By Sian Troath*
There is little doubt the National-led coalition is showing greater interest in the AUKUS security agreement, with Australian officials due to visit New Zealand later this year to brief the government.
So far, much of the discussion and analysis of New Zealand potentially joining the so-called “pillar two” of AUKUS has focused on the usual geopolitical and security narratives.
Australia is New Zealand’s only formal ally, New Zealand is already part of the Five Eyes spy network, and there are shared historical ties and values between Western states.
Like Australia, too, New Zealand has been walking a tightrope between its close trading relationship with China and its security relationship with the United States, as tension grows between the two superpowers.
Of course, perceptions of the strategic environment play a role. But they are far from the only motivating factor. In comments from the relevant ministers, and in briefing notes from department officials, it is clear economic arguments are being made in favour of New Zealand joining pillar two.
The government was elected, in part, on a platform of cutting public spending. At the same time, New Zealand under-invests in the research and development the government sees as essential for economic growth.
Given AUKUS is already a controversial initiative, any incentive to use it as a means to subsidise inadequate research, science and innovation budgets needs greater public scrutiny.
A change of heart
Under the previous Labour government, New Zealand put up a relatively ambivalent front on AUKUS.
Any involvement in pillar one (which provides for Australia to buy at least eight nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK) was immediately ruled out, given its impact on New Zealand’s nuclear-free policies.
While the government left the door open to pillar two – which allows for collaboration on advanced technologies and building connections between defence industrial bases – there were seemingly conflicting views within the Labour Party.
While former defence minister Andrew Little seemed more open to the discussion, former foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta raised concerns about the impact it could have on New Zealand’s independence and relationships in the Pacific.
In opposition, the National Party was critical of AUKUS. Its then foreign affairs spokesperson, Gerry Brownlee, said the deal would not make New Zealand safer.
Now in power, however, National and its coalition partners appear to have a newfound enthusiasm for AUKUS. Defence Minister Judith Collins made it clear the government was considering what benefits AUKUS could provide New Zealand, and what New Zealand could bring to the table.
With Foreign Minister Winston Peters, she raised these matters in their meeting with Australian ministerial counterparts at the inaugural Australia-New Zealand Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations (ANZMIN) in early February.
Their joint statement said AUKUS makes “a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific”.
Pacific wants open discussion on AUKUS to ensure region is nuclear freehttps://t.co/SXmsPhyK5W
— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) February 12, 2024
AUKUS economics
Economic factors appear to be playing a significant role in this tack towards AUKUS. A briefing by defence officials to the previous government listed eight “opportunities for New Zealand’s research community and industry”.
This focus on research is notable. Not only were the benefits outlined in the briefing, but it was also shared with the then minister of research, science and innovation.
As well as being defence minister, Collins is also minister for science, innovation and technology, as well as minister for space. It is unsurprising she would see harmony in these three portfolios when it comes to AUKUS. She has shown considerable enthusiasm for technology as a pathway to economic growth.
Collins has pointed to the space industry as a key sector in which New Zealand could make a contribution. Technology and space are also the areas that, in Collins’ words, “offer opportunities to New Zealand businesses and scientists”.
At the same time, the government has requested budget cuts from its departments, including a 7.5% reduction from defence. State funding for research and development has long been inadequate, and this seems unlikely to change.
Interest in AUKUS, then, exists in a broader economic context beyond the obvious strategic defence considerations.
Time for a broader debate
The government clearly hopes collaboration on AUKUS pillar two can help provide something of a cross-subsidy for both defence and related civilian research and industries.
Many of the technologies involved – including space-related technology such as that used by RocketLab – are dual-use, meaning they have both civilian and defence applications.
Indeed, for several years now Australia has been building closer links in emerging technologies between its academic sector, defence and civilian industries.
It is important to understand these economic motivations. The prospect of New Zealand joining pillar two of AUKUS is already controversial at a geo-strategic level. If one of the primary motivations is also economic, some harder questions need to be asked.
