The Defence Minister says we can't just follow Australia's footsteps as the time for replacing our two ageing warships nears.
The NZ Initiative says the frigates need to retire within a decade, with complex geopolitics adding urgency.
It says the replacements will impact our status as a maritime nation, and our trade routes and defence capabilities for the next generation.
Minister Chris Penk told Kerre Woodham we want to be able to coordinate with Australia but have other needs.
He says it might come down to cost, different capability needs, or wanting to be more active in the Antarctic, for example.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
New Zealand faces a major defense decision on replacing its
aging frigates Tamana and Takaha. Major General Retired John Howard,
a senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative, argues the
decision is critical because New Zealand relies on sea routes
for around ninety nine percent of its trade and is
responsible for a vast maritime area. He says the window
(00:32):
for action is closing and the government must first decide
what role it wants the Navy to play before choosing
replacement vessels. Cabinet is to make a replacement decision by
twenty twenty seven. Defense Minister Chris Penk joins me, now
a very good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
To you, Good morning to you and your listeners. Kerrie.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Is this basically a choice between New Zealand following and
isolationist foreign policy and an internationalist foreign policy.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
Well, I think there are a number of different choices
we have to make, and can I say I think
the conversation that Major General Retired Howard is contributing to
is really important and really valuable for the reasons that
he said, and he's very well respected figure in defense circles.
I think clearly we need to decide, as a matter
of foreign policy generally, what our place in the world is.
(01:20):
I think we're making good steps towards that by engaging
in the international stage across a number of different areas,
including defense, and certainly we're well respected in our region
and further afield for that.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We have always we've always taken an internationalist approach. But
does that mean we always have.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
To I think we always have to be mindful of
what others are doing and make conscious decisions in and
around that.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
So we talk about an independent.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Foreign policy, and of course that's important in the sense
that we're not going to be spending enough on defense
to be able to independently do all the things that
we want to do, both militarily, but also in terms
of disaster relief, search and rescue, in terms of responding
to severe weather in the islands, as well as hair
and all those things. We simply can't do that by ourselves,
(02:11):
So to some extent, we're always going to have to
work with others, So being conscious of decisions that they're
making in terms of their fleet.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
If we're talking.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
About the navy and other decisions that are making has
to be part of an internationalist approach, just to use
your word in that one.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Can we afford to have an independent foreign policy? Could
we not all more closely with Australia and work together
to buy job lots of frigates if we will, if
that's the way we decide to go, or work together
where they get the heavy metal and we get the
support vehicles to support them and their work.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I think it's a very fair question.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
I think we'll always have an independent foreign policy in
the sense that we decide what operations and even exercises
our men and women in uniform partaken. Of course, we've
got to have that sovereign right on our own behalf
to make these decisions. But I think separate to that,
the point you make is of course the right one,
which is we need to be mindful of the fact
(03:12):
that if we do work together closely with our allies
and partners, then we can get better bang for buck,
so to speak. And of course the obvious starting point
is Australia currently our only formal ally, although they've recently
entered into a pact with Fiji that we could join
thereby doubling the number of defense allies we have. And
so yes, it's a consideration whether we get some of
(03:35):
the same of what they've got or what are getting
in the case of their new frigates as one of
the factors that we need to weigh up in that decision.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
When it comes to what sort of naval fleet we have.
He's quite right when he argues Major General Retired Howard,
that if we don't have a naval fleet, then it's gone.
