November 25, 2025 • 20 mins
The Government’s released its plan to get our Defence infrastructure up to scratch – some of which hasn’t been touched in decades.
The Defence Estate Portfolio sets out how $2.5 billion will be spent over the next 15 years.
At the same time, the Future Naval Base Programme is pinned at $4b over 35 years.
It’s being called a ‘generational investment in defence infrastructure’.
But given the horror stories we’ve heard of black mould, infestations, and asbestos plaguing NZDF owned buildings – will this all be enough?
Today on The Front Page, Associate Minister of Defence and Minister for Building and Construction, Chris Penk, is with us to dive into an area that’s been chronically underinvested for far too long.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
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):
Kiyota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The
government's released its plan to get our defense infrastructure back
up to scratch, some of which hasn't been touched in decades.
The Defense of State Portfolio sets out how two point
(00:28):
five billion dollars will be spent over the next fifteen years.
At the same time, the future Naval Base program is
pinned at four billion over thirty five years. It's been
called a generational investment in defense infrastructure. But given the
horror stories we've heard about black mold infestations and asbestos
(00:50):
plaguing ENZDF owned buildings, well this will be enough. Today
on the Front Page, Associate Minister of Defense and Minister
for Building and Construction CHRISP. Hankers with us to dive
into an area that's been chronically under invested in for
far too long.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So Chris.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
The Defense State comprises of about four thousand, seven hundred
buildings across nine main camps and bases, two large training areas,
and a number of regional support facilities. Last year, the
total land and building value was pinned about four point
seven billion, so over seventy percent of that infrastructure I
see now has a less than twenty years of remaining
(01:32):
useful life, with fourteen percent already beyond its useful life.
Is two point five billion dollars over the next fifteen
years is going to be enough?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, we think it will, but you know, we need
to consider how it looks as we go along, and
of course the changing needs of the defense force. Some
of it's thinking about the way that technological changes will
dictate what our defensive force looks like.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
It might be more.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Drones or amend aerial vehicles or actually vessels as we're
all thinking about replacing the Navy fleet as we're doing,
and of course that it has implications whether you have
warves or other and runaways and other structures. So, as
far as we can tell now, it's the right plan,
but as part of the general Defense Capability Plan review
every two years, we know that we'll need to monitor
to see how effective that spenders as time goes forward.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, and all those are four thousand, seven hundred roughly.
How much of that is housing, Yeah, a large.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Proportion is housing.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Defense housing is an important element, of course, It's crucial
for the well being of the men and women who
serve in uniform of the Defense Force and our Defense
Force civilians, I should add in terms of conditions more generally.
But therefore it goes to morale in retention, so e'ctually
in a funny way, it's operational, even housing and other
(02:46):
accommodations such as barracks in the dining facilities.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
And so on.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
So I've been really careful, and so has the Defense
Minister due to columns and in fact the whole government,
to make sure we understand the impact of the under
investment over the years and these kinds of areas as
well as the platforms, the helicopter leaderships that the planes,
because we know that it's all connected, because we're not
going to have got Defense Force unless we continue to
(03:10):
have great people in it.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, I've read some horror stories actually about some of
the Defense Force housing. You've got tenants that have talked
about leaking houses, black mold, asbestos, lack of heating. The
list goes on, infestations. Is this something that you've heard
as well?
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Yeah, I've heard it and I've seen it with my
own eyes, and I've walked into some of these places
literally with a mask on which I thought might have
been overkilled until I saw and felt and actually smelt
the effect of black mold. For example, Papacuta, where we
have some of our finest soldiers headquarters. You know, just
totally unsuitable conditions for any you know, living creature, frankly,
(03:50):
but including and especially our defense force personnel from whom
we are so much, and the families of them too.
