May 31, 2026 • 12 mins
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says New Zealand is "freeloading" from the American military because of our low military spend.
The remarks were made at an Asia-Pacific security conference in Singapore, attended by Defence Minister Chris Penk.
The New Zealand Government has already announced plans to lift defence spending to around 2% of GDP over coming years — nearly double what we currently spend — but Hegseth says allies should really be aiming closer to 3.5%.
That raises some big questions. At a time when New Zealanders are worried about the cost of living, hospitals and public services, why should defence move up the priority list? What are the risks if countries like New Zealand don’t step up militarily?
Defence Minister Chris Penk joins Tim Beveridge to discuss.
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk
SEDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Yes, indeed Politics Central. So last night quite fun, wasn't
it you? As I was going to say, Defense Secretary
Secretary of War, isn't he? Pete Heigseth labeled countries who
are spending around two percent of GDP on defense as
free loading off the American military, so its comments that
were widely interterpreted as aimed at countries like New Zealand.
(00:32):
The remarks were made at a major Asia Pacific security
conference in Singapore, tended by our own Defense Minister Chris Penk.
The New Zealand governments already announced plans to lift defense
spending around two percent of GDP in coming years, nearly
double what we currently spend, but Hegsith says allies should
really be aiming closer to three and a half percent.
You know, it raises some big questions when we're all
(00:53):
worried about the cost of living and budgets have just
been anounced, and what are the risks of countries like
New Zealand don't step up what we're our views on it?
But anyway, joining US Defense Minister Chris Pink joins me, Now, good.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Afternoon, Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Was Pete Hexseth wrong to call New Zealand a free loader?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, we put it a different way.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
You know, we've historically underinvested in defense from the US
point of view, but more importantly is the way that
New Zealand sees the world and the way that we
should conduct ourselves. I think it's very fair to note
that we are doubling our investment in defense, and so
that's a message that's been very well received by all
the participating nations here in Singapore at the Shingri Lad dialogue.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
So, I mean you were in the audience when he
made those comments. What was your reaction immediately?
Speaker 4 (01:40):
Sort of like ulch, It was an interesting exchange which
was prompted by a question from a Kiwi journalist. So
it wasn't that we were being singled out in any
kind of predetermined way. But you know, it's not surprising
that with the remarks that have been made by Secretary
of War Hegseth around the need for nations to increase
(02:04):
their defense spending from a US point of view, not
surprised that he would say that, you know, it would
be possible and indeed desirable from the US point of
view that we do spend more, but obviously New Zealand
has its own sovereign position and we will spend the
amount that we think is appropriate, which is more than
we do now to be fair, but also you know,
employ those assets in operating in accordance with our independent
(02:27):
foreign policy. And I think, to be honest, that's as
much the conversation we should continue to have as opposed
to be fixated on a percentage of GDP all the
number of dollars, but actually it's about value in what
you do with that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, well, I'm going to be fixated on it just
for one question. Is two percent our destination or is
it likely? To wax and Wayne a bit, Well.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Two percent is what we've committed to as a government,
and that's been the historical traditional understanding of a norm
among you know, certain like minded countries, for example NATO.
While the world has become less stable in conflict obviously
righteous in Eastern Europe with Ukraine defending its borders against
(03:09):
the sovereign incursion from Russia, and of course we know
about the Middle East and including the effect on New Zealand,
it's right for us to think about what the right
level is from our perspective, and that's what we've done
by saying that we will get to the level of
two percent by twenty thirty two or twenty thirty three.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
So Australia got praise, I guess we got criticized. Is
our strategic reputation where are we at? Has that slipped
because of what we've heard on fold?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
I think our strategic reputation actually is really strong, if anything,
that's been enhanced in the last couple of years since
we've been talking but also acting in a way that
shows we are serious about playing a credible part. But
the point that I would also emphasize for New Zealand audiences,
and indeed I had the opportunity to make from the
very same podium at the conference almost immediately after, is
(03:58):
that New Zealand has been present in our region and
further afield over generations. We're doing it still now and
we'll continue to play our part into the future.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I think the point you might be sort of hinting
at is that we're well respected from a diplomatic point
of view, But do people take us seriously militarily and
does it matter? Well, you're right that we are respected
in a diplomatic sense, and I think New Zealand's always
regarded as a good international citizen, whether it's across other
rules based international order type areas such as trade. But
(04:28):
actually it's also true that our defense personnel are very
credible and highly respected by our partners and allies. That's
been the case for generations now, and I can confirm
talking with my colleagues at a ministerial level, and the
Chief of Defense Force for New Zealand would say the same.