I mean, look what happened with our Air force. We
don't have one.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah, it is difficult to replace something that become obsolete
or beyond. It's the end of life if you don't
do that in a continuous fashion. And of course you
also have to be mindful of the transition such that
if you're getting new ships on board, at some point
you have an overlap. And goodness knows, we've struggled to
crew our existing platforms across defense actually not just the Navy,
(04:25):
but including with ships tied up from time to time.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
So we do need to be mindful of that.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
And I'm pleased to tell you that the Defense Force
is being very mindful of the workforce challenges. You know,
it's one thing to talk about the platforms, but actually
we need the people, and we've got great people already,
but we need to retain them and be thoughtful about
what that looks like in.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
A brave new world.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Although Kerry, can I just add on that note that
the exciting thing is sometimes these new platforms, because they're
more sophisticated, require fewer people to be on them, so
actually there's a bit of a win they're in terms
of having you know, for example, half the number of
people on a frigate in the new ones as compared
with the current.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
People are talking about drones as if they're the magic
bullet quite literally when it comes to defending ourselves. Are
we over estimating what drones are capable of at the moment.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
I think it's a movable feast. I think one of
the lessons of the war in.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Ukraine is that drones are increasingly playing a key part.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
In the straits US.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
I suppose, yeah, absolutely, the Straights one was exactly a
very topical example. I wish it went so, but clearly
that's some way we do need to continue to keep
our eyes pointed towards and so yes, clearly it's an
increasing part of their picture in terms of what military
activity looks like into the future and all the implications
for that. You know, for a smaller nation, it means
(05:46):
actually we can probably more easily and readily step up
than having a small number of very expensive, so called
exquisite platforms. But I think again the point you make
or hint towards is the right one. It can't be
the bee all in endor, and it doesn't need to be.
But the thing is if we keep our eyes blind
to the opportunity in the drone space, then we'll miss
(06:07):
out as well. So clearly it's a both and conversation.
And I think more particularly if we're going to make
a good decision about things like frigates, it's going to
be mindful of the fact that they need to be
able to interact well with uncrewde systems, so potentially use
those to launch surface or subsurface little vessels that come
off those.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So it's not an either or proposition.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I just wonder, when we can't even get fairies to
go between the cooks straight, how long is it going
to take us to get naval vessels. If we decide
that's the option, we'll go yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Mean naval vessels.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Of course, they are a big ticket item and for
the New Zealand tax payer it's important we get good value.
You know, it's one thing to talk about a percentage
of GDP that we need to spend in our own calculation.
I hasten to add not because anyone else tells us
that they require or expect that. But you know, nevertheless
is a large sums that we will be spending on
behalf of the New Zealand tax pair, whatever decision we make,
(07:04):
and so you can't rush that we don't want to.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
But of course the problem with the.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Ferry acquisition was that you know, and I don't want
to sound overly political in a defense conversation where we
are actually genuinely generally pretty bipartisan. But in the fairy case,
of course, it's the whole cost that you need to
consider that the last government arguably didn't. Whereas you're talking
about shipset a certain price tag. But if you're also
talking about the supporting infrastructure, the whole rail enabled to
(07:30):
rail supported conversation, you might recall then if you're not
taking into account the whole package of costs, then you
of course you are going to have a blowout of time
and the funds needed. So those are kinds of general
decision making factors that we need to take into account
when we're doing the defense procurement as well.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
And just finding because they have taken up a lot
of your time. Have you looked at what the situation
would be if New Zealand decided not to play an
active part in interoperability with its allies. If we said, look,
we can't afford this, we aren't going to upgrade our
(08:11):
naval vessels, sorry and all that, but we'll just have
to rely on you. Has that been looked at as
an option.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
I don't think it would come to us saying to
our ally in Australia that we're simply not going to
play ball.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
We won't play a part.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
That would be to let down our Pacific neighbors and friends,
some of whom are realm nations, so we have constitutional
responsibilities to them as well as, of course the commitments
we've made to Australia, and we'd be foolish to walk
away from both those sets of responsibilities because, among other things,
there's something in it for us to be part of
broader groupings. And so it's not really a question. I
(08:49):
think of us walking away entirely. But if we end
up with different platforms than Australia has, of course that
might be our decision based on various other factors, which
might go to cost, might go to the kinds of
capability we need. It might be, for example, that we
decide we want to be more active present in the
Antarctic than Australia is. And of course we've got a
(09:09):
good presence through Scott Base and the scientific endeavor down
there that's worth protecting. So there might be decisions we
make it that are different from Australia. But if we
do that with our eyes wide open about the kinds
of reasons we do that, or what else we can
bring to the party that might be different from them,
then that will be a perfectly legitimate way for us
to approach the question.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Thank you so much for your time. I do appreciate it,
Defense Minister Chris Penk.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
New Zealand faces a major defense decision on replacing its
aging frigates Tamana and Takaha. Major General Retired John Howard,
a senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative, argues the
decision is critical because New Zealand relies on sea routes
for around ninety nine percent of its trade and is
responsible for a vast maritime area. He says the window
(00:32):
for action is closing and the government must first decide
what role it wants the Navy to play before choosing
replacement vessels. Cabinet is to make a replacement decision by
twenty twenty seven. Defense Minister Chris Penk joins me, now
a very good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
To you, Good morning to you and your listeners. Kerrie.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Is this basically a choice between New Zealand following and
isolationist foreign policy and an internationalist foreign policy.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
Well, I think there are a number of different choices
we have to make, and can I say I think
the conversation that Major General Retired Howard is contributing to
is really important and really valuable for the reasons that
he said, and he's very well respected figure in defense circles.
