Line of Defence - Summer 2019/20 by Defsec New Zealand

Line of Defence Issue 14 â&#x20AC;˘ Summer 2019

New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Defence and National Security Magazine

Winners of Defence Industry and Employer Support Awards Interview: Soft defences and managed retreat against climate change

Capability questions for the next government Advancing Pacific Partnerships 2019: Off the Pacific deep end?

www.defsec.net.nz Cover image courtesy New Zealand Defence Force

MQ-9B

VERSATILE ACROSS ALL ENVIRONMENTS MQ-9B UAS provides persistent C4ISREW support for military and civil operations. Providing over 40 hours of endurance, MQ-9B long-range UAS supports military, security and disaster response across land and maritime environments.

Leading The Situational Awareness Revolution

Thank you to all our supporters for

20 YEARS

of deployment

1999 - 2019

E X P E R I E N C E I S T H E B E ST P R OT EC T I O N

CONTENTS Editor’s Note

Welcome to the Summer 2019/20 issue of Line of Defence Magazine – our 14th edition! It’s been an eventful year for New Zealand’s Defence and National Security sector, with a range of challenges faced and achievements notched up. NZDF, law enforcement and emergency services personnel have responded to events as tragic and diverse as the Christchurch mosque shootings, the Nelson Fires, the White Island Whakaari eruption, and the Samoan measles epidemic. Government has delivered the P3 and C-130 replacement decisions, taken delivery of HMNZS Manawanui, and released several key Defence policy documents. Throughout 2019, Line of Defence has strived to deliver high-quality, relevant commentary and analysis on a range of issues, providing a curated platform for authoritative voices in the sector, and highlighting market developments. We are literally unable to do this without the support of our sponsoring partners, and thus I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our 2019 key sponsors GA-ASI and Leonardo, and sponsors Embraer, Loop Technologies, Tactical Solutions, Supacat and Olympus. If your organisation would like to know more about becoming a sponsoring partner of New Zealand’s leading Defence and National Security magazine, please get in touch. I’d also like to thank our editorial partners and supporters, including the New Zealand Defence Industry Association, Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies, the office of the Minister of Defence, the office of the Opposition Spokesperson for Defence, and the New Zealand Defence Force, among a long list of others. My thanks also to the members of the magazine’s Editorial Advisory Board, and particularly to editor-at-large Dr Peter Greener. In this issue of Line of Defence, we cover the Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support for 2019 and showcase several of the winning suppliers and employers. Expert commentator Dr Wayne Mapp looks to the past in order to explore the maritime acquisition landscape of the future, focusing on the Offshore Patrol Vessel and Frigate replacement decisions facing the next government. In international Security, Professor of Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington Robert Ayson argues that the recent Advancing Pacific Partnerships 2019 defence assessment gives too much away to great power balancing, writes, and that this isn’t necessarily in New Zealand’s interests. With the cricket season upon us, Chris Kumeroa, Managing Director of Global Risk Consulting, draws from years of security experience in Pakistan and the Middle East to risk assess the potential for an NZ Cricket return to Pakistan. In Homeland Security, Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University Wellington’s Climate Change Research Institute Dr Judy Lawrence says that greater central government direction is needed on climate change adaptation. Managing Director at Security Risk Management David Horsburgh explores the legal and ethical issues around the use of facial recognition – a technology New Zealand still appears to be making its mind up about. Lots more inside! Season’s Greetings and best wishes for a happy and safe festive season. Nicholas Dynon Auckland

CONTACT DETAILS Chief Editor: Nicholas Dynon M: +64 (0)22 366 3691 E: nick@defsec.net.nz

Publisher: Craig Flint T: +64 (07) 868 2703 E: craig@defsec.net.nz

Postal and delivery address 27 West Cresent Te Puru 3575, Thames RD5, New Zealand

www.linkedin.com/company/ defsec-media-limited www.facebook.com/defsecmedia/ www.twitter.com/DefsecNZ

CONTRIBUTORS & INTERVIEWEES

Dr Peter Greener Hon Mark Mitchell Hon Ron Mark Jennie Vickers Andrew Ford Jeff Pike Hon Dr Wayne Mapp QSO Daniel Riordan-Edmonds Nicholas Dynon Tim Cummins Dr Judy Lawrence David Horsburgh CPP PSP PCI Prof Robert Ayson Dr Anita Abbott Gary Morrison Chris Kumeroa LTCOL (Ret) Simon Ewing-Jarvie

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Dr Peter Greener Dr Bridgette-Sullivan Taylor Dr John Battersby Debbie Howarth Jennie Vickers Hon Dr Wayne Mapp QSO Ruth Currie DSD

