August 23, 2025 • 12 mins
The Government has announced a $2.7 billion defence spending boost to upgrade the aircraft fleet.
The money will be spent on five Seahawk helicopters and two Airbus aircrafts, to replace the Defence Force's "embarrassing" planes, in Judith Collins' words.
It's part of National's pledge to boost defence spending by $9 billion over the next four years, but why now?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
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
said be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The government has announced a two point seven billion dollars
in defense spending boosts to upgrade our fleet. The money
will be spent on five Seahawk helicopters and two Airbus
aircrafts to replace the defense defense forces Embarrassing planes is
the word that Judith Collins put it at one stage.
(00:31):
It's part of National's pledge to boost defense spending by
nine billion over the next four years. Many may ask
why now. John Battersby is a senior fellow in the
Center of Defense and Security Studies at Massive University, and
he's with me now. John, Good afternoon, Good afternoon to you.
These planes have been while the word embarrassment I mentioned
for a few years now. I'd suggest several prime ministers
(00:55):
have been grounded because of it. How long has this
been needed?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
I think it's well over to. I think our defense
force assets have been defeated over a long period, and
it's long overdue that we start investing in a number
of our key assets. And those planes in particular that
you mentioned, have, as you say, have been a standing
embarrassment for quite some time. It's about time we've got
(01:21):
some planes that actually will go the distance end not
break down every time they land.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
It's a bit of mix and match with these questions,
because how much of this it's about showing our allies
we're pulling our weight, and how much is about just
developing well restoring functionality in the case of those the
plans we're getting politicians getting around in, I.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Think I think there's probably a bit of both, and
then something else as well. The NTSIS three Assessment or
Threat Environment Assessment came out a day or two ago,
and that has highlighted deteriorating security situation that New Zealand
is facing globally. There are there's geostrategic competition happening in
(02:07):
the Pacific, and it's all looking a little bit uncertain.
So I think there's a there's an expectation now that
we need to upgrade a number of our assets in
order to maintain our position in the Pacific and continue
to protect the things that we need to protect. So, yes,
we've got to show our allies we can do that.
(02:28):
Yes we have to invest in our analysis. We've let
them run down and the situation around us is changing.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
As a first sort of cab off the rank, or
should I say, see spread off the rank? I guess
are you happy with what this first spend has involved?
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I don't know whether I'm happy or unhappy. I think
I'm I'm I'm content that we are starting to consider
replacing assets that need replacing and doing it with credible, credible,
new new material. So we've got to start somewhere. Whether
we start here or I'm not sure I could I
(03:06):
could say anything further on that.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
One about a good start? Could we get that?
Speaker 1 (03:12):
I think we have to start, so, Yes, a start
has been made. So and I definitely full in favor
of those in five sevens being sent off to a
museum somewhere.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
What are the other areas that you think really need
funding next? Because you know, we've talked about two point
seven billion, but there's going to be nine billion over
the next four years. Any ideas what's next and what's necessary?
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yes, So I think the approach we need to take
is we need to look at what we need to protect.
We've got a two hundred mile economic zone, we've got
an interest in the South Pacific, we've got a deteriorating
global situation with two very big powers possibly coming to
a contest in the wider Pacific. So the things that
(04:01):
we need to start focusing on is our ability to
protect what we need to protect. So that's our economics,
and that's our territory, that's our urine trade routes. So look,
we could go all over the place with those things.
Bearing in mind that we're a small country and we
can't protect everything, so we also need to look at
assets that we can use alongside others. So the whole
(04:24):
key of interoperability comes into it as well. We contribute
to a combined effort to protect something. So that's possibly
a bit of a wishy washy answer because I can't
say bi tanks or byplanes or whatever. But what I
do want to say is we need New Zealand needs
to focus not on necessarily and what our allies want
us to do, but on what we need to protect
(04:47):
our core strategic assets.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Because those are two quite they're quite different pressures on
the government, aren't they. There's our immediate backyard and our
on in the South Pacific versus helping our allies, which
when is the data I mean that is a difficult
juggling exercise.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yes it is. And then you add and adding to
the fact that we are economically not necessarily linked to
our allies. We find our economic well being coming from
other countries. So we're really hedging between China on one side,
which is very important to us economically, and the United
States on the other, which has been a traditional ally.