If you think about the sacrifices that are made by
the partner and the kids of assuming sailor soldier Aviada
as the case may be, especially spending long periods of
time away from home. They might be living out of
the city that they have grown up and then building
(04:10):
their life. So the onus is on us, I think,
very clearly, morally as well as legally, to provide much
better than some of these awful conditions that yes, I've
seen and will also heard about from our people.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Have you any idea how much, I mean, roughly even
how many defense houses are sitting out there, you know,
not usable and just empty.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Well, if you have.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Been put aside in that way, I'm less interested. If
I may say, then in that question, then those that
continue to be used because we need them. But are
really to some extent subpar. Now, technically they've all got
the healthy homes standard that has been met, but that
doesn't mean they're very livable, particularly if you think about
(04:51):
poorly designed or maybe you know, simply not suitable for
the modern family living needs. And again just going to
the point of it to look after our people from
whom we are so much. So, you know, there are
different categories and some are frankly inhabitable, and those have
been set aside. But the build the new build program
as well as the maintenance of the existing stocks is
(05:12):
bearing in mind certainly that they are unsatisfactory situations in
which people are still living today.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Right, So if I'm a family and my husband or
wife is a part of the Defense force, and I'm
living in one of these substandard houses, how long will
I have to wait until everything's up to scratch, do
you think? Or whether I'm in a dry house or something.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, I mean as a rolling more approach, so I couldn't,
I couldn't be had to average out. But at different
bases and camps across the country, we've already been doing
the work, and to be fear, it's been acknowledged for
a few years now and including under the last couple
of successive governments. But the reality is it's been decades
in the making this problem. In theref it will be
decades in the making of the solution. But I know
(05:54):
that we've got to start somewhere and instantly. Some of
that renewal and replacement has been the way, and I'm
really excited that the announcement that we've made just now
will get a really clear way here for people to
feel confident that there is light.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
At the end of the tunnel. What's the quickest way
to get your military spend into two percent of GDP
so we can say we're doing our but go and
weigh two billion dollars on five helicopters.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
You say, what, now, that's rubbish. What's different on the
defense plan is that in the past you'd have people
say we're going to do all this stuff, but there
was no money associated with the investments. We've got a
really clear plan for fifteen years of the capabilities and
the skills we want to build into the defense force
in New Zealand that will then plug in well with
the Australians and other defense partners. And what's unique here
(06:43):
as we've put spending associated with that, So we will
spend twelve billion dollars over the next four years.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Right, So all of this is a part of the
Defense Capability Plan, and that was released earlier this year
that promises twelve billion dollars of funding over the next
four years, including nine billion dollars of new spending. I
see you've said that the two point five earmarked for
the strengthening this infrastructure over the next four years is
subject to annual budget processes. Does that mean that that
(07:14):
could change, could it get less or could it potentially
get more?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, I mean the Defense Capablity Plan overall could get more,
So it's been reviewed every two years with that and purpose.
In terms of the infrastructure, my expectation is that it
would be the same or potentially higher.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
But you know, we should be.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Able to operate in a way that provides studentcy, including
on a cost basis for textpayers. But also I think
the key point is that we need to do as
much as we can with the netwindow and be smart
about how we do it. So a lot of it's
actually prioritizing within all the different needs, all of which
are pressing, all of which are important in their own ways.
(07:51):
So that's going to be the skill I think over
the next few years, is prioritizing effectively and actually also
delivering because it's of course it's all very well to
put the money aside, but what that means in terms
of the budget processes that still need to take place
as individual projects will be assessed and agreed by the
government of the day as we go along, right, And you've.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Got that two point five in the kiddy, just so
things can can get moving and approved quickly. In terms
of that announcement earlier this year, I believe it was
called the Defense of State Regeneration Program. Has that been
switched up and that's what we're talking about now. The
updated version of that.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
The Defense Estate Regeneration Program, will do it. In the
Defense Loves have got acronym, just like government is an aspect.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
It's one of a few different elements within the Defense
States and Property Program more generally safe the DEPPER is
within the DEPP.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
That's within the.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
DCP, So you know just about I've got the whole
alphabet going, but it's part of it. So the Defense
Estate Regeneration Program is saying, well, we need ongoing maintenance
and that can be founded through through depreciation and it's
business as usual but ongoing, whereas the announcement that we've
made more recently is actually saying that there are large
injections of capital on a really strategic basis and making
(09:09):
decisions for example that actually we want to have the
Navy remain in Devonport Naval Base in Auto of Auckland
for the next generation or so, because of course, if
you don't have that big scale commitment of funding and
also some of those decisions locked and then there's no
point in doing anything more than just a routine maintenance
to keep them keep them going.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Frankly, so are you expecting by twenty forty for all
of the Defense Force housing to be livable and no mold,
no heating issues, no infestations, nothing.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
I would ceronly hope and expect you will actually be
much sooner than that. And as I say, the work's
been ongoing already and the officials who have been undertaken
network in Defense Force itself deserve credit for that. But
we do need to move as quickly within the window
between now twenty forty to do all that. I think
the window of the next fifteen years reflects that there
are some large scale projects if you're thinking about wolves
(10:03):
and runways and other major facilities that simply can't be
knocked together in eighteen months to two years, are like housing,
So that's going to.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Be that some of that medium to long term work
needs to take place.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Right now. I know, an opposition, you kind of get
a general idea or a general consensus about what everything
looks like. But as soon as you picked up that
Associate Defense and of course of the Veterans portfolios as well,
and you saw the actual numbers in the state of
some of this infrastructure, what was your first thoughts.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Well, my first thought is that we're failing our service personnel.