I think clearly we need to decide, as a matter
of foreign policy generally, what our place in the world is.
(01:20):
I think we're making good steps towards that by engaging
in the international stage across a number of different areas,
including defense, and certainly we're well respected in our region
and further afield for that.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We have always we've always taken an internationalist approach. But
does that mean we always have.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
To I think we always have to be mindful of
what others are doing and make conscious decisions in and
around that.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
So we talk about an independent.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Foreign policy, and of course that's important in the sense
that we're not going to be spending enough on defense
to be able to independently do all the things that
we want to do, both militarily, but also in terms
of disaster relief, search and rescue, in terms of responding
to severe weather in the islands, as well as hair
and all those things. We simply can't do that by ourselves,
(02:11):
So to some extent, we're always going to have to
work with others, So being conscious of decisions that they're
making in terms of their fleet.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
If we're talking.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
About the navy and other decisions that are making has
to be part of an internationalist approach, just to use
your word in that one.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Can we afford to have an independent foreign policy? Could
we not all more closely with Australia and work together
to buy job lots of frigates if we will, if
that's the way we decide to go, or work together
where they get the heavy metal and we get the
support vehicles to support them and their work.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I think it's a very fair question.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
I think we'll always have an independent foreign policy in
the sense that we decide what operations and even exercises
our men and women in uniform partaken. Of course, we've
got to have that sovereign right on our own behalf
to make these decisions. But I think separate to that,
the point you make is of course the right one,
which is we need to be mindful of the fact
(03:12):
that if we do work together closely with our allies
and partners, then we can get better bang for buck,
so to speak. And of course the obvious starting point
is Australia currently our only formal ally, although they've recently
entered into a pact with Fiji that we could join
thereby doubling the number of defense allies we have. And
so yes, it's a consideration whether we get some of
(03:35):
the same of what they've got or what are getting
in the case of their new frigates as one of
the factors that we need to weigh up in that decision.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
When it comes to what sort of naval fleet we have.
He's quite right when he argues Major General Retired Howard,
that if we don't have a naval fleet, then it's gone.
