Watch: Government set to make defence announcement ahead of Budget 2025
That long-awaited plan, released on April 7, revealed $9b of the funding was new.
Luxon described it as a 'landmark day' and a significant financial investment that was 'not just about the Defence Force, it's fundamentally about our national security and our economic prosperity'.
Collins said the plan would deliver 'enhanced lethality' and a 'deterrent effect'.
She said it was not 'about choosing sides or beating the drums of war' but supporting an international rules-based order, working alongside our partners and making smart decisions for the future.
'It gets our NZDF [Defence Force] out of the intensive care unit and not just growing, but growing where we need it to go,' she said. 'Our personnel deserve a serious plan that will serve them as they serve us, this is what we have delivered.'
There are several major investments expected by 2028.
This includes replacing the Boeing 757 fleet (expected at $600 million to $1b), enhanced strike capabilities ($100m to $300m), and a new fleet of maritime helicopters to operate from Navy ships ($300m to $600m).
In the near term, the Government has decided not to immediately replace the country's ageing Anzac frigates, HMNZS Te Kaha and Te Mana, but instead provide additional maintenance to extend their lives into the early 2030s.
This will cost between $300m and $600m.
'Extending the life of the frigates will retain Defence's combat capable ships and the skilled workforce required to operate combat vessels until the ships are replaced,' the plan said.
Another vessel that would not be replaced at least in the short term is the recently sunk HMNZS Manawanui – instead dive and hydrographic tasks would be undertaken from other platforms rather than a single dedicated one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scientists hit back over PM's 'worthies' comment
By Eloise Gibson of RNZ A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower New Zealand's methane emissions target. Paul Behrens, the global professor of environmental change at Oxford University, said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish. My point was very clear - those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24% and 47% by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the Prime Minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14% to 24% by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel, atmospheric scientist Laura Revell, said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35% because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Distant noises of other voices
As Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon receives no shortage of advice. Quite apart from his Cabinet and caucus colleagues and coalition partners — let alone suggestions from the ever-helpful Opposition or media — he has several staff members whose entire role is to advise him on the issues of the day. Then there are the lobbyists, business leaders, interest groups, local government leaders and other influential people who are fortunate enough to capture the PM's attention and offer their two cents' worth. Even the general public can advise the prime minister — ultimately at the ballot box, but also through correspondence or even in person should they be lucky enough to be in the vicinity when Mr Luxon embarks on one of his weekly visits out to the regions. Not all advice is welcome, of course, and Mr Luxon may well have wished not to hear from former Labour prime minister Helen Clark and former National Party leader Don Brash when they chimed in last week with some salient words on New Zealand's relationship with China., There is little chance of Mr Luxon ignoring them, though, given that they chose to drop him a line via full-page advertisements in the nation's newspapers rather than sending him an email or letter. The nub of Miss Clark and Dr Brash's letter — which was also signed by former National MP and speaker Sir David Carter, former New Zealand ambassador to China Carl Worker, and Beijing-based New Zealand businessman David Mahon — was that they thought New Zealand's foreign policy was taking a concerning direction. "In recent months, you and Foreign Minister [Winston] Peters have made a number of statements which we consider to be positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China," they said. "We see no upside and very considerable downside in the situation which has developed... we do believe that a military relationship with the United States directed against China has many risks for New Zealand." The former politicians were, mainly, referring to Aukus Pillar Two, a defence arrangement with Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, which New Zealand is still mulling over whether to join. Signing up would no doubt please countries with which New Zealand has long-standing relationships and alliances and also allow the country access to modern defence and intelligence gathering technology. But Miss Clark, Dr Brash, et al, point out that the strategic grouping is "explicitly aimed at China" — a country with which New Zealand is also friendly, and which is, as no-one has forgotten, our biggest trading partner. A vital plank in Mr Luxon's "going for growth" agenda is increasing export sales, and the ready, waiting and able-to-buy Chinese market is a critical one. Mr Luxon met Chinese President Xi Jinping at last year's Apec meeting, and he is widely expected to visit the People's Republic sometime this year. Such visits always include an obligatory but delicately phrased reference to some of China's more questionable policies in terms of human rights, a topic quickly skimmed over before the parties turn to dollars and cents. New Zealand's attempts to become closer in step with the United States will already have been noted by Beijing, and this will no doubt be added to the awkward topics list when Mr Luxon does make it to the Chinese capital. No-one is suggesting that Miss Clark or Dr Brash, experienced operators in their own right, are acting as stalking horses for China in placing their advertisement: their views on this matter are backed by lengthy and independent track records, and they raise a legitimate argument. Mr Luxon will not have welcomed such high-profile questioning of his policies at a time when his staff may well be making final arrangements for what will be a vital trip — as all meetings between China's and New Zealand's leaders are for this country. Mr Peters, in typically colourful language, said that he saw "no value in indulging the tired arguments of various former politicians" — before defending the government's foreign policy approach. But indulge them Mr Luxon will likely have to do. In finding language to counter them, he may well find himself grateful that those varied notables raised their voices and offered their opinion.
