Collins coy over possible Aukus pact review
Defence Minister Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ
The Defence Minister says there's no reason for New Zealand to comment on reports the Pentagon is reviewing the Aukus defence alliance.
A US defence official told Reuters the review was part of ensuring the security pact was aligned with US President Donald Trump's America First agenda.
The strategic pact between the US, UK and Australia had long been a talking point in New Zealand, with consecutive governments pondering whether to join parts of the alliance.
Aukus was formed in 2021 to address shared worries about China's growing power.
Under the pact, Australia would be armed with nuclear submarines at a cost of $A350 billion ($NZ377 billion).
In a statement, Defence Minister Judith Collins said the US review was about Aukus Pillar One, which New Zealand had never been a part of.
New Zealand has had ongoing discussions about joining Pillar Two of the alliance, but any decisions on whether to join Pillar Two would be a matter for Cabinet, Collins said.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has not received any reports or advice on what the Trump administration reviewing the Aukus security pact might mean for New Zealand.
Luxon told RNZ he was not concerned the review could spell the end for Pillar Two
"It's been left very open-ended. We're exploring Pillar Two - it's been to be honest quite slow going.
"We are yet to be invited to partipate in Pillar Two."
Luxon said the review was for Australia, the US, and the UK to work through.
Australia was last week told by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to significantly boost its defence spending.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would not be dictated to on defence spending. He he noted Australia's defence spending was already set to increase from 2 percent to 2.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next eight years.
Collins has denied any allies have put pressure on the government to up defence spending.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters previously said New Zealand's trading partners would judge us if we did not "step up" and play our role by increasing defence spending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
37 minutes ago
- 1News
Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary, but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Friday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans, as many demanded yes or no answers, and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief. In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Representative Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary. 'Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Hegseth said several times. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later. ADVERTISEMENT 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' said Representative Mike Turner. As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony'. 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Hegseth responded. Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over. "You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead," Representative Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.' GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologised to Hegseth for the Democrats' sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such 'flagrant disrespect'. Hegseth said he was 'happy to take the arrows' to make tough calls and do what's best. Questions emerge on Signal chats and if details Hegseth shared were classified ADVERTISEMENT Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fields questions on the Pentagon budget from the House Armed Services Committee, at the Capitol in Washington (Source: Associated Press) Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss details of the US plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family, prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers. Hegseth was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did. Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers. That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity. 'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Moulton said. 'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Hegseth responded. ADVERTISEMENT A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including Air India crash, ferry still out of action, and ignoring TikTok KiwiSaver hacks. (Source: 1News) Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app. Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves'at the pleasure of the president'. He was asked if he would apologise to the mother of a pilot flying the strike mission for jeopardising the operation and putting her son's life at risk. Hegseth said, 'I don't apologise for success'. Trump's speech at Fort Bragg raises Democratic concerns about politics in the military Gen Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along Hegseth, was questioned about Trump's speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicised. ADVERTISEMENT The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden. There was also a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform. Caine repeatedly said US service members must be apolitical, but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg. Hegseth is pressed about policies on women in uniform and transgender troops Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fields questions on the Pentagon budget from the House Armed Services Committee, at the Capitol in Washington (Source: Associated Press) Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or in combat jobs. He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicised the military but simply wants the most capable troops. ADVERTISEMENT Representative Chrissy Houlahan demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile. 'It depends on the context,' Hegseth said, adding that 'women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently'. Hegseth, who has previously said women 'straight up' should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military 'standards should be high and equal'. He was also asked about three female service members, now being forced out as part of the Pentagon's move to ban transgender troops. Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments, which Houlahan read out, were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender. Republican lawmakers jumped to his defence, criticising any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery. Democrats ask about plans for action against Greenland and Panama ADVERTISEMENT President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US said at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute. In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion. 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,' Smith said.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
The Morality Of Small Means: Sanctioning Israel's Ministers