So there's a very very careful balancing act that we
(05:28):
need to maintain.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Because its expensive, kit, isn't it With those sea sprites, especially,
how do we judge whether we're getting I mean, good
value for money. Sounds like we're penny punching. I don't
mean it that way. But how do we know it's
a good investment.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I look, I don't know the answer to that one.
You know, sometimes when it comes down to the types
of assets, and you start thinking, we used to have
six frigates, for example, and then when we went to
replace them, moving down to four, and then we went
down to two, it's like the immense cost of these
things increases so much, and it increases so much because
(06:02):
presumably they are stated of the high tech pieces of equipment.
So I don't think there's any debt. I don't think
I would double to see a ce king or anything
of that that brand as being a poor piece of equipment,
but just when it comes to the nature and tech
and mechanics of the whole thing, it's just becoming an
(06:25):
increasingly expensive exercise to have all of this type of equipment.
If you look at the war in the Ukraine, started
off with some pretty high tech stuff. Now we're using
well now they are using very cheap off the shelf
drones to do a lot of a lot of the
war fighting. So I think sooner or later, you know,
any sustained war, the cost of the very high tech
(06:46):
stuff is going to become prohibitive. And unfortunately we could
end up bag with sticks and stones, right, So that's
that's a lot. I hope we don't don't ever get
to that, but I think that's something we've we've got
to think about.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Uh, as you mentioned this, by Agency reported that we're
facing the toughest national security challenges in recent times. How
much information did we get from that versus what we
might not in public have read. What's your take was
revealed in that?
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Yeah, I'm busy sort of doing a close read at
that at the moment. I don't think I disagree with
the general tenor of the Threat environment assessment, but it
doesn't give a great deal of detail, and so basically
I think we've still got to go and do our
homework in terms of working out exactly how the assessment
(07:38):
has justified some of the things that it disserts. So no,
there's not a great deal of information or detail for
the public. There are a series of topics for the
public to think about.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Hmm, what about morale and the forces. What would your
observations about where it's, where it's been, and what the
effects of these announcements of more investment.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I've got no particular into morale, but I do think
they're coming out of COVID nineteen and with the Armed
Forces being pulled in all sorts of directions that you
don't really join the military to do that, there is
a strong need to rebuild the capabilities of a number
(08:26):
of the Armed Forces components and to rebuild morale. I
understand there is a desire for the army in particular
to refocus itself on basically a combat unit. That's what
it should be, just as the police are now looking
at refocusing on frontline activity. So I think a number
(08:48):
of these organizations are looking to go back to their
care basics and morale is a key out of that.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Are we still I think our traditional posture is that
we're not hugely heavy on defense, but we're heavy on diplomacy.
Is there any shift in that with this expenditure.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
I don't think so. I think I think defense capability
is part of diplomacy. It's part of contributing to collective
exercises as we've seen in the past. It's part of
being taken seriously. I mean, we mentioned those seven five sevens.
You turn up to a to some big diplomatic or
(09:26):
trade negotiation in your trade and your plain's broken down
halfway there. I mean, so, yes, it is. It's all
part of it, right.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, you've mentioned the drones, and of course I something
remembered that of course New Zealand produces drones for Ukraine. Well,
any of the investment, so we've got the nine billion dollars,
what we've seen is so far two point seven billion.
But how much do you imagine in any of this
budget will actually filter into the local defense industries in
terms of out what we can create or is it
(09:55):
going to be all offshore?
Speaker 1 (09:57):
I would hope. So. I think part of increasing defense
expenditure has to be that our local industry is benefiting
from it. I haven't seen anything in anything that the
defense people are looking at in terms of developing drone technology.