Our people are very well regarded for the things that
(04:49):
they are doing and exercises and operations.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
All around the world even as we speak.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
How would we go if the United States reduced its
military commitment in the Pacific. Well, I think we're keen
to understand the intentions of everyone who operates in the Pacific,
and in the case of the US, they've made pretty
clear that they are keen to continue to turn up
and be present in the Pacific. I think that is
welcomed if it continues to be the case that they
(05:15):
do that in a way that reflects the ideals and
the hopes and aspirations of the Pacific people. So any
dialogue that we can continue to have on behalf of
other Pacific nations and certainly on our own accord in
that regard is useful and that was subject of the
conversation that I had directly with a vital meeting with
(05:35):
Secretary of War Hegseth. As it happened reasonably soon after
we both had an opportunity to make some comments from
the main stage. How do you think the conversations going
in terms of public acceptance of the need for us
to invest more in defense, because that's the big battle.
We heard it obviously the more strident version of it
with Linda top the other day. But how are you
(05:57):
going with selling that and how much of a challenge
is that when we've got taught conversation around where we
should spend money on hospitals and schools, etc.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
It's really important that we're mindful of what the New
Zealand public expect and deserve in terms of value for
taxpayer money. And of course that's the case across the
education and health and it will always be a priority
for the New Zealand people that we have schools and
hospitals and so on that meet the needs of our population.
I think I can say on behalf of the government
were really please that we are continuing and actually increasing
(06:27):
our commitment to the health budget, for example, and doing
more in terms of education for the same or slightly
higher amount. So it's not an either or equation as
far as we're concerned. We can do those things well
but also meet our commitments in the defense realm. So
I've been quite pleased actually that the reception we've had
from the New Zealand people is a very sophisticated understanding
(06:51):
of the fact we do live in an unstable world.
We do need to play our part constructively, and we're
being present and need to remain present in parts of
the world where others are under attack, and of course
we need to ensure that we have some sort of
deterrent value in our defense force operating alongside others so
that we may not come under attack either.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
When Hexath talks about allies stepping up and I guess
in the context of the Pacific is he talking I
guess he's talking about China. But does New Zealand have
a different attitude towards the threat that China may or
may not post compared to us the United States?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Well, the New Zealand position is that we have a
very constructive and useful relationship with China in many different ways.
Most obviously, we trade very well with them, and it's
in our interest to continue to do so. And I
hope and expect that the same would be said in
terms of the value that China sees with New Zealand.
(07:47):
Obviously we will always allow the US as bee on
its own behalf regarding other nations, but from a New
Zealand perspective, we want to remain friendly and constructive and
closely in touch to understand the intentions of all the
nations that have an interest in our region. Much of
a trump card, Sorry for the wrong word there, but
(08:09):
as our contribution to Five Eyes, how valuable is that
in the context of the relationships that we'd be talking
about with the United States and others, New Zealand's role
or status as a member of the Five Eyes community
is hugely valuable. Most important to note, it's really valuable
to New Zealand. We receive the insights of the other
(08:32):
four nations within the network in ways that help us
to understand the threat environment further afield, but also at
times closer to home, and we do provide value in
turn in terms of intelligence that we are able to
obtain and we share with those other partners.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
So it is very much a two way street.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
There is credibility in us being involved, but we do
it because it's important for us. And I should add
that we do it to the extent that it meets
our own sovereign interests, which is to say that there
will be occasions that we ask ourselves whether we should
be sharing, you know, a piece of intelligence to a
particular country at a particular time for a particular purpose,
(09:13):
and they, in tune have the same calculus in terms
of what we share with us.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I guess if I was going to be more blunt,
is how important is our participation to the United States
in five hours? Are we quite a useful member for them?
Which is, you know, that carries some value.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
There's value for us in being valued by others. Yes,
we are.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Respected and a credible member of the five Yes network,
so they always reflect to us that that's important to them.
But because it's in our interest, we will continue to
be involved along those lines.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Just finally, and the wheel comes full circle, I guess.
