Recent talk of New Zealand acting as a ‘‘force multiplier’’ for Australia — a phrase used by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, to suggest the NZDF could enhance Australian capability — has sparked debate about our defence identity.
In military language such descriptions usually imply a degree of operational integration within a larger formation. Critics, like former prime minister Helen Clark, question whether that direction risks blurring New Zealand’s independence.
At its core, the issue is straightforward. If New Zealand forces operate as part of a larger allied structure, who ultimately exercises command and control of those forces?
There is also a practical reality that is sometimes overlooked: genuine military integration normally occurs between forces with broadly comparable capabilities — something that is not always the case between New Zealand and Australia.
The issue, therefore, is not a matter of terminology but of strategy: what role can New Zealand most usefully play in today’s evolving strategic landscape?
Those who have spent time in uniform learn early that complex problems benefit from disciplined thinking. Before committing forces to action, leaders at every level are taught to examine the situation carefully, determine their objective and only then develop a plan.
It is a habit instilled from the earliest stages of training because experience has repeatedly shown that acting first and thinking later rarely produces good results.
Viewed in that light, New Zealand’s circumstances are modest but not without their advantages.
The Indo-Pacific region is becoming more strategically competitive, and the Pacific itself is attracting increasing attention from powers that once showed little interest in it. Questions of maritime security, supply chains and regional influence are now appearing regularly in public discussion.
In such circumstances the question is not whether New Zealand should co-operate with partners — that has long been part of its strategic tradition — but how it can do so while retaining clear responsibility for the use of its own forces.
New Zealand is a small country, and its defence resources are necessarily limited. Yet it also possesses advantages that are not always obvious.
Over many decades it has built a reputation for diplomatic credibility and reliability. It maintains trusted intelligence relationships and a defence force whose professionalism is widely respected.
The country also retains unusually close political and cultural ties with many Pacific Island nations.
While New Zealand must continue improving its own defensive capability, as a small nation it cannot hope to match the scale at which larger powers are expanding their military strength.
Nevertheless, New Zealand may possess a quality of its own which, if carefully nurtured, could prove valuable in a changing world. Over many decades the country has built a reputation as a steady and reliable nation — one that respects sovereignty, supports the integrity of international borders and works constructively with others.
In such circumstances, New Zealand’s most useful role may be that of a trusted partner among nations that share those same principles.
Trust, once earned, becomes a strategic asset. Countries regarded as reliable and steady partners often find themselves invited into conversations and initiatives that might otherwise remain closed to them.
In a world where relationships and credibility increasingly matter, such a reputation can sometimes prove more valuable than size alone.
New Zealand’s long familiarity with the Pacific has also allowed it, at times, to serve as a useful bridge between the region and larger partners. Geography, history and cultural connections have given the country a degree of understanding that larger powers do not always possess.
Used carefully, this can help strengthen co-operation across the region.
None of this suggests that New Zealand should distance itself from close partners such as Australia. On the contrary, co-operation with Australia has long been a cornerstone of New Zealand’s security arrangements and will remain so.
But co-operation does not require identical roles. Smaller states often make their greatest contribution not by duplicating the capabilities of larger partners, but by bringing complementary strengths of their own.
Even the most trusted partner must be able to contribute something tangible. Reputation and goodwill can only take a country so far.
Effective co-operation ultimately depends on maintaining credible national capability and the professional competence required to use it.
The present debate about defence policy therefore raises a broader issue. Rather than focusing too narrowly on phrases or labels, it may be more useful to consider the wider question of what role New Zealand wishes to play as the strategic environment continues to evolve.
Small countries have navigated uncertain worlds before. They tend to do best when they understand clearly both their limitations and their strengths.
Which leaves a question worth considering: what role does New Zealand wish to play in a changing world — and what capacity is it prepared to maintain to fulfil it?
- Graye Shattky is a retired New Zealand Army officer and former instructor at the Australian Officer Cadet School.
