bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,

Australia: orders for 13 x Seahawk Romeos to replace Taipans plus 29 x Apache Es to replace Tigers… I haven’t seen anything on a.net about these orders. Anyone know if the Bell 429 has been confirmed for the SAS order?

NZ: mention elsewhere on a.net that the RNZAF may be looking for two ‘newer’ 757s as stop-gap replacements for the ageing current 757s… anyone know any more about this? And what about the Seasprite replacements: I’ve heard that NZ may be interested in some ex-Aussie Taipans?!?

PNG: for months I have seen the PNGDF Falcon 900 parked at SYD, but curiously in slightly different locations every time. Does anyone know if it’s up for sale or just making lots of flights into SYD?

Thanks in advance for any info In response.
Take care
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

If NZ intend keeping their NH90s I hope Australia and NZ come to a great deal over the ex-ADF ones.

bunumuring wrote:

Not sure what will happen with the soon-to-be ex-ADF Tigers though… perhaps France, Germany or Spain would buy them for spares?

johns624 wrote:

Unless OZ repurposes the Canberra/Adelaide for F35 operations, I don't really see the need for NZ to have an LHD. Their entire army has only 2 light infantry battalions and one light armor one (LAV). For the same reason, I don't think they need strategic airlift. I do agree with you on the P8, though. I wish they'd do what they've always done (until now) and piggyback a frigate order onto the Aussie one. The MEKOs aren't getting any younger...

johns624 wrote:

Of course, since NZ can't even make up their minds about building an ice-strengthened OPV, the point is probably moot.

johns624 wrote:

Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.

Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.

Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.
Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.

Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.
Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744

While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot

Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.

HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;

Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG). To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).

Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf

certainly sounds like they are making a busines case for a pocket LHD to me





Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.



https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744

While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot

Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.

HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;

Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG). To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).

Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf

certainly sounds like they are making a busines case for a pocket LHD to me





Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s

You can say what you like Paul but IMO and born out by what she’s mostly been used for disaster relief in the Pacific has been Canterbury’s primary role. Whatever replaces her needs to be better at that role, ie larger hospital facilities, increased fresh water making facilities, well dock, and still have the ability to transport the army as a secondary role.

You have a crack at me for an article from 2011 and then you link a document from 2012 to make your point, are you having a laugh?

johns624 wrote:

While it's nice that NZ wants a new "disaster relief ship", for a country that small that doesn't fund their military very well, it seems to be an extravagance. If they had a few A400s, a couple more P8s, and had concrete plans for replacing their frigates and adding an ice-strengthened OPV, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO having a disaster relief ship will provide greater benefit to NZ than A400’s, new frigates and more P8’s.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot
Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.
HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;
Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG). To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).
Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf
certainly, sounds like they are making a business case for a pocket LHD to me
Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s

You can say what you like Paul but IMO and born out by what she’s mostly been used for disaster relief in the Pacific has been Canterbury’s primary role. Whatever replaces her needs to be better at that role, ie larger hospital facilities, increased fresh water making facilities, well dock, and still have the ability to transport the army as a secondary role.

Kiwirob wrote:

You have a crack at me for an article from 2011 and then you have the audacity to link a document from 2012 to make your point, are you having a laugh?

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

While it's nice that NZ wants a new "disaster relief ship", for a country that small that doesn't fund their military very well, it seems to be an extravagance. If they had a few A400s, a couple more P8s, and had concrete plans for replacing their frigates and adding an ice-strengthened OPV, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

IMO having a disaster relief ship will provide greater benefit to NZ than A400’s, new frigates and more P8’s. There’s an entire forum of lunatics who believe NZ should be armed to the teeth, what’s the point, nobody’s going to invade us, and those that could would make short work of any defence we could put up. Defending NZ would be more symbolic than effective, like Denmark during WW2

A101 wrote:

You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.

It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.

It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.

Thanks! You said it much better than I could. The only other western country with the same disregard for their own defense is Ireland. It would be one thing if they were poor and couldn't afford it, but they can. Nobody is saying they need MBTs and fighter-bombers, but they should have some first rate equipment.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A101 wrote:

You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.
It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.