But we've got to look at the Ukraine War and
(10:18):
what is happening there and understand that there is some
transformational effects going on in that war, and one of
them is maybe we don't have to go into high
tech stuff all the time. Maybe we do look at
some of the capability that is actually quite cheaply available
and quite capable. So I think that's probably something we
(10:39):
need to do, sort of.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
The technological equivalent of sticks and stones, which expression you
used before.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Yeah, yes, I'm.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Not sure if that's reassuring or not. One last question,
So nine billion dollar pripledge, it's over four years. Of course,
you're not a politician, so you can't give us some
assurances from the hustings. But where is your confidence if
there is a change of government that we will continue
to invest in defense.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Leave it when I see it? No, no, no, I
mean what generally does happen in New Zealand is that
our major political parties do generally try and have a consensus,
so one will not necessarily suddenly reverse the decision of
the other. I may take the anti nuclear leaders as
an example. Labour brings in the national didn't reverse it,
(11:25):
so there is a tendency for them to stay on
the straight and narrow. But we're in you know, We've
got fiscal responsibilities and challenges like everybody else, and there
are other things that we can spend our money on.
So no, I don't know that the nine billion will
be spent.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
If were, but personally your view would be this is
money we should spend.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
I would encourage a strong investment in defense assets that
have been run down over the past thirty or forty years.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yes, I'm just going to sneak one supplementary. And we
talked about the anti nuclear thing. It's a bit of
a pet topic of mine and I've detected through my
and and talk back that actually New Zealanders are not
hung up so much on around to nuclear stants. Do
you think we'll ever revisit that because of the practicalities
of submarine deals in Australia and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I think we I think we do. I think why
do we stay with something that belonged in the Cold
War The environment that we're now and is comprehensively different,
even to the point of, you know, we are becoming
very energy dependent in terms of electricity, so do we
need to look at that as an electricity source. So look,
I don't think we should stay religiously wedded to it.
(12:38):
I think we should make a sensible decision based on
all the pragmatic types of things that you and I
have been talking about.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Great, Hey, I really appreciate your time, John, this sappening.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Thanks so much for more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Listen live to news Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from news Talk
said be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The government has announced a two point seven billion dollars
in defense spending boosts to upgrade our fleet. The money
will be spent on five Seahawk helicopters and two Airbus
aircrafts to replace the defense defense forces Embarrassing planes is
the word that Judith Collins put it at one stage.
(00:31):
It's part of National's pledge to boost defense spending by
nine billion over the next four years. Many may ask
why now. John Battersby is a senior fellow in the
Center of Defense and Security Studies at Massive University, and
he's with me now. John, Good afternoon, Good afternoon to you.
These planes have been while the word embarrassment I mentioned
for a few years now. I'd suggest several prime ministers
(00:55):
have been grounded because of it. How long has this
been needed?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
I think it's well over to. I think our defense
force assets have been defeated over a long period, and
it's long overdue that we start investing in a number
of our key assets. And those planes in particular that
you mentioned, have, as you say, have been a standing
embarrassment for quite some time. It's about time we've got
(01:21):
some planes that actually will go the distance end not
break down every time they land.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
It's a bit of mix and match with these questions,
because how much of this it's about showing our allies
we're pulling our weight, and how much is about just
developing well restoring functionality in the case of those the
plans we're getting politicians getting around in, I.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Think I think there's probably a bit of both, and
then something else as well. The NTSIS three Assessment or
Threat Environment Assessment came out a day or two ago,
and that has highlighted deteriorating security situation that New Zealand
is facing globally. There are there's geostrategic competition happening in
(02:07):
the Pacific, and it's all looking a little bit uncertain.
So I think there's a there's an expectation now that
we need to upgrade a number of our assets in
order to maintain our position in the Pacific and continue
to protect the things that we need to protect. So, yes,
we've got to show our allies we can do that.