Kiwiblog
15 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: PM must reverse the ‘Power of General Competence' to stop activism in local government
A guest post by a reader: As powerless ratepayers face the ongoing tyranny of marxist councils over rates bills and the local government minister's repeated demands for sensible spending fall on deaf ears, the Prime Minister continues to ignore the obvious solution. Requests by Simon Watts imploring Tauranga and other councils to rein in the wasteful spending are ignored as renegade mayors like Mahe Drysdale go crazy (like kids in a sweet shop) giving away taxpayer owned land to Maori and other corrupt, wasteful spending. Reversing 'the power of general competence' legislated by socialist Helen in the early 2000s, would force attention back on delivery of essential services, rein in rates rises and improve the standard of living of long suffering rate payers. Unlike Trump who goes in like a bull-at-a-gate and changes things, our PM and ministers stand by wringing their hands timidly asking marxist councillors and staff to do the right thing. This is like so much virtue signalling on an issue Simeon Brown was threatening to address before he was promptly moved to the health ministry early this year…. curiouser and curiouser. Instead a deflecting Willis now turns our attention to a task akin to pushing back the tide: lowering supermarket prices; admirable, but probably impossible. Luxon showed that he is quite capable of some slick sleight of hand when it suits his purposes. (to get a budget over the line) Consider the pay parity bill. Now you see Labour's old version, then, faster than Dynamo, the new improved bill produced out of Brook van Veldon's hat, was passed into law under urgency. If the government genuinely wanted to help struggling New Zealanders they would have begun enacting the bill reversal in 2023. However it suits them to virtue signal and let councils carry out race based policies they profess to be against and can blame them for. They lie. The force working in government, so Luxon doesn't have to, is opportunist Tama Potaka, winning Hamilton West in the 2022 by-election, knowing Labour were heading for the wilderness. Luxon, forgetting his election promises and intent on taking his own path (like Ardern) once in power, has given full rein to Potaka, his Maori spokesperson, a new star. Speaking out on issues, referring to New Zealand as Aoteroa New Zealand in the House and else where without a murmur of dissent from so called tough commentators like Mike Hosking, who has coined the late Bob Jones' 'Maorification of NZ' as his own. When questioned Luxon defers from knowning or owning that nasty term. He mostly leaves that unpalatable stuff to his activist Maori spokesperson. Tut tutting on Twitter (X) when Seymour spoke of 'racist' media questions and of Maori targetted spending as 'racist'. (Seen as the ultimate taboo by the radical media ideologues.) Potaka is all business Tony Vaughn on Breaking Views opines: 'Tama Potaka is not a moderate. He is the acceptable face of racial separatism. A handsome cipher in a navy-blue suit, offering respectable cover for policies that are, in effect, apartheid with PR spin.' I couldn't have put it better. No doubt Potaka had a say in forcing the vote forward on Maori wards to this year's election so even those councils who voted against; their Maori wards have another term before they cease. Seymour folded like a wet umbrella on that one (not being the master of the behind -the-scenes tantrum like Winston) I know our city voted against Maori wards back in 2019 during the year, so come the election that year, there were none. Easy peasy. Luxon fires on all cylinders, speaking with authority, when he is one step removed from the decision. Consider the punishment doled out to to the Maori MPs for their 'Haka of Victimhood' (to quote Shane Jones) with 3 weeks ban and removal of pay. I wouldn't like his chances arguing the point against fiery Collins and Peters. However he can quite rightly say that the powerful privileges committee decision is final. And never waver. In the end they are carrying the can, not him and that is just the way he likes it. He lacks the courage of his convictions, necssary for real leadership. This decision will count in the government's favour, with a public sick of the Maori Party's antics. And it is a just decision considering the baptism of fire Seymour had gone through, from the shonky running of the Treaty Principles Bill's select committee; the ungracious behaviour of 'activists' Luxon and Potaka; with official records which will conceal corrupt counting methods and processes; culminating in a dramatic intimidating adult tantrum gaining global attention for all the wrong reasons. Also given the Maori Party leaders' sketchy attendance record in the House where they get paid whether there or not, losing three weeks pay might just about even it up! The Maori Party, unused to accountability, are finally finding their actions have consequences. Hard of hearing Speaker, Mr Brownlee who could have stopped the clown show before it got underway (by cutting the live feed for a start) will be most unpopular if he, in his quest to incorporate all things Maori into parliament, thinks rude imbecilic behaviour like this counts as 'Te Kanga' (behavioural guidelines for living with others) And here was I under the impression that mythical 'obligations to the treaty' were to be REMOVED not added, as part of the Coalition Agreement. If you are to get your point across you will have to brush up on your tantrum technique, David!