Does it make sense to fund research, science and innovation via a defence partnership? And would that justify joining a controversial defence arrangement that potentially compromises other important international relationships?
The AUKUS question in general now needs to be considered in the context of broader debates about New Zealand’s role in the world, and the role of government in society.
*Sian Troath, Postdoctoral Fellow, Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
37 Comments
Yes we should do this. Why wouldn’t we?
It’s unstated , but clearly alluded to : it would piss off Winnie the Pooh, and our trade would suffer.
So, make sure the deal offsets that.
We need to become far less dependent on agriculture, and a certain country, regardless.
Basically, yes. While our environment isn't unique, it is kinda rare, and the land, water and sunlight don't cost us anything.
We do have minerals and other resources, but we're allowed to touch less and less of those.
Then outside of that much everything else can be done somewhere else cheaper, or better funded and resourced. There's not much tying it specifically to NZ.
As for our cities, when they're benchmarked for productivity globally against other cities, they're right down the bottom.
https://industry.aucklandnz.com/economy-and-insights/research-and-repor…
Note "Auckland". And the "peers" are: Copenhagen, Dublin, Vancouver, Portland, Helsinki, Tel Aviv, Fukuoka, Brisbane, Austin. Reference points are: San Diego, Amsterdam, Singapore, Sydney, Melbourne.
When I originally read the report I thought "I wonder why Auckland thinks so much of itself it should choose to compare itself such cities when just about all have been around for much, much longer and have far better connections to nearby wealth of even larger cities than Auckland does."
And then I thought, "I guess I'm a pretty crap middle distance runner if I compare myself John Walker, Steve Cram, Seb Coe, Steve Overt too."
Apart from the fact more than half of them are similar in age, and a couple had to effectively start from nothing in the last hundred years, perhaps you've just helped sum up why NZ will always struggle to have highly productive metro areas, and any inherent advantages being competitive in tertiary industry.
Did you bother confirming it? Half of them are in the colonies, they're hardly going to be millennia old.
Auckland: 1840
Vancouver: 1886
Austin: 1839
Melbourne: 1835
Sydney: 1788
Brisbane: 1824
San Diego: 1769
Portland: 1851
Singapore:1819 (although independent from 1945)
Some are younger, some are older, and the oldest are not much, much older, in the context of the 2 centuries since. So the age component, isn't really relative.
The cities of Fukuoka and Tel Aviv, while having human settlement for a long time, effectively only came into being in their current iterations since the Second World War.
In the early 1900s, the land upon which much of Tel Aviv stands was mainly sand dune and uncultivated scrub
For someone that likes to pass themselves of as being a step above pub experts, you sure have an unusual tendency to throw a wobbly instead of using your superior intellect in a discussion.
We need partners that have a record of success.
How wise are we placing any reliance on the USA? Ask the Ukrainians. Ask every Middle Eastern country apart from Israel that the USA has ever allied itself to, whether they are to be trusted or relied upon? Ask the Nato counties what their view on the USA is going forward. With Trump, more generally the Republicans, and more generally again the shift in USA societal values, I suggest, in future countries are going to have to fend for themselves. The USA does us no favors in trade and has some distinctly anti NZ trade policies. Are they really the friends that we would like to think they are?
I think that our best move would be to grow our considerable rocket technology into a powerful missile industry and populate our whole country with a formidable self defense system. We should introduce mandatory enlistment of all able body individuals into a self defense force as per Switzerland. We need to make our selves a nightmare proposition to invade.
We could possibly make quite a lot of money selling missiles and satellite defense systems to trustworthy western countries.
I think that our best move would be to grow our considerable rocket technology into a powerful missile industry and populate our whole country with a formidable self defense system.
Indeed:
US fails to catch up with Russia on hypersonic systems — Russian Foreign Ministry
Not surprising when you see how hopeless, Boeing (one of their defense system leaders), is at something so comparatively easy as making aircraft reliably. Can we rely on their defense technology? And Rocket lab are recently now helping them develop hypersonic technology. As you say they cannot do it and think we can.
