The dialogue is an annual inter-governmental security conference, usually attended by defence ministers and military chiefs from nations which New Zealand likes to call our friends.
Except New Zealand was under friendly fire on Saturday when US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth criticised countries with low levels of defence spending, saying the US would no longer tolerate “freeloading” off its military.
He added that he expected allied governments to spend 3.5% of GDP on security, and that defence spending could no longer be an “afterthought”.
In the audience Mr Penk, well aware that last week’s Budget included details of the government’s intention to boost New Zealand’s defence spending to just over 2% over the next eight years, may well have considered adopting the strategy which many a small country has over the generations: sitting still and hoping no one notices it.
His cover was blown by a journalist covering the gathering asking Mr Hegseth if New Zealand was one of the countries to which he was referring.
Why yes it was, Mr Hegseth said, although he did temper that by saying that he didn’t have anything against New Zealand: “I think that relationship has been a very fruitful one for a very long time.”
That at least gave Mr Penk some wiggle room when it came time for him to answer the questions which inevitably followed: he was able to claim that whatever the spending percentage of GDP, that New Zealand was evidently and eminently playing its part.
He was also able to cite that the planned 2% of GDP spend would represent a doubling in New Zealand’s defence spending. Mr Penk might also have mentioned that both NZ First and Act NZ campaigned in 2023 on spending 2% of GDP on defence.
Pushing Finance Minister Nicola Willis — or any other finance minister to come for that matter — to aim for Mr Hegseth’s 3.5% is a whole other question entirely.
The hardware to fight modern war does not come cheap; nor does the cost of recruiting, stationing, transporting, feeding and paying the wages of personnel.
New Zealand has no need nor desire to fight an offensive war, and no obvious enemies menace our borders. Even if we were in peril and needed to fight a defensive war the chances of repelling any invaders would be remote.
We have made the pragmatic choice that New Zealand’s soldiers, sailors and aviators should instead be used for protection of the country’s economic borders, emergency and recovery operations at home and abroad, and for peacekeeping missions. Whether almost doubling defence spending again, above the current government’s target, would actually render the NZDF any better at fulfilling those tasks is debatable.
Also, politicians are well aware that in such austere times there is little mood for the government to be seen to be spending up large on the machinery for war, when New Zealand has little appetite to be drawn into conflict.
No-one much likes being called a freeloader, but Mr Hegseth does have a point. New Zealand’s defence has always, and will continue to be, dependent on others. Such is the blessing, or curse if you would rather, of being a small and remote country.
A balance needs to be struck between spending what New Zealand can afford, and spending what New Zealand needs to play its part in the international community. That is no easy task.
Later, Mr Penk’s cautious comment that New Zealand might need to have “a conversation” about allowing nuclear-propelled vessels into our waters sparked a furious reaction after being interpreted as backsliding on the country’s nuclear free policy. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was swift to deny any such reversal.
The controversy drowned out the point that Mr Penk was making: that given Australia is New Zealand’s only formal ally, and also given that it is beginning to acquire nuclear-powered vessels, that same day in the future if normal naval exchange visits are to be held that the Aukus submarines may be a sticking point.
Mr Penk was not calling for the reversal of a long-standing and dearly-held stance. Rather, he was pointing out an issue which will arise for a future government — one which will, no doubt, be pragmatically sorted out then.