I think it's illegal and a moral obligation, certainly in
the veterans space. And there are things that we can
talk about how we can do better to recognize and
also provide entitlements to those former service personnel. But I
was certainly shocked by just how bad things have become. Actually,
it was a quarter of a century ago that I
joined the Navy in New Zealand myself, so at Differentport
(10:56):
where we've made this week's announcement about the future of
that naval base as well as the infrastructure more generally.
That gave me an insight to how things were back
in the year two thousands, and I'm sad to say
things aren't any better.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
In fact, you know, somewhat worse than that. So I
had an insight, and.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
As you say in opposition, it's possible to get a
feel for how things are, but it had been worse
than I had expected.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Or hoped when we came into the role of government
a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Right, So when you visit Devonport, can you see something
and does it just look exactly the same?
Speaker 4 (11:27):
I mean, it's changed in a few different ways.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
There have been some good investments made over a period
of time, but it's also a large footprint.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
You know, for example, there's the Officer Training school up on.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Narrown It Beach, but further up on that same part
of the north shore where it's been a bit of
time that's been effectively replaced by porter common buildings.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
There you've got sea.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Training areas that are now quite frequently underwater, and a
certain amount of that's just environmental change due to sea
level rise in other factors. So more or less, if
you were to squint you could see it more or
less the same, and that's a problem in itself to
the extent that that investment is needed. But also things
are just a little bit more aged and tired after
(12:08):
twenty five years, and also bearing in mind that things
have been pretty bad necked back in the day even then.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, I saw I read this quote. A large proportion
of the defense of state was built over eighty years
ago during World War Two. Now that seems.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Wild, It does seem well, doesn't it. Yeah, I mean,
the hou's them just to go back to that. I mean,
a lot of that's sixty years old. And of course
you can have an old house that's been well maintained
and improved over the years, but a lot of them
have not been. And yeah, I mean, if you think
about World War II and significance of the fact that
then we understood really clearly the importance of national security
and truth be told, I think successive governments in the
(12:44):
intervening years of both political stripes. By the way, it's
not a partisan point that I make have underinvested because
it's easy to kick the can down the road when
it comes down to the trade off of schools and
hospitals that are in our respective areas of the country
that's really immediate. Of course it's important, but you know
that the regional security in the South Pacific, even in
(13:07):
our relative backyard, that's still over the horizon, literally out
of sight, out of mind. And then of course you've
got the defense spaces that are not visible to the
general public precisely because they're set aside as areas of.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Restriction behind the wire.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
And so if you add those things together, it's a
little wonder but not excusable or justifiable.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Nevertheless, that defense has taken.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
A backward step in terms of the investment that's been
placed in it.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
How many homes or barrack beds have been taken out
of use because they were just unsafe or below standard.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
I don't know have the actual number, but it's a
real shame that we've had to have been in that category. Again,
I go back to the situation Pupacorda with the particular
Barrett block that I can picture and almost you know,
relive as though I was walking in it. Now with
that black mold situation.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So fi fleric blocks, I think a upper quarter.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, certainly, you know, it's unacceptable that
we should get to the point where any need to
be retired.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Almost on an emergency basis.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
So we're aiming to have a program going forward that
doesn't get to that state where we need to you know,
reactively so to speak, in those situations and actually to
have a positive, proactive maintenance program going forward.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
And also you know, think about replacement that's naturally going
to be needed over time.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
What is it like for personnel living inside these houses?
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Horrible?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
I mean, you know, in the government's own briefing papers,
it states the healthy homes is a minimum standard and
still won't improve current or conditions, leaving them unfit for
modern living. Yet here we are, we are still living
in these homes. We are still living with mold, as bestos.
