The heat is on defence spending
TALKING POLITICS
OPINION: Last week’s decision to dispatch one of our ageing C- 130H Hercules to Europe for two months has been widely welcomed.
If the plane can avoid breaking down under the strain, this should help to get essential supplies and ammunition into the hands of Ukraine’s population and armed forces.
Meanwhile at home, the war in Ukraine has been edging its way into our own political debates.
A fortnight ago, for instance, National Party leader Christopher Luxon stressed the importance of maintaining defence ties with our traditional allies.
To that end, he added, a National government was considering whether to raise defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP. If so, this would divert an extra amount of around $1.7 billion every year away from spending on social services. As yet, Luxon has not indicated what this extra defence money could, or should, be spent on.
This is a sensitive issue for Labour. Routinely, the centreleft gets stereotyped as being soft on Defence.
Yet over the past 30 years, it has been successive Labour governments that have done most of the heavy lifting (and the heavy spending) required to reequip New Zealand’s armed forces, after previous governments had allowed their gear and capability to become degraded.
In that respect, it is ironic that we are sending an elderly C-130H Hercules to Europe. The last time our armed forces had a significant presence in Europe, our elderly M113 armed personnel carriers kept breaking down in Bosnia and, on one occasion, had to be towed back to base by our British allies.
Repeatedly, Labour governments have – sometimes through gritted teeth – spent very large sums on upgrading this country’s defence capabilities.
The Clark government for example invested hugely in the army in particular, to meet equipment needs that the Bolger administration had never quite got around to addressing. Similarly, the Ardern
New Zealand’s ageing Hercules departs Whenuapai for a stint helping the Ukrainian war effort.
government has spent billions on new surveillance aircraft and new air cargo planes, again after of years of relative neglect by the Key administration.
Last week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pointed out that, since taking office, her government had boosted spending on the military from 1.15 per cent of GDP in 2017 to 1.54 per cent in 2020.
‘‘This increase in investment was necessary as the previous National government deferred investment in new planes and boats,’’ Ardern explained.
Relative to GDP, New Zealand is now spending more on the military than Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.
By contrast in recent years, the lowest ratio of GDP devoted to defence spending (1.11 per cent) occurred in 2011, at the end of the first term of a Key government that had chosen to treat a major round of tax cuts as being a more pressing priority.
This year, the National Party is tempting voters again with the lure of a further round of tax cuts.
However, by the time the 2023 election rolls around, significant tax cuts would be affordable only if defence (and health) needs were given a lower priority.
Patriotic rhetoric is cheap. But, when it comes to equipping the armed forces, a serious public debate about the future costs and clashing priorities seems necessary.