Part way through watching it; thanks for the link.
Thinking of the Boeing problems, the underling problem is a totally driven profit motive at the exclusion of all other considerations. In Boeings case this started with the addition of Locked Martin when the power and control was taken from the hands of the Engineers by the Accountants and profit driven MBA types. I think that this first came to light with the 737 NG series where they reduced the safety margins on the basis that they would produce parts more accurately by digitally controlled machinery . To save money they out sourced manufacture to companies that cut corners and also did not use computer controlled machining. Subsequently this was discovered by the Boeing quality control people who were pressured to ignore this, subsequently ignored by the CAA when they whistle blew and ultimately fired. There were some terrible crashes that could be directly linked to these issues, but the establishment buried this. The 737 history is a saga of cases like this.
I was chatting to an American colleque last year who worked in the Nuclear industry. The stories were chilling and very similar to the Boeing situation. If matters raised conflicted with profit they were forced to ignore them to the point that one day they were hauled into the managers office who said that they were technically correct in the concerns over an issue but the company was not going to undermine their profit so you are fired. This was not a unique event.
So to sum up, in corporate USA, the pursuit of profit trumps everything and every moral or ethical consideration, So what he is saying is not surprising.
If you're looking for a reason why New Zealand under-invests in research and development then look no further at our woefully misaligned tax system.
If NZ really wants to get ahead then look no further than the slogan, "R and D tax free in N Zee".
NZ's climate is quite unique in that we have a bit of just about everything. Our geography is likewise unique in that we also have a bit of everything. And we have plenty of land. And cheep electricity which is mainly from renewable sources. And politically stable. And politically neutral.
What we don't have is a taxation system that would encourage the world to set up research, development and testing centers all over NZ.
(It would also be one way of raising our collective IQ. And man-alive do we need that!)
I can't help but be skeptical of ANY calls to have greater 'security and peace' through another agreement, that is usually the quise of another power play. The most 'secure' people in any society are in prison where all of their choices are taken away by the state (think on that for a second)
Usually these 'agreements' or new laws take the form of taking away existing freedoms or liberties... often to the detriment of the people they are supposed to serve
The aforementioned 'Five Eyes spy network', when spying on NZ citizens was illegal until John Key did it anyway and then changed the law to make it legal... with zero consequences. big brother in overdrive...
The key question is always - 'who benefits from this?'... or 'what are the second order consequence s?'
Something that I'm not sure we've really answered here...
This would be a disaster if we do that. We will start spending billions on military equipment made overseas, we will ruin relationships with China, our biggest trade partner. Being a small pieceful nation has a lot of benefits especially in todays turbulent reality. Usa - China conflict might have a further development and we could be thrown under the bus like other nations who come too close to usa
Trump is rightly just negotiating to get their partners to spend what they say they would on defence. Why should the US pay for everyone elses shortfall? It's another reason. Trump will win the election again.. coz whilst he is a nightmare on many fronts he actually makes a lot of financial sense
I suspect a real reason the US is withholding funding for Ukraine now is a similar tactic.. to get Europe to stump up a fair whack as it's really their fight.. and then the USA would have the money left to defend against china etc. I am confused why Europe sits back and expects America to fight their war.
So many things wrong here.
- National's utter flip-flop, although its true to form
- We are currently manning 1 frigate and no offshore patrol vessels, due to lack of manpower. The military has been bleeding staff for almost a decade and is down about 30% in its capable staff since about 3 years ago. We literally cannot man our current hardware.
- National has asked the military for 6.5% cost savings which will only make this worse
- Does AUKUS really do anything for us?
- Can we meaningfully contribute anything? Our space stuff is civilian, it would require a massive amount of funding and time to turn it into anything useful for the military, as austerity bites, this is less and less likely
National would have to virtually rebuild most of the military to ever to be able to participate in any meaningful way. The only thing we have that might be good are the P8s and new Hercs, if we can man them.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.