Our kids are getting sick, adults are getting sick, you know,
(14:59):
to the point where Tamidikia being hospitalized. They're being a
take taken away in ambulances because of those ongoing respiratory problems,
those asthmetic problems that all of these home. This condition
of the homes leaves people where.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
I know that some families have been vocal in the media,
especially in the last few years, about the living conditions.
Have the families and those actually living in these places
been consulted as part of this plan.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, I've been in a lot of contact with defense
horse families, including service personnel themselves, so you know that's
going to be an ongoing effort.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
I want to know that the changes that we're making
and the investment that we're making is actually got a
week for them, so used to get to this point
of sat down and listened to families, but particularly superce
personnel who also can speak on behalf of their families
because they get it, you know, better than anyone of
course when there's pressure from the partner or the spouse
or the family. But certainly you know that's got to
(15:57):
be an ongoing discussion. It's not a one and done.
This week's announcement is at the end of it, you know,
and sort of walk away. It's actually to understand how
that's playing out in real life with these people.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
This is the third plan since twenty sixteen. Hey, what
are we going to get another plan in a couple
of years time? Or is it just you know, when
you peel off the surface, it's like getting worse and
worse the deeper you go.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
Yeah, I think the closer you look, the more that
you see, and there's also been an element that over time,
of course, things do deteriorate. It's the natural wear and
tear in the way of things. So I think we
could continue to review until the cows come home and
we'd simply find that things aren't getting better. But to
do something about it, I think what it should look like,
and it does look like in twenty twenty five is
(16:41):
doing some immediate things that are desperately needed, also having
a long term plan, setting aside the funds, and then
committing to not getting in that scenario again. And it's
certainly what we're aiming to do as a government with
today's announcement.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And I suppose as well the significant input of funding
in through Devenport really gives that area certainty that it's
there to stay.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Yeah, absolutely, and that's important for the local area, but
it's important for the Defense Force and particularly the Navy
if you think about decisions that need to be made
for them in the way that they train and live.
I mean, it's also important by the way that we're
open minded about opportunities elsewhere, and you know it might
be further north in the North Island where other port
facilities are that there could be some opportunities up there
(17:27):
as well. But to say that we're going to have
a future for the Navy and Devenport for the foreseeable
future means that we can and make those investments without
seekond guessing whether they're going to be throwing good money
after there.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Yeah, obviously you served as well, you were in uniform.
How does that experience shape what you think about and
deal with personnel today? And what do you make of retention?
I mean, did I read correctly that you went over
to Ozzie and we're part of the Australian Defense Force
at one stage? How did they get you over there?
(17:58):
Are they still doing?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Well, I did join the New Zealand Navy as a
good ki Land in fact from Walklands, so it wasn't
even that fad just to go across the bridge and
spend a bit of time in Devonport. But I joined
the Australian Navy actually because they have submarines and that
was an area that I was keen to get into.
So I just been a bit of time in the
submarine squadron before coming back to New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Right, So do we need submarines?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Well, I mean we could well have underwater vessels, but
of an unman nature, I think is probably the most
realistic way that we could achieve that. So those decisions
are a really exciting part of the Defense Capability Plan
and more particularly something called maritime Fleet renewal, which I'm
responsible for. I've got the delegation from the Defense Minister
douth Colins. So I'm really enjoying myself thinking about what
(18:44):
that could look like or should look like in the future.
And you know, if you think about the military applications,
but obviously also search and rescue, fisheries protection, humanitarian assistance,
disaster relief, there are a lot of things that we
expect how our Navy and now Defense Force to do.
So trying to make some smart decisions that enable us
to have all those capabilities is that we're currently engaged in.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And in terms of attrition and rates, are we finding
that a lot of young people are wanting to get
into the force.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
We are actually and it's really pleasing to me that
that's the case, and I know that the Fence Minister
herself is also really gratified about that. Some of it
is actually saying, well, if a young person or a
career key we decide to join. They want something different.
They doing that to save the country. They do frankly
want operational experience. Are there lots of things that we
can do and are doing to send them, in some
(19:37):
cases into harm's way, but other times just to give
them a life in work that they could not have
if they were to remain as a civilian in New Zealand.
So the key is to retain these good people in
an economic environment where job opportunities are more constrained elsewhere.
