The new defence capability plan involves spending $12 billion over four years, including $9b of new money. The plan has been a long time coming and will increase the spend on defence from around 1% of gross domestic product (GDP) to more than 2% in the next eight years.
The rationale for this is the rise in global tensions. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the world is inherently more dangerous and those at the frontline of New Zealand’s security could not do their jobs without the right equipment and conditions. Service personnel had endured 35 years of cuts and underfunding.
The plan was designed to ensure the New Zealand Defence Force was combat capable with enhanced lethality and deterrent effect, a force multiplier with Australia, and innovative in its use of new technologies.
Other countries including some European nations, Australia and the United Kingdom have also increased their defence spending since Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
There will be mixed views on New Zealand’s move. Some will see it as inevitable, given the global uncertainty, but others may not be so sure.
It would be hard to find people against the idea of New Zealand being able to respond quickly to natural disasters, provide aid and assist in peacekeeping missions, but there may be less enthusiasm for extra spending on weapons.
Questions have already been asked about who we might be likely to fire missiles at, and how effective that would be in the face of powers with much greater military capacity than us.
Former prime minister Helen Clark suggested recently the country should concentrate more on diplomatic and humanitarian engagement with Pacific nations rather than extra spending on defence capability, given our military forces would always be "minuscule, and not frighten off anyone".
Ms Collins acknowledged there is a recruitment problem following the use of defence personnel to patrol managed isolation facilities during the Covid-19 restrictions. Many left the force after that for other careers, leaving a hollowed-out middle in personnel.
It welcomed the investment in equipment, but felt the messages on pay, conditions of service and upgrading defence buildings were too vague.
The organisation reckoned the announcement completely missed the mark on ensuring all uniformed staff were adequately recognised and compensated for their service. It expressed concern about salaries and conditions being left out of the long-term capability and strategic plan.
This is a hurdle which the government will have to overcome. Having shiny new equipment will not be much use if there are insufficient servicemen and women to operate it.
The other elephant in the room is how this allocation of money towards defence might affect other spending.
There will be scepticism about the apparent ease with which the government can find $12b for defence when other projects, including the new Dunedin Hospital, could not go ahead as planned because they were deemed too expensive.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis was at pains this week to assure the public she is committed to making sure the government has the right investments in the health system, education, infrastructure, law and order, providing cost of living relief where possible, and making social investment for the future.
She acknowledged there were big calls to be made on spending in this year’s Budget, specifically referring to defence, and providing redress for victims of abuse in state care.
However, Ms Willis has indicated she will not be splashing new cash in the forthcoming Budget.
Since it is well known the government’s rainy-day money, the operating allowance, is meagre, that can only mean some more cuts to existing allocations, or what Ms Willis prefers to call reprioritising spending.
Whether voters already concerned about what they see as underspending in health, housing and education will agree with Ms Willis on what is the right investment will be revealed on May 22.