(02:28):
Yes we have to invest in our analysis. We've let
them run down and the situation around us is changing.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
As a first sort of cab off the rank, or
should I say, see spread off the rank? I guess
are you happy with what this first spend has involved?
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I don't know whether I'm happy or unhappy. I think
I'm I'm I'm content that we are starting to consider
replacing assets that need replacing and doing it with credible, credible,
new new material. So we've got to start somewhere. Whether
we start here or I'm not sure I could I
(03:06):
could say anything further on that.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
One about a good start? Could we get that?
Speaker 1 (03:12):
I think we have to start, so, Yes, a start
has been made. So and I definitely full in favor
of those in five sevens being sent off to a
museum somewhere.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
What are the other areas that you think really need
funding next? Because you know, we've talked about two point
seven billion, but there's going to be nine billion over
the next four years. Any ideas what's next and what's necessary?
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yes, So I think the approach we need to take
is we need to look at what we need to protect.
We've got a two hundred mile economic zone, we've got
an interest in the South Pacific, we've got a deteriorating
global situation with two very big powers possibly coming to
a contest in the wider Pacific. So the things that
(04:01):
we need to start focusing on is our ability to
protect what we need to protect. So that's our economics,
and that's our territory, that's our urine trade routes. So look,
we could go all over the place with those things.
Bearing in mind that we're a small country and we
can't protect everything, so we also need to look at
assets that we can use alongside others. So the whole
(04:24):
key of interoperability comes into it as well. We contribute
to a combined effort to protect something. So that's possibly
a bit of a wishy washy answer because I can't
say bi tanks or byplanes or whatever. But what I
do want to say is we need New Zealand needs
to focus not on necessarily and what our allies want
us to do, but on what we need to protect
(04:47):
our core strategic assets.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Because those are two quite they're quite different pressures on
the government, aren't they. There's our immediate backyard and our
on in the South Pacific versus helping our allies, which
when is the data I mean that is a difficult
juggling exercise.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yes it is. And then you add and adding to
the fact that we are economically not necessarily linked to
our allies. We find our economic well being coming from
other countries. So we're really hedging between China on one side,
which is very important to us economically, and the United
States on the other, which has been a traditional ally.
So there's a very very careful balancing act that we
(05:28):
need to maintain.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Because its expensive, kit, isn't it With those sea sprites, especially,
how do we judge whether we're getting I mean, good
value for money. Sounds like we're penny punching. I don't
mean it that way. But how do we know it's
a good investment.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
I look, I don't know the answer to that one.
You know, sometimes when it comes down to the types
of assets, and you start thinking, we used to have
six frigates, for example, and then when we went to
replace them, moving down to four, and then we went
down to two, it's like the immense cost of these
things increases so much, and it increases so much because
(06:02):
presumably they are stated of the high tech pieces of equipment.
So I don't think there's any debt. I don't think
I would double to see a ce king or anything
of that that brand as being a poor piece of equipment,
but just when it comes to the nature and tech
and mechanics of the whole thing, it's just becoming an
(06:25):
increasingly expensive exercise to have all of this type of equipment.
If you look at the war in the Ukraine, started
off with some pretty high tech stuff. Now we're using
well now they are using very cheap off the shelf
drones to do a lot of a lot of the
war fighting. So I think sooner or later, you know,
any sustained war, the cost of the very high tech
(06:46):
stuff is going to become prohibitive. And unfortunately we could
end up bag with sticks and stones, right, So that's
that's a lot. I hope we don't don't ever get
to that, but I think that's something we've we've got
to think about.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Uh, as you mentioned this, by Agency reported that we're
facing the toughest national security challenges in recent times. How
much information did we get from that versus what we
might not in public have read. What's your take was
revealed in that?