Traditionally we do see that is an easier time to recruit,
(19:57):
So obviously we'll need to make sure we even out
through the economic cycle. But I think as well as
people can see that the government is committed to providing
them with the facilities that they need to love, work,
train and ultimately, if necessary to fight, then it's a
powerful motivating.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Factor as well.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Thanks for joining us, Chris, Thanks Chelsea. That's it for
this episode of the Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane
Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm
(20:35):
Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
Kiyota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The
government's released its plan to get our defense infrastructure back
up to scratch, some of which hasn't been touched in decades.
The Defense of State Portfolio sets out how two point
(00:28):
five billion dollars will be spent over the next fifteen years.
At the same time, the future Naval Base program is
pinned at four billion over thirty five years. It's been
called a generational investment in defense infrastructure. But given the
horror stories we've heard about black mold infestations and asbestos
(00:50):
plaguing ENZDF owned buildings, well this will be enough. Today
on the Front Page, Associate Minister of Defense and Minister
for Building and Construction CHRISP. Hankers with us to dive
into an area that's been chronically under invested in for
far too long.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So Chris.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
The Defense State comprises of about four thousand, seven hundred
buildings across nine main camps and bases, two large training areas,
and a number of regional support facilities. Last year, the
total land and building value was pinned about four point
seven billion, so over seventy percent of that infrastructure I
see now has a less than twenty years of remaining
(01:32):
useful life, with fourteen percent already beyond its useful life.
Is two point five billion dollars over the next fifteen
years is going to be enough?
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, we think it will, but you know, we need
to consider how it looks as we go along, and
of course the changing needs of the defense force. Some
of it's thinking about the way that technological changes will
dictate what our defensive force looks like.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
It might be more.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Drones or amend aerial vehicles or actually vessels as we're
all thinking about replacing the Navy fleet as we're doing,
and of course that it has implications whether you have
warves or other and runaways and other structures. So, as
far as we can tell now, it's the right plan,
but as part of the general Defense Capability Plan review
every two years, we know that we'll need to monitor
to see how effective that spenders as time goes forward.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, and all those are four thousand, seven hundred roughly.
How much of that is housing, Yeah, a large.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Proportion is housing.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Defense housing is an important element, of course, It's crucial
for the well being of the men and women who
serve in uniform of the Defense Force and our Defense
Force civilians, I should add in terms of conditions more generally.
But therefore it goes to morale in retention, so e'ctually
in a funny way, it's operational, even housing and other
(02:46):
accommodations such as barracks in the dining facilities.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
And so on.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
So I've been really careful, and so has the Defense
Minister due to columns and in fact the whole government,
to make sure we understand the impact of the under
investment over the years and these kinds of areas as
well as the platforms, the helicopter leaderships that the planes,
because we know that it's all connected, because we're not
going to have got Defense Force unless we continue to
(03:10):
have great people in it.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, I've read some horror stories actually about some of
the Defense Force housing. You've got tenants that have talked
about leaking houses, black mold, asbestos, lack of heating. The
list goes on, infestations. Is this something that you've heard
as well?
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Yeah, I've heard it and I've seen it with my
own eyes, and I've walked into some of these places
literally with a mask on which I thought might have
been overkilled until I saw and felt and actually smelt
the effect of black mold. For example, Papacuta, where we
have some of our finest soldiers headquarters. You know, just
totally unsuitable conditions for any you know, living creature, frankly,
(03:50):
but including and especially our defense force personnel from whom
we are so much, and the families of them too.