So back to Hegseth's comments, are they the sort of
part of the Trump era rhetoric that we can expect
or you know, are they just sort of provocative language
to keep pressuring us on our spend or does what
he said, does it reflect a genuine shift in American
expectation on how much we should be spending on defense.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
I think the comments made by Higgsth we're very much
as we would expect, which is to say the United
States is willing and able to remain engaged in our region.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
That's a good thing.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
But they would also state their expectation that others remain
fully engaged, including in the way that they are well resourced.
So from that point of view, there was no surprise
about the fact that's an encouragement to spend more on
defense was put forward by mister Higgsth to all the
members of the dialogue gathering. And that's as I say,
(10:46):
expected from New Zealand's point of view, and as it happens,
because it's our calculation, it's in our sovereign interest to
do that.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
That's exactly what we're getting on and doing. Excellent.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Hey, Chris, I really appreciate your time this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Thanks so much. Thank you. Tim. Nice to talk to you.
So we're going to do.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A little bit of talk on that afterwards, because there
has been obviously we've seen the headlines with Linda top
having a crack about the money that's been spent on defense.
And yet we know, we see the USA's expectation of
three and a half percent. We haven't got it to
too yet. I mean, we're a long way from that yet.
Funny a little bit of trivia for you actually is
that somebody said, I look, we you know, I've got
a text saying we used to spend three point one percent.
(11:23):
Historically we have spent a hell of a lot more
than that. In fact, just for an unrelated bit of
well it's related, but it's obviously the sort of time
we were in was completely different. But in the peak
of World War Two, about nineteen forty three, we were
spending have a think how much we were spending. Give
you two seconds to think about it. We were spending
(11:43):
thirty five percent of GDP on defense. And maybe we
can understand why because it was in the middle of
World War Two. Anyway, we will be back shortly because
there's been a bit of an argument about whether the
whether the budget was a budget that sort of it
was talked about by the government saying the budget especially
strengthens Auckland's role as New Zealand's economic engine room. And well,
(12:08):
Wayne Brown had something to say about that. He didn't
quite agree. So we're gonna have a chat with Simon Watts,
he's Minister for Auckland, in just a moment, and when
we do talk back, we will take your calls about
whether you are happy with the announcement of us increasing
our spend on defense and is it high time or
do you think no. No, Let's sing songs from the
hillsides and that'll keep them away, as Linda top I
(12:30):
think proposed. We'll be back in just a ticket's twenty
two past three. This is News Talk ZEDB.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk
SEDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Yes, indeed Politics Central. So last night quite fun, wasn't
it you? As I was going to say, Defense Secretary
Secretary of War, isn't he? Pete Heigseth labeled countries who
are spending around two percent of GDP on defense as
free loading off the American military, so its comments that
were widely interterpreted as aimed at countries like New Zealand.
(00:32):
The remarks were made at a major Asia Pacific security
conference in Singapore, tended by our own Defense Minister Chris Penk.
The New Zealand governments already announced plans to lift defense
spending around two percent of GDP in coming years, nearly
double what we currently spend, but Hegsith says allies should
really be aiming closer to three and a half percent.
You know, it raises some big questions when we're all
(00:53):
worried about the cost of living and budgets have just
been anounced, and what are the risks of countries like
New Zealand don't step up what we're our views on it?
But anyway, joining US Defense Minister Chris Pink joins me, Now, good.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
Afternoon, Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Was Pete Hexseth wrong to call New Zealand a free loader?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, we put it a different way.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
You know, we've historically underinvested in defense from the US
point of view, but more importantly is the way that
New Zealand sees the world and the way that we
should conduct ourselves. I think it's very fair to note
that we are doubling our investment in defense, and so
that's a message that's been very well received by all
the participating nations here in Singapore at the Shingri Lad dialogue.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
So, I mean you were in the audience when he
made those comments. What was your reaction immediately?