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Yeah, I'm busy sort of doing a close read at
that at the moment. I don't think I disagree with
the general tenor of the Threat environment assessment, but it
doesn't give a great deal of detail, and so basically
I think we've still got to go and do our
homework in terms of working out exactly how the assessment
(07:38):
has justified some of the things that it disserts. So no,
there's not a great deal of information or detail for
the public. There are a series of topics for the
public to think about.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Hmm, what about morale and the forces. What would your
observations about where it's, where it's been, and what the
effects of these announcements of more investment.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I've got no particular into morale, but I do think
they're coming out of COVID nineteen and with the Armed
Forces being pulled in all sorts of directions that you
don't really join the military to do that, there is
a strong need to rebuild the capabilities of a number
(08:26):
of the Armed Forces components and to rebuild morale. I
understand there is a desire for the army in particular
to refocus itself on basically a combat unit. That's what
it should be, just as the police are now looking
at refocusing on frontline activity. So I think a number
(08:48):
of these organizations are looking to go back to their
care basics and morale is a key out of that.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Are we still I think our traditional posture is that
we're not hugely heavy on defense, but we're heavy on diplomacy.
Is there any shift in that with this expenditure.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
I don't think so. I think I think defense capability
is part of diplomacy. It's part of contributing to collective
exercises as we've seen in the past. It's part of
being taken seriously. I mean, we mentioned those seven five sevens.
You turn up to a to some big diplomatic or
(09:26):
trade negotiation in your trade and your plain's broken down
halfway there. I mean, so, yes, it is. It's all
part of it, right.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, you've mentioned the drones, and of course I something
remembered that of course New Zealand produces drones for Ukraine. Well,
any of the investment, so we've got the nine billion dollars,
what we've seen is so far two point seven billion.
But how much do you imagine in any of this
budget will actually filter into the local defense industries in
terms of out what we can create or is it
(09:55):
going to be all offshore?
Speaker 1 (09:57):
I would hope. So. I think part of increasing defense
expenditure has to be that our local industry is benefiting
from it. I haven't seen anything in anything that the
defense people are looking at in terms of developing drone technology.
But we've got to look at the Ukraine War and
(10:18):
what is happening there and understand that there is some
transformational effects going on in that war, and one of
them is maybe we don't have to go into high
tech stuff all the time. Maybe we do look at
some of the capability that is actually quite cheaply available
and quite capable. So I think that's probably something we
(10:39):
need to do, sort of.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
The technological equivalent of sticks and stones, which expression you
used before.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Yeah, yes, I'm.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Not sure if that's reassuring or not. One last question,
So nine billion dollar pripledge, it's over four years. Of course,
you're not a politician, so you can't give us some
assurances from the hustings. But where is your confidence if
there is a change of government that we will continue
to invest in defense.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Leave it when I see it? No, no, no, I
mean what generally does happen in New Zealand is that
our major political parties do generally try and have a consensus,
so one will not necessarily suddenly reverse the decision of
the other. I may take the anti nuclear leaders as
an example. Labour brings in the national didn't reverse it,
(11:25):
so there is a tendency for them to stay on
the straight and narrow. But we're in you know, We've
got fiscal responsibilities and challenges like everybody else, and there
are other things that we can spend our money on.
So no, I don't know that the nine billion will
be spent.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
If were, but personally your view would be this is
money we should spend.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
I would encourage a strong investment in defense assets that
have been run down over the past thirty or forty years.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yes, I'm just going to sneak one supplementary. And we
talked about the anti nuclear thing. It's a bit of
a pet topic of mine and I've detected through my
and and talk back that actually New Zealanders are not
hung up so much on around to nuclear stants. Do
you think we'll ever revisit that because of the practicalities
of submarine deals in Australia and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I think we I think we do. I think why
do we stay with something that belonged in the Cold
War The environment that we're now and is comprehensively different,
even to the point of, you know, we are becoming
very energy dependent in terms of electricity, so do we
need to look at that as an electricity source. So look,
I don't think we should stay religiously wedded to it.
(12:38):
I think we should make a sensible decision based on
all the pragmatic types of things that you and I
have been talking about.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Great, Hey, I really appreciate your time, John, this sappening.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Thanks so much for more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Listen live to news Talks it'd be 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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.