A Surplus Of Defence Riches, But Lack Of Skill And Experience
Article – RNZ
Analysis – The minister of defence, space and spies has at least $9b of new money to spend, and a defence force demonstrably not ready to spend it. Phil Pennington, Reporter
Analysis – Heading into next week's Budget, Judith Collins would not want any more money for weapons, even if it was offered to her.
Other ministers have been tightening their belts under orders from high in the lead-up to Budget Day next Thursday. But not the Defence/Space/Spy Minister, who has at least $9 billion of new money to spend – and $12b all up – by 2029.
'If you said to me, could we instantly put it up even more, right now I'd say, maybe better not just right now,' Collins told a Wellington audience early this month, when asked if she wanted more funding.
'It's a really good question because if we could have more, that would be great.
'But we have to be able to spend it properly.
'So any fool can go out and buy a whole lot of things. But you have to have the personnel.'
A shortage of personnel is just one problem facing the minister.
While Collins has a surplus of defence riches to spend on weapons and capital projects, she has inherited a defence force that is demonstrably not ready to spend it.
It not only needs more soldiers – and clever ones to buy and master new technology – but more and better houses for the ones who remain.
It is working with a 'significantly depleted… collective skill and experience base', it said 10 months ago – an issue which would take several years to fix – and it just sank a $100m ship off Samoa.
The findings about the sinking were released on a Friday, just three days before Collins put out the long-awaited Defence Capability Plan on how to spend $12b.
The NZ Defence Force (NZDF) learned this week that it would also get more than half a billion dollars – $680m – more for domestic and international missions and training over the next four years, plus almost $160m for personnel allowances.
The NZDF told RNZ last week it was in a state of constant review of its personnel, and was ready for whatever the government asked of it.
That self-assessment jars with its own reports to the public and MPs, and several points that Collins made, including the reliance on second-hand planes for three decades.
'We do need to actually get the right equipment for our people and not have to spend the entire time cannibalizing,' she said.
Six months ago, NZDF confirmed an RNZ leak that it faced a $360m operating deficit this year. It promised a number of cuts, but confirmed that all missions would go ahead.
Now the money tap has been fully turned on, starting with a pre-Budget announcement last weekend of $2b+ for navy helicopters (which comes out of the $12b) and the extra missions spend (that comes out of almost $1 billion more over four years for 'housekeeping', or operational expenses).
'Our personnel are being called upon to go more places, more often and for longer to play New Zealand's part in contributing to global security,' Collins' said in a statement.
'Severely degraded'
But one of the defence force's most recent missions ended with the Manawanui under water at a Samoan reef, and an inquiry that found a host of inadequacies at crew, leadership and Navy level.
At its most basic level, the crew were not properly prepared to drop anchors as they motored on autopilot towards the reef.
At a much more senior level, the hydrographic survey ship had gone through substandard preparation in the preceding months.
Problems with training, experience, risk management, supervision, 'haste', leadership, distraction and 'hollowness' – among others – all contributed to the sinking.
The year before it went down, the Chief of Navy said: 'We don't have enough sailors.'
The 2025 Court of Inquiry said: 'The hydrographic capability within the RNZN is severely degraded.'
The inquiry recommended 11 reviews, but the defence force gets to decide how to do the reviews – it will be marking its own work.
As a mission 'output', the Manawanui was an embarrassing failure. It shows among other things, that a capital input – the ship itself – was not enough where other less obvious inputs – training to use the autopilot, say – were deficient.
Scaled up, the question becomes how a defence force desperate for specialists will manage $12b of inputs; and the extra $680m to 'sail, fly, patrol and train more often' through to 2029, takes on huge importance.
The Office of the Auditor-General took a close look at the NZDF's 'Sustainability Initiative' to improve capabilities, but that was almost 20 years ago. Its recent audits have been about how Operation Respect – about treating people better – has been going.
Other militaries face similar pressures around hollowing out, and face similar criticisms they are top-heavy with senior officers.
'But while the US, UK and Australia have embarked on cutting senior officers or structural overhauls, or are positioning for that, the NZDF has not.
The rebuild – like the Manawanui reviews – will be led from the top.