Thanks! You said it much better than I could. The only other western country with the same disregard for their own defense is Ireland. It would be one thing if they were poor and couldn't afford it, but they can. Nobody is saying they need MBTs and fighter-bombers, but they should have some first rate equipment.

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

My nation is a small one; you may say, if you please, that it is insignificant in size and perhaps in strength; but it will stand by the Covenant and the policy of collective security in order to maintain peace, or to restore it when it is broken, and to give safety to the people of our generation

Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.

Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.

Nicoeddf wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.

Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.

Commanded by Kurt Weyher, the Orion departed Germany in April 1940 and entered the Pacific on May 21. After rounding Cape Horn, it headed towards New Zealand and mined the Hauraki Gulf on June 13, the gateway to Auckland, sinking the liner Niagara. Weyher captured the Norwegian freighter Tropic Sea near the Kermadec Islands and, after entering the Coral Sea, he sank the French steamer Notou near Noumea. Next, the Germans intercepted the freighter Turakina near Wellington. Captain James Laird, the ship’s master, ordered his stern gun to fire, initiating history’s first naval battle in the Tasman Sea. The Orion’s guns reduced the freighter to a blazing hulk, killing 36 men including Laird.

The state-run Itar-Tass agency says Russia will send submarines armed with nuclear ballistic missiles to the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean.

It echoes the Soviet days and in 1982, when a Russian submarine was photographed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force east of New Zealand.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.

johns624 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.

Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.

Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.

johns624 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.

Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.

Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?

ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?

ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.

Best get a hold of Huntington Ingalls they are building the last one at the moment.

haven't got cost for the current ship but the 2013fy price was 713m usd which is about 1.1billion nzd

why not go cheaper with the type 31 336m GBP or around 650m NZD two for one

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.

Best get a hold of Huntington Ingalls they are building the last one at the moment.

haven't got cost for the current ship but the 2013fy price was 713m usd which is about 1.1billion nzd

why not go cheaper with the type 31 336m GBP or around 650m NZD two for one

Notice I said LIKE the Legend class, that doesn't mean THE Legend class.

The 10th in class cost 540m USD.

johns624 wrote:

The other problem that NZ seems to have is a manning one. Would newer, more effective ships with smaller crews help that? I know it would hurt the government budget.

johns624 wrote:

I don't understand why so many ignore that NZ is part of several treaties. It's not them against the world. They'll always have help. To paraphrase and edit a biblical saying "other countries help countries who help themselves". Nobody in the Pacific can stand up to China by themselves, but when you have the US, Australia and Japan on your side, it evens up the odds. Then you might be able to throw in India and the UK. If push came to shove, the ROK would probably be too occupied with the Norks to lend much initial help.

China militarizing SCS islands allows it to control pretty much all of SCS from Spratleys to mainland. It allows them to control all of the energy/commerce that passes through (which is a lot).

A101 wrote:

And who cant remember there own history

Major General Sir Howard Kippenberger, warned:
“It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves. We can say, truly, that New Zealand cannot alone defend herself…so, perhaps, we had better leave it to others, or deny that there is any danger and get on with our amusements and the rapid erosion of our land. Or we can pull ourselves together and act as a grown up Nation.”

New Zealanders have a deep sense of complacency about their security and feel that they’re very far away from the problems that we are seeing unfold in other parts of the world—that’s just not true anymore … Here is an actual challenge to our sovereignty—and a New Zealand family who have had their safety threatened—and our government is not defending them.

China hasn't had to pressure New Zealand to accept China's soft power activities and political influence. The New Zealand government has actively courted it. Ever since New Zealand-PRC diplomatic relations were established in 1972, successive New Zealand governments have followed policies of attracting Beijing's attention and favor through high profile support for China's new economic agendas. New Zealand has strived to always be the first Western country to sign up to China’s new external economic policies, whether it is China's entry into the WTO, a Free Trade Agreement with China, the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), and most recently the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI/OBOR). New Zealand governments have also encouraged China to be active in New Zealand's region—from the South Pacific to Antarctica; initially as a balance to Soviet influence, as an aid donor and scientific partner, and lately, as part of “diversification” of New Zealand's military links away from Five Eyes partnerships.