Prof Rouben Azizian Dr Reuben Steff Paul Howard John Deal Douglas Pauling John Campbell MNZM Pat Cullen

UPCOMING ISSUE

Autumn - March Main themes: Maritime domain and Border Security Related events: Border Security 2020 Conference Copy Deadline: 20th February 2019 Publication: 1st March 2019

ASSOCIATION

Line of Defence

ISSN 2463-5774 (Print) • ISSN 2463-6258 (Online)

DEFENCE

HOMELAND SECURITY

Winners of Defence Industry and Employer Support Awards announced

Private security and the privatisation of public space

Digital engagement with veterans recognised

Interview: Soft defences and managed retreat against climate change

The right equipment in a timely manner

Face-off between surveillance and privacy

From Norway with innovation

Special Awards recognise outstanding contributions

The battlefield advantages of switching to electric

P-8A Poseidon base works commence

New Zealand open for business at Pacific 2019

Defence minister commits to rebuilding reserve force

New Zealand’s space economy worth $1.69 billion

Capability questions for the next government

Has Defence gone off the Pacific deep end?

Speech: Minister launches Advancing Pacific Partnerships

The Asia-Pacific Security Innovation Summit 2020

Defence capability investment and the role of industry

She’ll be right: Security AWOL at Defence event

On Tour: When international cricket meets international risk

Value destruction or value for money

NZDIA Chair sets out goals for year ahead

A wrap up of 2019 and a big thank you to our overseas personnel

ADF Selects GA-ASI’s MQ-9B for Project Air 7003

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

REVIEWS & EVENTS For a list of upcoming events visit www.defsec.net.nz

Defsec Media Limited publishes Line of Defence, FireNZ Magazine and New Zealand Security Magazine premier publications covering industry sectors that help keep Kiwis safe. Find us online www.defsec.net.nz Copyright: No article or part thereof may be reproduced without prior consent of the publisher. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is given in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate. However, neither the publishers nor any person involved in the preparation of this publication accept any form of liability whatsoever for its contents including advertisements, editorials, opinions, advice or information or for any consequences from its use.

Line of Defence

DEFENCE

Winners of Defence Industry and Employer Support Awards announced The Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support for 2019 were presented at Parliament on the evening of 25 November, recognising outstanding suppliers and employers supporting Defence. This year saw the 2019 Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence to Industry presented in conjunction with the New Zealand Defence Employer Support Council Awards of Excellence. “Hosting the awards in Parliament is recognition of the important role played by Defence industry in ensuring the New Zealand Defence Force is equipped, trained and supported to do the job New Zealanders expect it to do, often under very difficult conditions and at short notice,” stated Defence Minister Ron Mark in a media statement. “The partnership this investment creates with defence industry is deep and wide-ranging, reflected in the winners for this year’s Awards,” the minister said. “In working with the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force to achieve this, Defence industry also invests in our communities creating jobs, generating revenue and driving innovation, including in the regions. Also recognised were those companies which have demonstrated excellence in supporting their employees’ contribution to New Zealand’s national defence and community wellbeing as members of the New Zealand Reserves and Cadet Forces. “Without that support our Reserves could not train and our cadet forces would cease being part of our communities.” Industry excellence was also recognised for those working with the Defence Force to help young people turn their lives around through the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) programme. “The LSV programme gives trainees a sense of purpose, discipline and motivation. However, it is through meaningful employment as graduates that lives are truly transformed,” said the minister. “This year’s winner of the LSV Employer Recognition Award has helped turn around many lives.” “I congratulate the nominees and finalists who through their excellence and service have earned the respect of those who put them forward for an award,” he said. Awards of Excellence for Industry The Awards of Excellence to Industry were established by the New Zealand Defence Industry Advisory Council 6

(NZDIAC) in 1998 to highlight and reward the contribution made by industry to Defence. Award winners – who are profiled in separate articles in this issue of Line of Defence – include: • Category 1: the provision of a service to Defence less than $15 million: Silverstripe • Category 2: the provision of a product to Defence less than $15 million: EPE Trusted to Protect Ltd • Category 3: the provision of a product or service to Defence in excess of $15 million: Østenjø Rederi • Special Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Sector: Kenny Didham • Special Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Sector: Simon Manning Finalists in each award category included: Category 1 Te Mau Aroha Inc for full immersion level translation services provided for Army, Navy and Air Force recruitment information into Te Reo Maori, which provided access for NZDF Recruitment staff into full immersion schools. CAE and Beca for providing engineering excellence in running, maintaining and supporting the SH-2G(I) Seasprite Helicopter Full Mission Flight Simulator and six part task trainers. Category 2 Marops for delivering a training platform for Pilots and Air Warfare officers in the King Air 350, along with a groundbased training system. Meggitt Training Systems, suppliers of the simulation training system for the NZDF’s new MARS-L, for supplying a product that was indistinguishable from the MARS-L. Category 3 TSA, LT McGuinness, Planet Design and Kensington Swan were finalists for their work on the Future HQ Project that delivered a new HQ for Defence, including design, project management, build and legal oversight of the project – described as “an outstanding example of partnership and risk sharing to deliver a great result.” Line of Defence

Awards night. Image: DESC/LinkedIn.

Awards of Excellence for Employer Support Appointed by the Minister of Defence yet independent of the NZDF, the mission of the Defence Employer Support Council (DESC) is “to increase the effectiveness of the New Zealand Defence Force through engagement with organisations in the economy and wider business community.” Formerly known as the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council, DESC was established in 2006 with the aims of: (i) promoting service within the reserve forces; (ii) providing advice to the Minister of Defence; and (iii) supporting good relations between reservists, cadet force officers and their civilian employers. Its role has since expanded to support a wider range of Defence people in civilian employment. The DESC Awards of Excellence winners for 2019 included: Reservist of the Year Awarded to SGT Timothy Burke, B Company, 2/4 RNZIR, for his selfless and consistent commitment to go above and beyond for the NZDF and the wider community. The NZDF Reservist of the Year award recognises a Member of the NZDF in a given year who most exemplifies the Defence Force values of Courage, Commitment, Comradeship, and Integrity in their service as a Reservist. Two other finalists for this Award were CPL Philip Newman, 38 Combat Service Support Company, NZ Army Line of Defence

Logistic Regiment, and SQNLDR Matt Alcock, Central Flying School RNZAF Base Ohakea. Reservist Employer of the Year Talley’s Group, in recognition of the company’s commendable support and encouragement to their employee LMTO B Gallagher, HMNZS Pegasus. New Zealand Cadet Forces Employer of the Year Pringle Beleski and Associates, specialists in high voltage engineering, nominated by Cadet Forces FLTLT Tom Wech for their support and active encouragement of him in his work with the Cadet Forces. 2019 Individual Contribution to the LSVs Awarded to Christine Fernyhough, nominated by the Youth Development Unit (South) in recognition of her immense generosity, commitment, energy and involvement with the LSV Programme and YDU over time. 2019 Employer Contribution to the LSVs Fulton Hogan Ltd, nominated by the Ministry of Social Development LSV Coordinators (South) for their wideranging support and opportunities for employment, training and mentoring that they’ve provided to graduates since 2014, including organising industry training to assist with employment. 7

DEFENCE Digital engagement with veterans recognised Winner of Category 1 “Provision of a Service to Defence less than $15 million” at the 2019 Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support, Silverstripe dug deep for Veterans Affairs. A New Zealand-based company specialising in designing and developing customer-focused IT services, Silverstripe partnered with Veterans’ Affairs to re-design and modernise the NZDF’s engagement with the Veterans’ community . The result: a new userfriendly website featuring an eligibility tool that has achieved a 94 percent satisfaction rating from users. “We’re proud to announce that Silverstripe has been awarded an Award of Excellence to Industry for the provision of a service to Defence through our work on the Veterans’ Affairs website!” shouted the Silverstripe LinkedIn account immediately after the win. “The project was the cornerstone of our new approach to communicating with the veteran community, said Matthew Dyson of Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand. “We wanted a single place that we could direct people to, where they could find out if they’re eligible, and if so how we can help.” According to Pete Lister, Head of Client Strategy & Delivery at Silverstripe, the project was more than just about building a website. “It was actually [about helping Veterans’ Affairs] understand the users, so that it was something that was going to be valuable for people when they actually use it.” “Veterans gave us some requirements up front for the project, and when we looked at their requirements we decided that we should actually dig a bit deeper into that to try and understand what they wanted to 8

Silverstripe at the awards. Image: Silverstripe/LinkedIn

achieve and why they wanted to achieve it,” he said. “The last thing we wanted to do was to build a website that doesn’t work for Veterans’ Affairs or for the users or for the veterans around the country, so it was really important for us to make sure we understood that and to challenge Veterans Affairs on that as part of the process.” “We liked Silverstripe’s approach,” said Mr Dyson. “It was honest, and they genuinely wanted to understand what we were trying to achieve as opposed to just selling us a product. The fact that they could come back to us and say actually you need to better understand

what your users want and what the best way to meet their need is. That’s what won us over with Silverstripe. “Our website is now the ore place that we direct people to; it’s our main communication channel to interact with all veterans, check your eligibility in particular. So it’s an interactive tool; it only takes a couple of minutes, and it helps veterans understand if they can get support from us and if so what sort of support. According to Mr Dyson, Veterans’ Affairs has recorded a 270 percent increase in people using the website’s ‘Check Your Eligibility’ tool. “It’s exactly what we’ve been after.” Line of Defence

The right equipment in a timely manner Winner of Category 2 “Provision of a product to Defence less than $15 million” at the 2019 Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support, EPE shines as a trusted Defence partner. Australian company EPE Trusted to Protect Ltd has boosted its New Zealand presence to supply and support counter-explosive hazard equipment and training to Defence, partnering with the NZDF on its counterexplosive hazards and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear disposal teams. “CEH Project is to enable an expeditionary bomb disposal capability for both Army and Navy, explained LTCOL Adam Modd from NZDF Capability Branch. “Our personnel are required to go into harm’s way to protect people and property, and in doing so we’re trying to give them the best protection we can for them to achieve their mission. “We’re talking about explosive chemical detectors bomb disposal suits… robots, drones and a myriad of mitigation and neutralisation systems,” he said. “Working with a Prime Vendor such as EPE has allowed us to buy the right equipment in a timely manner and get it into service to meet the project timelines.” Ministry of Defence, CEH Project Manager Paula Brasovan commented that EPE was nominated because of their professionalism, “they’ve gone the extra mile to be able to provide us with the information that we required at a time when we weren’t sure who would be awarded the contracts.” According to EPE New Zealand Business Development Manager Andy Cross, the MoD Project Team working with EPE as prime vendor, “was able to deliver a capability that is scalable, Line of Defence

interoperable, compatible with inservice equipment, with contemporary cutting edge technology, while heading off obsolescence all within a Rapid Procurement.” Having supported the NZDF for over ten years from across the Tasman, this Project gave EPE the opportunity to establish infrastructure in New Zealand with an office with a through-life support workshop close to Trentham Military Base. EPE New Zealand now employs four people with depth in the EPE facility in Brisbane and its global network of channel partners. According to Andy Cross, EPE’s New Zealand Business Development

Manager, the key was developing a trusted partner relationship with Defence. “It was really getting ourselves into a position with the customer where we could be trusted and show our integrity and the fact that we did have a good portfolio to offer to get us into a position of prime vendor which is where we are operating from today,” he said. “Some of the challenges are finding the right equipment. We do pride ourselves in trying to find the best equipment around the world. The NZDF understand that. They know what other ‘five eyes’ countries are using.” 9

DEFENCE

From Norway with innovation Winner of Category 3 “Provision of a product or service to Defence in excess of $15 million” at the 2019 Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support, Østensjø Rederi impressed with up-front professionalism. Norway-based Østensjø Rederi (ØR), the former owner of the Royal New Zealand Navy’s new dive and hydrographic vessel HMNZS Manawanui in 2019, oversaw the first phase of modifications to adapt the ship for the Navy’s use, provided initial crew training and delivered the vessel to New Zealand. Working to a tight delivery schedule, they delivered within budget and above expectations. Prior to delivery, the then Edda Fonn was converted by ØR to RNZN specifications. The vessel was renamed HMNZS Manawanui and commissioned into the Navy by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in an event at Devonport Naval Base in Auckland in June. “It was a unique project because it was purchasing a second-hand vessel from the commercial market, commented Frank Dyer of the Ministry of Defence. “Normally when we purchase a used asset it’s off another military.”

According to Carl Johan Amundsen, Chief Project Officer at ØR, “the conversion of the vessel mainly consisted of installation of a completely new diving system and having it all classed, a new ROV with launch and recovery system, new underwater survey equipment and having it well integrated and built into the vessel.” “We put onboard the vessel a training crew – a couple of guys were doing a training, made a training programme and conducted such a programme together with the Navy crew all the way from Europe to New Zealand. “It’s a fairly complicated vessel, and they were unfamiliar with how such a vessel was operating and how it was equipped. So, I actually do believe it was a huge benefit for them,” he said. The idea was [that] for us to get up and get alongside the people who had been operating this ship for the 15 years prior is incredibly worthwhile to understand how the ship operates,

how she handles.,” explained LTCMDR Andy Mahoney, RNZN. “You can’t put a price on being able to be alongside someone who fully understands the ship and its systems and learn from their experience.” “From our perspective it was a project that provided collaborative outcomes that resulted in a gaingain relationship, delivering a value for money outcome; engagement that led to significant innovations in product and technologies to optimise the outcome; and a relationship which was conducted with openness and co-operation, engendering the development of mutual trust, respect and confidence”, said MoD’s Acquisition Lead Keith Gilchrist, according to an ØR media release. “I think it was that Norwegian way where they were upfront, they were honest, were highly professional and did a lot of things that were over and above what were expected,” commented Mr Dyer.