Speaker 4 (01:40):
Sort of like ulch, It was an interesting exchange which
was prompted by a question from a Kiwi journalist. So
it wasn't that we were being singled out in any
kind of predetermined way. But you know, it's not surprising
that with the remarks that have been made by Secretary
of War Hegseth around the need for nations to increase
(02:04):
their defense spending from a US point of view, not
surprised that he would say that, you know, it would
be possible and indeed desirable from the US point of
view that we do spend more, but obviously New Zealand
has its own sovereign position and we will spend the
amount that we think is appropriate, which is more than
we do now to be fair, but also you know,
employ those assets in operating in accordance with our independent
(02:27):
foreign policy. And I think, to be honest, that's as
much the conversation we should continue to have as opposed
to be fixated on a percentage of GDP all the
number of dollars, but actually it's about value in what
you do with that.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Okay, well, I'm going to be fixated on it just
for one question. Is two percent our destination or is
it likely? To wax and Wayne a bit, Well.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Two percent is what we've committed to as a government,
and that's been the historical traditional understanding of a norm
among you know, certain like minded countries, for example NATO.
While the world has become less stable in conflict obviously
righteous in Eastern Europe with Ukraine defending its borders against
(03:09):
the sovereign incursion from Russia, and of course we know
about the Middle East and including the effect on New Zealand,
it's right for us to think about what the right
level is from our perspective, and that's what we've done
by saying that we will get to the level of
two percent by twenty thirty two or twenty thirty three.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
So Australia got praise, I guess we got criticized. Is
our strategic reputation where are we at? Has that slipped
because of what we've heard on fold?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
I think our strategic reputation actually is really strong, if anything,
that's been enhanced in the last couple of years since
we've been talking but also acting in a way that
shows we are serious about playing a credible part. But
the point that I would also emphasize for New Zealand audiences,
and indeed I had the opportunity to make from the
very same podium at the conference almost immediately after, is
(03:58):
that New Zealand has been present in our region and
further afield over generations. We're doing it still now and
we'll continue to play our part into the future.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I think the point you might be sort of hinting
at is that we're well respected from a diplomatic point
of view, But do people take us seriously militarily and
does it matter? Well, you're right that we are respected
in a diplomatic sense, and I think New Zealand's always
regarded as a good international citizen, whether it's across other
rules based international order type areas such as trade. But
(04:28):
actually it's also true that our defense personnel are very
credible and highly respected by our partners and allies. That's
been the case for generations now, and I can confirm
talking with my colleagues at a ministerial level, and the
Chief of Defense Force for New Zealand would say the same.
Our people are very well regarded for the things that
(04:49):
they are doing and exercises and operations.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
All around the world even as we speak.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
How would we go if the United States reduced its
military commitment in the Pacific. Well, I think we're keen
to understand the intentions of everyone who operates in the Pacific,
and in the case of the US, they've made pretty
clear that they are keen to continue to turn up
and be present in the Pacific. I think that is
welcomed if it continues to be the case that they
(05:15):
do that in a way that reflects the ideals and
the hopes and aspirations of the Pacific people. So any
dialogue that we can continue to have on behalf of
other Pacific nations and certainly on our own accord in
that regard is useful and that was subject of the
conversation that I had directly with a vital meeting with
(05:35):
Secretary of War Hegseth. As it happened reasonably soon after
we both had an opportunity to make some comments from
the main stage. How do you think the conversations going
in terms of public acceptance of the need for us
to invest more in defense, because that's the big battle.
We heard it obviously the more strident version of it
with Linda top the other day. But how are you
(05:57):
going with selling that and how much of a challenge
is that when we've got taught conversation around where we
should spend money on hospitals and schools, etc.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
It's really important that we're mindful of what the New
Zealand public expect and deserve in terms of value for
taxpayer money. And of course that's the case across the
education and health and it will always be a priority
for the New Zealand people that we have schools and
hospitals and so on that meet the needs of our population.
I think I can say on behalf of the government
were really please that we are continuing and actually increasing
(06:27):
our commitment to the health budget, for example, and doing
more in terms of education for the same or slightly
higher amount. So it's not an either or equation as
far as we're concerned. We can do those things well
but also meet our commitments in the defense realm. So
I've been quite pleased actually that the reception we've had
from the New Zealand people is a very sophisticated understanding
(06:51):
of the fact we do live in an unstable world.
We do need to play our part constructively, and we're
being present and need to remain present in parts of
the world where others are under attack, and of course
we need to ensure that we have some sort of
deterrent value in our defense force operating alongside others so
that we may not come under attack either.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
When Hexath talks about allies stepping up and I guess
in the context of the Pacific is he talking I
guess he's talking about China. But does New Zealand have
a different attitude towards the threat that China may or
may not post compared to us the United States?
