Opinion: Christopher Luxon’s airy declaration that New Zealand can be a force multiplier for Australia’s military are valiant words from a leader whose air force cannot reliably fly him to Sydney.
Luxon and his predecessors Jacinda Ardern and John Key have all suffered the ignominy of the RNZAF’s fickle, 30-year-old Boeing 757 aircraft failing on official overseas visits – in March, the PM’s plane broke down even before it could leave Wellington for Australia.
This is not intended to slur the highly regarded RNZAF, which has flown your correspondent around the world; rather, to jab successive timorous defence ministers – with the notable exception of New Zealand First’s Ron Mark – who failed to deliver much in the way of funds and new equipment for defence.
It makes even more incredible Luxon’s boast in Canberra that he wants New Zealand’s military to be “fully interoperable with” Australia’s far larger, far better-equipped and much better-funded armed forces.
Hairy-chested stuff.
Australia might ask: what more can NZ bring to the table when Wellington’s defence spending remains so low?
Australia expects to spend $55.7 billion (NZ$61.4b) on defence this financial year, up 6%, while New Zealand’s $4.95 billion is a reduction of 6.6%, according to a Reuters analysis.
Both countries claim to share peace and security aims – we steer by the same stars, as Anthony Albanese fondly told his Kiwi mate in their ritual show of bonhomie last month. But they don’t put the same effort in.
Australians have long accepted higher defence costs and risks than New Zealanders have; Australia’s proportion of defence spending to GDP exceeds 2% while New Zealand’s is barely 1%. An analysis published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found New Zealanders each contribute $426 to their defence; Australians spend A$1438.
Could it be that too many New Zealand politicians care less about the state of their defence forces because they assume their mates across the Tasman will meet any threat?
Although the notion that New Zealand’s forces could be fully interoperable with Australia’s seems far off given the current spending disparities, Luxon’s chest beating in Canberra puts into the spotlight trans-Tasman defence co-operation – or at least what it lacks.
It was not always this way. In 1986, Australia’s most influential defence force review, conducted by intelligence specialist Paul Dibb, urged Australia and New Zealand to achieve “the maximum possible interoperability of equipment between the armed forces of the two countries”.
That, within 12 months, led the Lange and Hawke governments to agree on the Anzac ship project, which delivered the same frigates to both countries’ navies.
Hull and superstructure modules for some ships were built in Whangārei – providing a large boost for New Zealand engineering companies.
Such large-scale co-operation has never been repeated. Indeed, it went backwards after the joint frigate project. Both armies now operate different standard-issue infantry rifles for the first time in history.
Over the past few years, however, New Zealand’s acquisition of the same US-made, P8 maritime patrol aircraft operated by Australia and Australia’s Bushmaster armoured vehicles is encouraging for those seeking greater interoperability between both nations’ forces.
This has real-world consequences. Imagine, for example, if China’s continuing push for influence in the Solomon Islands leads to a localised confrontation with nearby Australia: Canberra would expect, even demand, New Zealand’s involvement.
If Luxon is serious about achieving military interoperability with Australia, New Zealand’s defence spending will need to rise steeply. That might at least allow the RNZAF to obtain passenger jets reliably capable of making it to Australia for future trans-Tasman defence talks.
New Zealander Bernard Lagan is the Australian correspondent for the Times, London.