The very top level – Chief of Defence Force and the three Service Chiefs in navy, army and air force – was refreshed last year. The Public Service Commission managed what candidates were offered to the government to consider.
The chief must come from within the defence force. Outside input is strictly limited.
'There were no nominations received from government parties, no communications from other MPs or ministers about the appointment and no instructions were given to the ministry or interview panel about 'shortlists' or who should be interviewed,' the commission told RNZ in an OIA.
How the top of the NZDF operates has its detractors. Sources close to the front-line talk about 'command under-performance', and frustration among senior people pushing paperwork.
'Get most of these senior people back with their troops,' was one message.
The attempted rebuild will be unprecedented, having to manage both massive budgets and huge volatility. The $12 billion must be used upgrade old assets – frigates and decrepit housing; procure new ones – missiles, space, cyber, drones and to keep up with the US-Australia push for human-machine-integration; and deliver enough skilled people to maintain and master the new technologies.
And the ranks are thinnest where they matter most.
'Critical leadership and instructional rank brackets from Corporal to Staff Sergeant, and from Captain to Lieutenant Colonel, were particularly affected' by the post-Covid turnover, the annual report said.
Collins called it an 'appalling' level of turnover.
Attrition – 'knocked that one on the head'
New weaponry aside, next week's Budget can be expected to deliver more mundane spending, such as on pay rises in the lower ranks.
Competition on that front is coming from the Australian Defence Force (ADF), which recently extended a $670m recruitment bonus scheme until 2028, to try to fill up scoured-out reserve forces.
Its enlisted numbers were 4300 below approved levels in 2024, but the number of brigadiers – paid almost $200,000 a year – was nearing 60 when the ADF has only a handful of combat and support brigades.
As in other industries, the other side of the Tasman can be attractive. An NZDF veteran who retains close links with people still in uniform told RNZ: 'The conditions, the training and pay are so poor, if you want a career in the defence force you're best to go to Australia.'
Advocates close to the front line want the Budget to deliver $400m in better pay and conditions at the NZDF.
NZDF's reserves have also been at low levels, a big problem for the likes of rotating out peacekeepers in Ukraine.
In the regular force, Collins told the Wellington audience the churn had stopped, with the Navy at a 'record low' 5.8 percent turnover now.
'So we've actually knocked that one on the head,' she said.
'The problem there though is that the ones, the people we lost, a lot of them were people with 10 to 15 years experience, very senior capable trainers.
'And so we have to make sure that we spend some time training further and growing the people we have, as well as the new ones that we've got money to come in to the forces.'
The pre-Budget announcement had $39m to pay people more on deployments.
A now-stabilised defence force faces both old and new recruiting challenges. To replenish its lower ranks it quietly reduced educational entry requirements last year, as RNZ recently revealed.
Yet by September this had not helped – it was tracking to follow the five-year trend of falling enlistments. At the same time, it will need many more high-tech specialists to run things such as drones, which will not come cheap and could cause a log-jam.
Todd Newett – an analyst of defence economics in Australia – has a suggestion for the Australian Defence Force that could be relevant here: Delink pay from rank, so that technicians can be paid enough to retain them, but without having the high rank that might exacerbate senior officer bloat.
Upgrades of housing and the NZDF's rundown estate are factored into the $12 billion spend by 2029.
However, the years-long projects to deliver on these have hit delays, and advocates for the lower ranks, such as Mission Homefront – co-founded by Waiouru military mother Erin Speedy – are demanding more results.
But the NZDF has a patchy record, with Treasury reports pointing to its solid control of spending, but not of time – its projects face some of the public sector's longest delays.
A long march
The expanding budgets of defence forces around the world enable fixes, but do not guarantee them.
Canada faces similar problems as New Zealand with housing and pay, and soldiers voting with their feet.
So does the UK, where a review of the military ongoing since last year stated it would look at 'how service life can be improved for those who commit to serve their country in uniform'. The UK also introduced policy to 'incentivise those at the lower soldier rank levels'.
A whole other approach is exemplified by the US under President Donald Trump. His administration has left diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives crushed in the wake of what defence media have called 'one of [the army's] most consequential restructuring efforts in decades'.