Speaker 4 (07:27):
Well, the New Zealand position is that we have a
very constructive and useful relationship with China in many different ways.
Most obviously, we trade very well with them, and it's
in our interest to continue to do so. And I
hope and expect that the same would be said in
terms of the value that China sees with New Zealand.
(07:47):
Obviously we will always allow the US as bee on
its own behalf regarding other nations, but from a New
Zealand perspective, we want to remain friendly and constructive and
closely in touch to understand the intentions of all the
nations that have an interest in our region. Much of
a trump card, Sorry for the wrong word there, but
(08:09):
as our contribution to Five Eyes, how valuable is that
in the context of the relationships that we'd be talking
about with the United States and others, New Zealand's role
or status as a member of the Five Eyes community
is hugely valuable. Most important to note, it's really valuable
to New Zealand. We receive the insights of the other
(08:32):
four nations within the network in ways that help us
to understand the threat environment further afield, but also at
times closer to home, and we do provide value in
turn in terms of intelligence that we are able to
obtain and we share with those other partners.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
So it is very much a two way street.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
There is credibility in us being involved, but we do
it because it's important for us. And I should add
that we do it to the extent that it meets
our own sovereign interests, which is to say that there
will be occasions that we ask ourselves whether we should
be sharing, you know, a piece of intelligence to a
particular country at a particular time for a particular purpose,
(09:13):
and they, in tune have the same calculus in terms
of what we share with us.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I guess if I was going to be more blunt,
is how important is our participation to the United States
in five hours? Are we quite a useful member for them?
Which is, you know, that carries some value.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
There's value for us in being valued by others. Yes,
we are.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Respected and a credible member of the five Yes network,
so they always reflect to us that that's important to them.
But because it's in our interest, we will continue to
be involved along those lines.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Just finally, and the wheel comes full circle, I guess.
So back to Hegseth's comments, are they the sort of
part of the Trump era rhetoric that we can expect
or you know, are they just sort of provocative language
to keep pressuring us on our spend or does what
he said, does it reflect a genuine shift in American
expectation on how much we should be spending on defense.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
I think the comments made by Higgsth we're very much
as we would expect, which is to say the United
States is willing and able to remain engaged in our region.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
That's a good thing.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
But they would also state their expectation that others remain
fully engaged, including in the way that they are well resourced.
So from that point of view, there was no surprise
about the fact that's an encouragement to spend more on
defense was put forward by mister Higgsth to all the
members of the dialogue gathering. And that's as I say,
(10:46):
expected from New Zealand's point of view, and as it happens,
because it's our calculation, it's in our sovereign interest to
do that.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
That's exactly what we're getting on and doing. Excellent.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Hey, Chris, I really appreciate your time this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Thanks so much. Thank you. Tim. Nice to talk to you.
So we're going to do.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A little bit of talk on that afterwards, because there
has been obviously we've seen the headlines with Linda top
having a crack about the money that's been spent on defense.
And yet we know, we see the USA's expectation of
three and a half percent. We haven't got it to
too yet. I mean, we're a long way from that yet.
Funny a little bit of trivia for you actually is
that somebody said, I look, we you know, I've got
a text saying we used to spend three point one percent.
(11:23):
Historically we have spent a hell of a lot more
than that. In fact, just for an unrelated bit of
well it's related, but it's obviously the sort of time
we were in was completely different. But in the peak
of World War Two, about nineteen forty three, we were
spending have a think how much we were spending. Give
you two seconds to think about it. We were spending
(11:43):
thirty five percent of GDP on defense. And maybe we
can understand why because it was in the middle of
World War Two. Anyway, we will be back shortly because
there's been a bit of an argument about whether the
whether the budget was a budget that sort of it
was talked about by the government saying the budget especially
strengthens Auckland's role as New Zealand's economic engine room. And well,
(12:08):
Wayne Brown had something to say about that. He didn't
quite agree. So we're gonna have a chat with Simon Watts,
he's Minister for Auckland, in just a moment, and when
we do talk back, we will take your calls about
whether you are happy with the announcement of us increasing
our spend on defense and is it high time or
do you think no. No, Let's sing songs from the
hillsides and that'll keep them away, as Linda top I
(12:30):
think proposed. We'll be back in just a ticket's twenty
two past three. This is News Talk ZEDB.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
For more from the weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, 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.