They really ought to be doing more. But in the scheme of things, the sanctioning of Israeli's frothily fanatical ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich by New Zealand, Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia is a reminder to the Israeli government that ethnic cleansing, mass killing and the destruction of a people will receive some comment. But a closer look at the trumpeted move does little to suggest anything in the way of change or deterrence, certainly not in Gaza, where the cataclysm continues without restraint. According to the joint statement, both politicians 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' The violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank had 'led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole communities.' The reasoning for the imposition of such sanctions tends to minimise Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's zealous defence of programmatic and systematic displacement and removal of Palestinian existence in the Strip, despite the statement claiming that 'this cannot be seen in isolation'. The statement fails to note the warnings from the International Court of Justice that Palestinians in Gaza face the risk of genocide, with a final decision pending on the matter. Singling out individual members of the Netanyahu cabinet as the convenient lunatics and the devilishly possessed is a point of convenience rather than effect. It is true that, even by certain Israeli standards, a figure like Ben-Gvir is a bit too pungent, a convict of racist incitement, the procurer of assault rifles to West Bank settlers and an advocate for the full annexation of the territory. But identifying the villainous monsters conceals the broader villainous effort, and the Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong did as much in simply calling the two ministers 'the most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise.' The report of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, prefers to note the broader role played by such agents of power as the Israeli security forces, which it accuses of committing war crimes in directing attacks against the civilian population in Gaza, wilful killing and intentionally launching attacks that 'would cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians'. Killing civilians seeking shelter in schools also implicated the forces 'in the crime against humanity of extermination.' The canvas of responsibility, in other words, is panoramic and large. Pity, then, that the latest expression of small means by these five powers does not extend to a complete halt to military cooperation, the selling of arms, or engagement across various fields of industry. That would have diminished the hypocrisy somewhat, something that the countries in question are unlikely to do. More's the pity that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been spared this fit of moral clarity. When considered in substance, the two ministers face the sorts of restrictions that will be mildly bruising at best: travel bans and the freezing of assets. The move by the Australian Labor government and its counterparts was, in the broader scheme of things, a modest one. It was also worth remembering that Canberra's decision was made in sheepish fashion, with Wong previously stating that Australia would never unilaterally make such a move, as 'going it alone gets us nowhere'. It was seen by Greens Senator Nick McKim as 'far too little and far too late'. Sanctions were needed against the 'Israeli industrial war machine.' On the other hand, Alex Ryvchin, co-chief of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry suggests that these measures can become a martyr's tonic. 'They have little support in Israel, but this is the sort of measure that will boost their notoriety and make them perhaps more popular'. Looking ever the marionette in the show, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio flapped about in condemning the sanctions, which 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war.' Bereft of skills in argumentation, he could only warn US allies 'not to forget who the real enemy is.' The sanctions seemed to cause the condemned two less grief than Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who derided the decision as 'outrageous', 'scandalous' and 'unacceptable.' It was all part of 'a planned and coordinated pressure campaign.' Ben-Gvir was almost smug with the attention and bursting with semitic pride. 'We survived Pharoah, we will also survive [British Prime Minister] Keir Starmer,' he tooted in a statement. Smotrich even seemed thrilled by the timing of it all, having been at the inauguration of a new Jewish settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron when he heard the news. 'I heard Britain had decided to impose sanctions on me because I am thwarting the establishment of a Palestinian state,' he boasted. 'There couldn't be a better moment for this.' One point is certainly true: the selective moves against the dastardly two leaves the murderous apparatus intact, and the IDF war machine undiminished. Most of all, it will do nothing to halt the construction of a single settlement or save a single Palestinian from dispossession.
National Business Review
5 hours ago
- National Business Review
One survivor reported after Air India crash; UK economy contracts
Ata mārie and welcome to your Friday recap of the main international business and political headlines. In developing news, Al Jazeera reported on the crash of an Air India plane bound for London. It crashed into a medical college in the city of Ahmedabad shortly after takeoff, killing at least 240 people. It was reported that there was one survivor among the passengers. That person was rushed to hospital for treatment. Officials said medical students at the college hostel were among the dead. Air India said it was working with local authorities on the emergency response, while it was still too early to identify the cause of the crash. Boeing, the manufacturer of the 787-8 Dreamliner, said it was in contact with Air India and 'ready to support them'. Elsewhere, China is ready to drop tariffs on imports from 53 African nations, the BBC reported. China has been Africa's largest trading partner for 15 years. Africa's exports to China were worth about US$170 billion in 2023. A joint statement criticised "certain countries' [efforts to] disrupt the existing international economic and trade order" through the unilateral imposition of tariffs, the BBC noted. Yesterday, it was reported that a trade deal between the United States and China had been 'done', according to US President Donald Trump. Reuters reported that negotiators from both sides had agreed on a framework to get a fragile trade truce back on track and remove Chinese export restrictions on rare earth minerals and other critical industry components. Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell. Meanwhile, pressure between Trump and Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell intensified after Trump called him a 'numbskull', and repeated a call to cut interest rates, CNBC reported. Trump claimed that lowering rates by two percentage points would save the US US$600b each year. 'We can't get this guy to do it.' 'We're going to spend US$600b a year…because of one numbskull that sits here [and says] 'I don't see enough reason to cut the rates now,'' Trump said. Staying with economics, the UK economy contracted by 0.3% in April, as businesses slashed jobs and shelved investment plans in response to higher taxes and global trade tariff uncertainty, the Guardian reported. Official data showed the economy fell after expanding 0.2% in March and 0.5% in February. The contraction was the worst monthly drop since October 2023. Chancellor Rachel Reeves refused to rule out future tax rises and acknowledged the latest figures were 'clearly disappointing', she told the BBC. 'No chancellor is able to write another four years of Budgets within a first year of government, you know how much uncertainty there is in the world at the moment.' Elon Musk. Over the Ditch, the ABC reported that Tesla drivers had reported 'phantom' braking in autopilot mode, with the electric cars slowing down for no particular reason while driving. Allegations of phantom braking led to legal action overseas and the Australian class action against Tesla was due to return to the Federal Court later this year. Tesla said autopilot mode was designed to make driving safer, but in the US, Tesla was sued over several deadly crashes after the system was enabled, the ABC said. It was reported that Elon Musk's company had settled some cases but not admitted wrongdoing and blamed driver error. About 10,000 Tesla drivers in Australia had registered their interest in a class action against the company, with allegations that consumers were misled over phantom braking, battery range, and self-driving capability, the ABC reported.
