US’ misleading would I be right in saying that you would rather be ‘mislead’ by someone ‘close to home’ (ie Nicky Hager)? That would seem to be what you are implying, although not actually saying.

    If Hager was wrong about the situation in Afghanistan then I’ll drop him as a source.

    You would, presumably, have no problems with the Russian media and its ‘interpretations and actions’ – presumably they are much more open than their counterparts in the USA

    I don’t trust any mainstream source to be completely open about the motivations for geopolitical events.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I don’t trust any mainstream source to be completely open about the motivations for geopolitical events.

    Nor do I Ugly. Too many on here just pick a prefered propaganda outlet, with clear good guys and bad, then parrot what they are told to think.

    The reality is all governments are largely full shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dime (9,977 comments) says:

    “1. China is a major creditor propping up the US.

    2. The US is a major trading partner of China.

    3. China is a major trading partner of the US.

    4. China makes most of Americas stuff.

    5. They need each other for their respective economies.

    So relax. We can be mates with both of them.”

    China knows all that money they spent propping up the yanks aint coming back

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    dime, of course they know that. The whole global economy is all smoke and mirrors. The US is beyond bankrupt, but if anyone calls them on it, everybody will suffer. So they continue on with illusion. Year after year we are told the US dollar will collapse by financial prophets. The economy has already collapsed for all practicle purposes, however we just ignore it and carry on. This is helped by the US being the reserve currency of the world.

    If it ever does collapse you should be in a good position with property. Your debts will be small and you still own something real that people need. Way better than gold. Remember hyper-inflation means your debts become worthless too.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,977 comments) says:

    Kea – a bit of hyperinflation would be nice. pay off my mortgage in 3 days!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Yes it would work well for you. Not so sure about the Gold Standard crowd. The value of gold is largely arbitrary in my opinion and only shifts the problem [from fiat currency]. Real property has always been in demand. I might move in with you if it happens and we can get some hookers around. Though we will need a wheelbarrow full of money :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    UT

    I would respectfully suggest that, because of his political background, and sympathies, Nikki Hager should be treated with caution as a ‘reliable source’, and definitely not as a ‘Main Source’. He has an agenda (anti-Nat Govt., anti-American, anti-Western democracy, anti-establishment, not politically neutral (which is what researchers should be; objectivity and all that) socialist by inclination, associated with the hard left, a sympathiser with the gween way of doing things, etc. etc.), of which the ‘startling revelations’ for which he has become known, form a part. He is inclined to ‘see what he wants to see’ in respect of his ‘investigations’ and has various ‘friends’ who assist this tendency, and, because it is in tune with their own political agendas, are vocal supporters of all and anything he ‘reveals’. If you look round and give it some thought, various names will always appear..

    As I said, not a ‘Main Source'; as a ‘reference’ perhaps, but not a reliable Main Source. Read his writings with caution and a grain of salt (or three). Agenda’s, old chap, agenda’s.

    Hope this helps.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m with UT on this one! Hager’s work on ‘Other Peoples’ Wars’ is a reliable source. The other key NZ journalist reporting on Afghanistan, John Stephenson, seemed to survive the NZDF attempt to discredit him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Cool we might get a strike wing back in the Air Force

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ShawnLH (5,265 comments) says:

    “I would respectfully suggest that, because of his political background, and sympathies, Nikki Hager should be treated with caution as a ‘reliable source’”

    To put it mildly. Hagars. “work” is just the usual shallow, Left wing, anti-American propaganda, and far from treating it with caution, I would be inclined to treat it with derision.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Conservatives bag Hager not because he is wrong. They just don’t agree with what he writes.

    Ever since his exposure of the shenanigans within the Nats during the Brash years, they have painted a huge target on his back.

    To the best of my knowledge, he has never been successfully sued by anybody.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    Did someone above seriously imply that an extra $100 million spent on things like new radar systems for our ships (sea coffins) will be of any use at all if China comes for us?

    If that was seriously the problem we were preparing for our military should have a completely different design.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I think that was just a comment wikiriwhis business, who is crazy BTW. Our defence force is pretty much the minimum capabilty to be taken at all seriously by the Australians and the Yanks. Some would say it’s actually a bit less than than the minimum. If we think China is going to be a military threat at all we should really start thinking hard about why we sell them all our produce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    What is the 3 billion dollar benefit of the US and Australia taking our military seriously? Do we really want that sort of ‘respect’?

    I suggest that the cost of maintaining a force designed purely for self defense (against a much stronger opponent) and for limited peacekeeping operations would be quite cheap as it doesn’t require frigates or things like that.

    And how does that stack up against other expenditure? Especially since the sort of military expenditure I’m concerned about is mostly importing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote