National's defence policy - back to the 1990's...

So we are to get another defence review. It is pretty clear the purpose of this "review" is to cut defence spending. A return to the near criminal rundown in wages and equipmwent that occured in the 1990's is back for our military.

According to this clip the defence force "shouldn't have anything it doesn't use." So I suppose that includes everything above a small arms.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/defence-force-undergo-full-review-2661409/video

It is clear that a fair swag of the LAV's are going to be sold. This is fucking unbelievable. These vehicles have been expensively modified and brought to the standards of the NZDF. The whole deal was around eight million ehole of life cost for the vehicles. Selling them would release a FRACTION of this investment.

Heather Roy - nutjob ACToid who thinks spending six months as a cut lunch command in the Territorials now qualifies her as a wide ranging defence expert, believes we should sell off all our military installations... So we can rent them back again at someone elses long term profit... Perhaps we could sell them to the Chinese? I cannot start with how stupid this is.

Privatise and only use what we need. By the lunatic thinking off these National Party half wits, I am surprised no one has suggested that we just disband the whole lot and hire someone else's army when we need it.

or a strike force?

Agreed fishy

The fact that Ernst and Young is involved is sad.

I can't really say much considering who I worked for, but I will definitely be putting together a submission as a private citizen.

Im all for cutting spending where possible, but any serious consideration to selling something that is required long term is retarded.

I hope its just a consideration.

The NZDF is already over-stressed. Last year's annual report said exactly that. Cutting funding is fine if you also reduce the outputs required, but I doubt that will happen.

by 'outputs required' I suppose you mean 'meeting our obligations' which will be interesting considering the US request of more involvemnt by our SAS in Afghanistan

I meant across the whole of govt spending not defence specifically.

And here is another thing. Whatever happened to national's promise of no sale of state assets?

Im not sure that included commercial land (which lets face it is what most defence land is).

State assets are something different/special.

And the defence force is NOT a special state asset? What is it then?

Not at all. Do you know how government demands are funded? The NZDF is required to meet qualitative/quantitative outputs. For example land combat forces of x amount at y level of capabilit.

That requires money. Collective training exercises are expensive.