If you think about the sacrifices that are made by
the partner and the kids of assuming sailor soldier Aviada
as the case may be, especially spending long periods of
time away from home. They might be living out of
the city that they have grown up and then building
(04:10):
their life. So the onus is on us, I think,
very clearly, morally as well as legally, to provide much
better than some of these awful conditions that yes, I've
seen and will also heard about from our people.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Have you any idea how much, I mean, roughly even
how many defense houses are sitting out there, you know,
not usable and just empty.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Well, if you have.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Been put aside in that way, I'm less interested. If
I may say, then in that question, then those that
continue to be used because we need them. But are
really to some extent subpar. Now, technically they've all got
the healthy homes standard that has been met, but that
doesn't mean they're very livable, particularly if you think about
(04:51):
poorly designed or maybe you know, simply not suitable for
the modern family living needs. And again just going to
the point of it to look after our people from
whom we are so much. So, you know, there are
different categories and some are frankly inhabitable, and those have
been set aside. But the build the new build program
as well as the maintenance of the existing stocks is
(05:12):
bearing in mind certainly that they are unsatisfactory situations in
which people are still living today.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Right, So if I'm a family and my husband or
wife is a part of the Defense force, and I'm
living in one of these substandard houses, how long will
I have to wait until everything's up to scratch, do
you think? Or whether I'm in a dry house or something.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, I mean as a rolling more approach, so I couldn't,
I couldn't be had to average out. But at different
bases and camps across the country, we've already been doing
the work, and to be fear, it's been acknowledged for
a few years now and including under the last couple
of successive governments. But the reality is it's been decades
in the making this problem. In theref it will be
decades in the making of the solution. But I know
(05:54):
that we've got to start somewhere and instantly. Some of
that renewal and replacement has been the way, and I'm
really excited that the announcement that we've made just now
will get a really clear way here for people to
feel confident that there is light.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
At the end of the tunnel. What's the quickest way
to get your military spend into two percent of GDP
so we can say we're doing our but go and
weigh two billion dollars on five helicopters.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
You say, what, now, that's rubbish. What's different on the
defense plan is that in the past you'd have people
say we're going to do all this stuff, but there
was no money associated with the investments. We've got a
really clear plan for fifteen years of the capabilities and
the skills we want to build into the defense force
in New Zealand that will then plug in well with
the Australians and other defense partners. And what's unique here
(06:43):
as we've put spending associated with that, So we will
spend twelve billion dollars over the next four years.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Right, So all of this is a part of the
Defense Capability Plan, and that was released earlier this year
that promises twelve billion dollars of funding over the next
four years, including nine billion dollars of new spending. I
see you've said that the two point five earmarked for
the strengthening this infrastructure over the next four years is
subject to annual budget processes. Does that mean that that
(07:14):
could change, could it get less or could it potentially
get more?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, I mean the Defense Capablity Plan overall could get more,
So it's been reviewed every two years with that and purpose.
In terms of the infrastructure, my expectation is that it
would be the same or potentially higher.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
But you know, we should be.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Able to operate in a way that provides studentcy, including
on a cost basis for textpayers. But also I think
the key point is that we need to do as
much as we can with the netwindow and be smart
about how we do it. So a lot of it's
actually prioritizing within all the different needs, all of which
are pressing, all of which are important in their own ways.
(07:51):
So that's going to be the skill I think over
the next few years, is prioritizing effectively and actually also
delivering because it's of course it's all very well to
put the money aside, but what that means in terms
of the budget processes that still need to take place
as individual projects will be assessed and agreed by the
government of the day as we go along, right, And you've.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Got that two point five in the kiddy, just so
things can can get moving and approved quickly. In terms
of that announcement earlier this year, I believe it was
called the Defense of State Regeneration Program. Has that been
switched up and that's what we're talking about now. The
updated version of that.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
The Defense Estate Regeneration Program, will do it. In the
Defense Loves have got acronym, just like government is an aspect.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
It's one of a few different elements within the Defense
States and Property Program more generally safe the DEPPER is
within the DEPP.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
That's within the.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
DCP, So you know just about I've got the whole
alphabet going, but it's part of it. So the Defense
Estate Regeneration Program is saying, well, we need ongoing maintenance
and that can be founded through through depreciation and it's
business as usual but ongoing, whereas the announcement that we've
made more recently is actually saying that there are large
injections of capital on a really strategic basis and making
(09:09):
decisions for example that actually we want to have the
Navy remain in Devonport Naval Base in Auto of Auckland
for the next generation or so, because of course, if
you don't have that big scale commitment of funding and
also some of those decisions locked and then there's no
point in doing anything more than just a routine maintenance
to keep them keep them going.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Frankly, so are you expecting by twenty forty for all
of the Defense Force housing to be livable and no mold,
no heating issues, no infestations, nothing.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
I would ceronly hope and expect you will actually be
much sooner than that. And as I say, the work's
been ongoing already and the officials who have been undertaken
network in Defense Force itself deserve credit for that. But
we do need to move as quickly within the window
between now twenty forty to do all that. I think
the window of the next fifteen years reflects that there
are some large scale projects if you're thinking about wolves
(10:03):
and runways and other major facilities that simply can't be
knocked together in eighteen months to two years, are like housing,
So that's going to.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Be that some of that medium to long term work
needs to take place.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Right now. I know, an opposition, you kind of get
a general idea or a general consensus about what everything
looks like. But as soon as you picked up that
Associate Defense and of course of the Veterans portfolios as well,
and you saw the actual numbers in the state of
some of this infrastructure, what was your first thoughts.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Well, my first thought is that we're failing our service personnel.
I think it's illegal and a moral obligation, certainly in
the veterans space. And there are things that we can
talk about how we can do better to recognize and
also provide entitlements to those former service personnel. But I
was certainly shocked by just how bad things have become. Actually,
it was a quarter of a century ago that I
joined the Navy in New Zealand myself, so at Differentport
(10:56):
where we've made this week's announcement about the future of
that naval base as well as the infrastructure more generally.
That gave me an insight to how things were back
in the year two thousands, and I'm sad to say
things aren't any better.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
In fact, you know, somewhat worse than that. So I
had an insight, and.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
As you say in opposition, it's possible to get a
feel for how things are, but it had been worse
than I had expected.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Or hoped when we came into the role of government
a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Right, So when you visit Devonport, can you see something
and does it just look exactly the same?
Speaker 4 (11:27):
I mean, it's changed in a few different ways.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
There have been some good investments made over a period
of time, but it's also a large footprint.
Speaker 4 (11:33):
You know, for example, there's the Officer Training school up on.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Narrown It Beach, but further up on that same part
of the north shore where it's been a bit of
time that's been effectively replaced by porter common buildings.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
There you've got sea.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Training areas that are now quite frequently underwater, and a
certain amount of that's just environmental change due to sea
level rise in other factors. So more or less, if
you were to squint you could see it more or
less the same, and that's a problem in itself to
the extent that that investment is needed. But also things
are just a little bit more aged and tired after
(12:08):
twenty five years, and also bearing in mind that things
have been pretty bad necked back in the day even then.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, I saw I read this quote. A large proportion
of the defense of state was built over eighty years
ago during World War Two. Now that seems.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Wild, It does seem well, doesn't it. Yeah, I mean,
the hou's them just to go back to that. I mean,
a lot of that's sixty years old. And of course
you can have an old house that's been well maintained
and improved over the years, but a lot of them
have not been. And yeah, I mean, if you think
about World War II and significance of the fact that
then we understood really clearly the importance of national security
and truth be told, I think successive governments in the
(12:44):
intervening years of both political stripes. By the way, it's
not a partisan point that I make have underinvested because
it's easy to kick the can down the road when
it comes down to the trade off of schools and
hospitals that are in our respective areas of the country
that's really immediate. Of course it's important, but you know
that the regional security in the South Pacific, even in
(13:07):
our relative backyard, that's still over the horizon, literally out
of sight, out of mind. And then of course you've
got the defense spaces that are not visible to the
general public precisely because they're set aside as areas of.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Restriction behind the wire.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
And so if you add those things together, it's a
little wonder but not excusable or justifiable.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Nevertheless, that defense has taken.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
A backward step in terms of the investment that's been
placed in it.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
How many homes or barrack beds have been taken out
of use because they were just unsafe or below standard.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
I don't know have the actual number, but it's a
real shame that we've had to have been in that category. Again,
I go back to the situation Pupacorda with the particular
Barrett block that I can picture and almost you know,
relive as though I was walking in it. Now with
that black mold situation.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So fi fleric blocks, I think a upper quarter.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, certainly, you know, it's unacceptable that
we should get to the point where any need to
be retired.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Almost on an emergency basis.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
So we're aiming to have a program going forward that
doesn't get to that state where we need to you know,
reactively so to speak, in those situations and actually to
have a positive, proactive maintenance program going forward.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
And also you know, think about replacement that's naturally going
to be needed over time.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
What is it like for personnel living inside these houses?
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Horrible?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
I mean, you know, in the government's own briefing papers,
it states the healthy homes is a minimum standard and
still won't improve current or conditions, leaving them unfit for
modern living. Yet here we are, we are still living
in these homes. We are still living with mold, as bestos.
Our kids are getting sick, adults are getting sick, you know,
(14:59):
to the point where Tamidikia being hospitalized. They're being a
take taken away in ambulances because of those ongoing respiratory problems,
those asthmetic problems that all of these home. This condition
of the homes leaves people where.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
I know that some families have been vocal in the media,
especially in the last few years, about the living conditions.
Have the families and those actually living in these places
been consulted as part of this plan.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, I've been in a lot of contact with defense
horse families, including service personnel themselves, so you know that's
going to be an ongoing effort.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
I want to know that the changes that we're making
and the investment that we're making is actually got a
week for them, so used to get to this point
of sat down and listened to families, but particularly superce
personnel who also can speak on behalf of their families
because they get it, you know, better than anyone of
course when there's pressure from the partner or the spouse
or the family. But certainly you know that's got to
(15:57):
be an ongoing discussion. It's not a one and done.
This week's announcement is at the end of it, you know,
and sort of walk away. It's actually to understand how
that's playing out in real life with these people.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
This is the third plan since twenty sixteen. Hey, what
are we going to get another plan in a couple
of years time? Or is it just you know, when
you peel off the surface, it's like getting worse and
worse the deeper you go.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
Yeah, I think the closer you look, the more that
you see, and there's also been an element that over time,
of course, things do deteriorate. It's the natural wear and
tear in the way of things. So I think we
could continue to review until the cows come home and
we'd simply find that things aren't getting better. But to
do something about it, I think what it should look like,
and it does look like in twenty twenty five is
(16:41):
doing some immediate things that are desperately needed, also having
a long term plan, setting aside the funds, and then
committing to not getting in that scenario again. And it's
certainly what we're aiming to do as a government with
today's announcement.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
And I suppose as well the significant input of funding
in through Devenport really gives that area certainty that it's
there to stay.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Yeah, absolutely, and that's important for the local area, but
it's important for the Defense Force and particularly the Navy
if you think about decisions that need to be made
for them in the way that they train and live.
I mean, it's also important by the way that we're
open minded about opportunities elsewhere, and you know it might
be further north in the North Island where other port
facilities are that there could be some opportunities up there
(17:27):
as well. But to say that we're going to have
a future for the Navy and Devenport for the foreseeable
future means that we can and make those investments without
seekond guessing whether they're going to be throwing good money
after there.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Yeah, obviously you served as well, you were in uniform.
How does that experience shape what you think about and
deal with personnel today? And what do you make of retention?
I mean, did I read correctly that you went over
to Ozzie and we're part of the Australian Defense Force
at one stage? How did they get you over there?
(17:58):
Are they still doing?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:01):
Well, I did join the New Zealand Navy as a
good ki Land in fact from Walklands, so it wasn't
even that fad just to go across the bridge and
spend a bit of time in Devonport. But I joined
the Australian Navy actually because they have submarines and that
was an area that I was keen to get into.
So I just been a bit of time in the
submarine squadron before coming back to New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Right, So do we need submarines?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Well, I mean we could well have underwater vessels, but
of an unman nature, I think is probably the most
realistic way that we could achieve that. So those decisions
are a really exciting part of the Defense Capability Plan
and more particularly something called maritime Fleet renewal, which I'm
responsible for. I've got the delegation from the Defense Minister
douth Colins. So I'm really enjoying myself thinking about what
(18:44):
that could look like or should look like in the future.
And you know, if you think about the military applications,
but obviously also search and rescue, fisheries protection, humanitarian assistance,
disaster relief, there are a lot of things that we
expect how our Navy and now Defense Force to do.
So trying to make some smart decisions that enable us
to have all those capabilities is that we're currently engaged in.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
And in terms of attrition and rates, are we finding
that a lot of young people are wanting to get
into the force.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
We are actually and it's really pleasing to me that
that's the case, and I know that the Fence Minister
herself is also really gratified about that. Some of it
is actually saying, well, if a young person or a
career key we decide to join. They want something different.
They doing that to save the country. They do frankly
want operational experience. Are there lots of things that we
can do and are doing to send them, in some
(19:37):
cases into harm's way, but other times just to give
them a life in work that they could not have
if they were to remain as a civilian in New Zealand.
So the key is to retain these good people in
an economic environment where job opportunities are more constrained elsewhere.
Traditionally we do see that is an easier time to recruit,
(19:57):
So obviously we'll need to make sure we even out
through the economic cycle. But I think as well as
people can see that the government is committed to providing
them with the facilities that they need to love, work,
train and ultimately, if necessary to fight, then it's a
powerful motivating.
Speaker 4 (20:11):
Factor as well.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Thanks for joining us, Chris, Thanks Chelsea. That's it for
this episode of the Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane
Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm
(20:35):
Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.