Foreign policy and national security decisions tend to feel like they’re happening at a vast distance from our day-to-day existence. The rent, the food bill and the costs of running the car are more tangible concerns. In addition, since the two major parties happen to agree on 98% of foreign policy and security intelligence matters, there’s no real conflict for the media to explore, and therefore little or no public debate over the decisions being reached.
So, being told that we “need” to buy replacement naval frigates to remain inter-operable with our allies sounds like the usual mumble-speak of government on such matters. It seems serious and necessary, and is happening behind closed doors, far away.
Moreover, the Luxon government says a final commitment on the frigates won’t be made until late next year. That sounds like an eternity. Except that it isn’t, and the looming cost (if left unchallenged) is likely to constrain our quality of life and put limits on the range and quality of public services we can afford, for the rest of this decade or more.
In essence, we can either have two shiny new frigates (and quite possibly, we will be buying four of them) or we can have a functioning public health system. We won’t be able to afford both. Not to mention a sustainable superannuation scheme, a world class education system or the kind of state investment in science and technology crucial to our future prosperity. All of that goes by the wayside if we sink billions upon billions of dollars into buying and maintaining frigates, mainly in order to appease our allies.
How many billions? The alleged costs being cited by MoD and government tend to vary between $4-8 billion. Even so, these calculations routinely do not include the all-up, ongoing cost of buying, kitting out, upgrading, crewing and maintaining the ships over their operational lifetimes; nor do they tend to include the costs of upgrading the defensive/offensive capabilities of these ships and their command-and-control systems, such that they can remain “interoperable” with allies who have far deeper pockets than we have. The Just Defence group have recently done calculations that indicate $22 billion is a more realistic “lifetime” figure for this projected outlay.
If the Opposition was being led by a left-wing party, it would be loudly decrying the opportunity costs of this investment. Yet for the past 40 years, Labour has rarely said “No” to the defence/security establishment, for fear of being labelled as peaceniks. When the Greens do question items of defence spending, this criticism is routinely dismissed as naïve and unrealistic. The world is a dangerous and unpredictable place, don’t you know.
Unfortunately, the “realists” who automatically write cheques for the defence establishment believe that spending billions on frigates is a burden we simply have to shoulder to do our bit, even though the Mogami-class frigates that we are lining up to buy
(a) would be useless in defending New Zealand
(b) would be death traps for their crews, in that they could be readily taken out by a swarm of cheap drones and
(c) would be useful only in defending a US-led carrier force formation
Regardless, the alleged necessity of this outlay is received wisdom in defence circles. We are proposing to spend billions on ships and weaponry whose sole practical use in a shooting war would be to help to defend the forces of the United States, who are not offering to reciprocate the gesture. Our own interests, and our foreign policy independence are being undermined in the process.
Do we really, really want our armed forces to be locked into a Pentagon chain of command that’s currently being led by Pete Hegseth, under orders from Donald Trump. Lest we forget, US trade tariffs and Trump’s war on Iran are continuing to do serious harm to our economy.
Ultimately, the only feasible target of this arms expenditure and military strategy has to be China – which is our biggest export market, and the basis of New Zealand’s current prosperity. Somehow, the people advocating this ruinous course of action like to depict themselves as hard headed realists, and as the only adults in the room when it comes to Defence spending. Go figure.
The ANZAC illusion
Because the United States has become such a toxic force on the world stage – an unreliable ally, a whimsical aggressor – most of the language of “inter-operability” is being framed in terms of our traditional ANZAC mates across the Tasman.
This nostalgic glow tends to obscure just how astonishingly subservient Australia has become to the United States. With good reason, the Guardian recently used the word “colonisation” to describe the extent of the US military presence on Australian soil, and the related risk of Australia being dragged into a war initiated by Washington.
Reportedly, the Guardian noted, there are 17 military bases in Australia controlled entirely by the United States, including the massive US global military communications centre at Pine Gap. In addition, there are 24 other military bases controlled by Australia, but to which US military and corporate personnel have direct access.
Given that the Australian military are so extensively integrated with the Pentagon war machine, spending billions in order to be “interoperable” with the Australians will put us at equal risk of being dragged into wars initiated by American “allies” who seem to be more unstable (and more prone to act unilaterally) by the day.
Polls and tolls
For our own security, we need to begin the process of conscious uncoupling from this folly. But how to do it? Unfortunately, the peace movement in New Zealand is now only a shadow of its 1980s self. However, the polling from Australia does provide some clues as to how public opinion responds to defence spending. As mentioned above, criticism on moral grounds can be readily discounted as naïve and idealistic. A protest movement focussed on the waste and the opportunity costs of the frigates decision has far more chance of swaying public opinion.
How so? This Lowy poll has shown that 68% of Australians are either “strongly” or somewhat” in favour of acquiring nuclear powered submarines that are not nuclear armed. Note that the question did not mention the price tag, which is circa $368 billion. When the question was framed in terms of cost – as in the poll conducted by the University of Sydney’s United States Centre – a far more negative picture emerged. That poll sought responses to the statement: “AUKUS submarines are not worth the cost for Australian taxpayers”.
In the 2026 version of this USC poll “39% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that AUKUS submarines were ‘not worth the cost for Australian taxpayers’”, with only 24% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
As the Crikey website has pointed out, “juxtaposing Lowy’s figures with those from the USC tells us something important: mention the cost, and public support for the AUKUS pact drops noticeably.” Quite reasonably Crikey then asked about what happens when not only the word “ cost” but an actual dollar amount is put into the poll question ?
Well, in April 2023, Lowy asked a separate question that specifically addressed the cost of AUKUS, asking: “Over the next 30 years, the total cost of the program is estimated to be between $268 billion and $368 billion. Do you think it’s worth paying this cost for the additional capability nuclear-powered submarines provide, or not?”
Only 27% of respondents thought it was worth the cost, 47% thought it was not, and 27% said they didn’t know. This tells you something else important: the more transparent you are about the cost, the lower the support. Curiously, Lowy has not repeated the 2023 question that specifies the dollar amount.
So far, New Zealanders have been given little or no explanation by either National or Labour as to why buying frigates should be a government spending priority. Given the Aussie polling evidence, it is not surprising that our politicians are not framing next year’s frigates purchase in terms of value for money. ( It wouldn’t stand up to any serious cost/benefit analysis).
Instead, the purchase has been framed solely in defence/security terms as the inevitable ticket price of our entry into the traditional defence club. Yet in reality, that old alliance no longer exists. Since Donald Trump became President, every other country has found that their defence relationship with the United States has become a one way street.
New Zealand should be seriously questioning whether we can afford to pay the toll. Because these billions we are planning to waste on frigates will generate no added security, and plenty of added risks – while denying us the ability to fund the social services that we need far more urgently.