I mean, look what happened with our Air force. We
don't have one.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah, it is difficult to replace something that become obsolete
or beyond. It's the end of life if you don't
do that in a continuous fashion. And of course you
also have to be mindful of the transition such that
if you're getting new ships on board, at some point
you have an overlap. And goodness knows, we've struggled to
crew our existing platforms across defense actually not just the Navy,
(04:25):
but including with ships tied up from time to time.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
So we do need to be mindful of that.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
And I'm pleased to tell you that the Defense Force
is being very mindful of the workforce challenges. You know,
it's one thing to talk about the platforms, but actually
we need the people, and we've got great people already,
but we need to retain them and be thoughtful about
what that looks like in.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
A brave new world.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Although Kerry, can I just add on that note that
the exciting thing is sometimes these new platforms, because they're
more sophisticated, require fewer people to be on them, so
actually there's a bit of a win they're in terms
of having you know, for example, half the number of
people on a frigate in the new ones as compared
with the current.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
People are talking about drones as if they're the magic
bullet quite literally when it comes to defending ourselves. Are
we over estimating what drones are capable of at the moment.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
I think it's a movable feast. I think one of
the lessons of the war in.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Ukraine is that drones are increasingly playing a key part.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
In the straits US.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
I suppose, yeah, absolutely, the Straights one was exactly a
very topical example. I wish it went so, but clearly
that's some way we do need to continue to keep
our eyes pointed towards and so yes, clearly it's an
increasing part of their picture in terms of what military
activity looks like into the future and all the implications
for that. You know, for a smaller nation, it means
(05:46):
actually we can probably more easily and readily step up
than having a small number of very expensive, so called
exquisite platforms. But I think again the point you make
or hint towards is the right one. It can't be
the bee all in endor, and it doesn't need to be.
But the thing is if we keep our eyes blind
to the opportunity in the drone space, then we'll miss
(06:07):
out as well. So clearly it's a both and conversation.
And I think more particularly if we're going to make
a good decision about things like frigates, it's going to
be mindful of the fact that they need to be
able to interact well with uncrewde systems, so potentially use
those to launch surface or subsurface little vessels that come
off those.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So it's not an either or proposition.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I just wonder, when we can't even get fairies to
go between the cooks straight, how long is it going
to take us to get naval vessels. If we decide
that's the option, we'll go yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Mean naval vessels.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
Of course, they are a big ticket item and for
the New Zealand tax payer it's important we get good value.
You know, it's one thing to talk about a percentage
of GDP that we need to spend in our own calculation.
I hasten to add not because anyone else tells us
that they require or expect that. But you know, nevertheless
is a large sums that we will be spending on
behalf of the New Zealand tax pair, whatever decision we make,
(07:04):
and so you can't rush that we don't want to.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
But of course the problem with the.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
Ferry acquisition was that you know, and I don't want
to sound overly political in a defense conversation where we
are actually genuinely generally pretty bipartisan. But in the fairy case,
of course, it's the whole cost that you need to
consider that the last government arguably didn't. Whereas you're talking
about shipset a certain price tag. But if you're also
talking about the supporting infrastructure, the whole rail enabled to
(07:30):
rail supported conversation, you might recall then if you're not
taking into account the whole package of costs, then you
of course you are going to have a blowout of time
and the funds needed. So those are kinds of general
decision making factors that we need to take into account
when we're doing the defense procurement as well.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
And just finding because they have taken up a lot
of your time. Have you looked at what the situation
would be if New Zealand decided not to play an
active part in interoperability with its allies. If we said, look,
we can't afford this, we aren't going to upgrade our
(08:11):
naval vessels, sorry and all that, but we'll just have
to rely on you. Has that been looked at as
an option.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
I don't think it would come to us saying to
our ally in Australia that we're simply not going to
play ball.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
We won't play a part.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
That would be to let down our Pacific neighbors and friends,
some of whom are realm nations, so we have constitutional
responsibilities to them as well as, of course the commitments
we've made to Australia, and we'd be foolish to walk
away from both those sets of responsibilities because, among other things,
there's something in it for us to be part of
broader groupings. And so it's not really a question. I
(08:49):
think of us walking away entirely. But if we end
up with different platforms than Australia has, of course that
might be our decision based on various other factors, which
might go to cost, might go to the kinds of
capability we need. It might be, for example, that we
decide we want to be more active present in the
Antarctic than Australia is. And of course we've got a
(09:09):
good presence through Scott Base and the scientific endeavor down
there that's worth protecting. So there might be decisions we
make it that are different from Australia. But if we
do that with our eyes wide open about the kinds
of reasons we do that, or what else we can
bring to the party that might be different from them,
then that will be a perfectly legitimate way for us
to approach the question.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Thank you so much for your time. I do appreciate it,
Defense Minister Chris Penk.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.