It was 'slashing legacy systems, reorganising commands, and accelerating the development of technologies', to deliver 'streamlined force structures aimed at future high-end conflict'.
Ultimately, all the militaries have the same over-riding aim: To be more lethal, more combat-ready, to have more strike force.
Collins has embraced this. She stressed at the Wellington forum that deterrence was the point, that it was not controversial to acquire new missiles to achieve that.
For now, the minister has $12 billion to work with, and some idea of what to do with it, under a capability plan she said took years of 'focused work' by agencies to prepare, after 35 years of 'under investment'.
The public might now demand more speed, less haste.
But taxpayers might face their own demands, for even more money, and in the not-so-distant future.
'Our plan is to get to the two percent of GDP by 2032 and 33,' Collins told the Institute of International Affairs forum.
'But we've also said as part of that plan that every two years we'll do a check in to see if we can go faster or put more into it.'
She pointed to Poland aiming to get to five percent GDP on defence.
'It's a floor, not a ceiling, as the prime minister likes to say, and I think that's a good way of looking at it.
'Will we do more? Well, we might have to do more.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 minutes ago
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence – from employers at a government roadshow – that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses – demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia – it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that – only a few months ago – took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. 'It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up – because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said – 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made – simultaneously – for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard – and their international students – has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently – since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA – we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose – or would it support – the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT – as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues – support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or … the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) – the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior – Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked – before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable – incomprehensible – we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence - from employers at a government roadshow - that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses - demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia - it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that - only a few months ago - took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. "It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up - because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said - 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made - simultaneously - for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard - and their international students - has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently - since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA - we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose - or would it support - the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT - as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues - support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or ... the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) - the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior - Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked - before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable - incomprehensible - we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt looking into how Aussie warship knocked out internet
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon remains unaware of how an Australian warship was allowed to accidentally knock out mobile internet access across Taranaki and Marlborough last week. Navigation radar interference from HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's largest warship, disrupted 5 GHz wireless access points on Wednesday as it sailed through the Cook Strait. The interference triggered in-built switches in the devices that caused them to go offline, ABC News reported - a safety precaution to prevent wireless signals interfering with radar systems in New Zealand's airspace. Luxon told RNZ this morning he was yet to have an explanation how the situation was allowed to happen, but he was "sure" Defence Minister Judith Collins would find out. He said it was not a "deliberate" act from the Australians. "Look, we are very pleased that they're here. They are our only ally. We work very closely with the Australians, as you know, I'm not sure what's happened here. Again, that'll be something the defence minister will look into." Asked if it had exposed a vulnerability in our communications network, Luxon said it was "the nature" of it. "There's a whole bunch of technology… in the defence space and the cyberspace and how wars are being fought, and will be fought in the future will be a big component of it… "Judith Collins will be checking into that and understanding exactly what has happened there, but I'm very proud of that relationship. I'm very proud that they're here. It's great that they've come." The blackout came the same week "human error" knocked out fibre-based internet to much of the lower North Island. Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith told RNZ last week he would be discussing the Australian warship situation with officials. Relationships with China, US Also last week, two former prime ministers and an ex-governor of the Reserve Bank put their names to a letter questioning the government's foreign policy - in particular "positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China". It was signed, among others, by Helen Clark, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dr Don Brash, questioning whether New Zealand was risking its economic and trade relationship with China by aligning itself closer with the US. "Like 192 other countries, we've got an independent foreign policy. There'll be lots of different views on foreign policy, I get that," Luxon told RNZ. "But, you know, frankly, my job as prime minister is to advance our national interests - that is both… around our security and our economic interests. And I think you've also got to acknowledge that the strategic environment from 25 or 35 years ago is very different from what we have today, and it will continue to evolve." He said he disagreed with the view that working more closely with the US on defence, under the adversarial Trump administration, would sour New Zealand's relationship with China. I think, you know, we have important relationships with both the US and China. We will make our own assessment based on our own needs, as to, you know, how we navigate those relationships. "But in both cases, you know, we have, you know, deep engagement and cooperation. We also have differences with the US - we've raised concerns around tariffs. With the Chinese, we've raised concerns around cyber attacks on our parliamentary system."