The Edda Fonn prior to her transformation into HMNZS Manawanui.

Line of Defence

Special Awards recognise outstanding contributions Alongside the 2019 Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence for Industry and Employer Support’s three industry award categories, Special Awards were presented to two individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the Sector. Supporting our youth Recently retired from Fulton Hogan, Kenny Didham has been recognised for his leadership in the company becoming a major employer of Limited Service Volunteers (LSV) and Youth Development Unit graduates. “Kenny, I’ve known him for about three years and he’s been engaged with the NZDF for probably about five years,” said Chief of Navy RADM David Proctor. “He’s a typical Kiwi bloke. He just gets on and gets stuff done. He’s humble and he doesn’t seek any recognition; he’ll be mortified that I’m doing this.”

Chief of Navy RADM Proctor

Line of Defence

“The areas in which he’s worked with us are initially the Youth Development Unit and the Limited Service Volunteer scheme where he assists and he remains engaged on behalf of his company. “He works alongside patron Willie Apiata VC and they encourage those youth to maximise the opportunities that the course provides to them, and then he assists them post-course to remain on-track while they’re working.” According to RADM Proctor, Mr Didham facilitated Fulton Hogan’s support of the Invictus Games and the NZDF and ex-NZDF athletes they have sponsored over the past three years. The company, described as a welcoming workplace for NZDF servicemen and women transitioning out of the Defence Force, has recently pledged sponsorship for a further three years. “It’s Kenny who has facilitated that relationship, which has benefitted Fulton Hogan, benefitted New Zealand generally, and most definitely benefitted the veterans and currently serving folk who have suffered illness or injury as a result of their service, and most importantly their families,” said RADM Proctor. “That’s what Kenny does.” Bringing them home Simon Manning of Harbour City Funeral Home advised and coordinated with several dozen funeral directors across New Zealand to ensure the success of the NZDF-conducted disinterment, repatriation, and reinterment of the remains of 35 Service personnel and dependents from multiple overseas resting placings

between July 2017 and December 2018. According to his award citation, Mr Manning’s professionalism, integrity, and commitment made a long-term and significant contribution to enhancing the trust of the New Zealand community in the NZDF. “Up until 1955, if you were killed or died at war, you were buried where you fell,” commented Te Auraki (The Return) project manager GPCAPT Carl Nixon. “From 1955, it was possible to be repatriated back to New Zealand, but many families were not given that opportunity by the government. Project Te Auraki was about repatriating those people back to New Zealand at their family’s wishes.” The project involved the repatriation of 34 Service personnel and one child from nine cemeteries in six countries, with Mr Manning approaching the NZDF in late 2017 offering to coordinate the repatriation and reinternment of the remains. “Simon’s key strength was his professional approach, his attention to detail and his ability to translate New Zealand Defence Force protocols of tikanga to what the families wanted as well, and translate that to the funeral directors who had to do that work across New Zealand.” “Simon became really part of our project team. He deployed up to Fiji with us so that he could learn the process from the start, and then he engaged with the families… He also engaged with our forensic team, with our drill sergeants, with all the funeral directors around New Zealand; he was easy to get on with and he made the whole process so simple for us.” 11

DEFENCE

The battlefield advantages of switching to electric Electric initiatives have become increasingly topical in civilian life with the proliferation of smart home energy, electric cars and clean public transport. Few of these initiatives have so far carried over into the battlefield but, as IFS’ Jeff Pike explains, they hold potential benefits. When walking the floor at DSEI 2019 this year, I was struck by the volume of conversation around battlefield electrification—perhaps not unexpected with environmental factors one of the dominating news items of 2019. When the topic is first mentioned it perhaps conjures unrealistic visions of fully electrified ships, tanks and aircraft, built as now but without combustion engines, operating in combat environments. But the same challenges of civil electrification of vehicles apply in terms of limited range, cost, weight and the fact battery technology has been slow in its evolution and hasn’t kept up with aspirations. So, we are probably at least ten years or more away from this eventuality. The more realisable and often overlooked near benefit of electrification comes with the strategic change to battlefield support assets and unmanned vehicles, coupled with a focus on logistics support and the military supply chain.

Fossil fuel challenge Military conflicts are becoming increasingly reliant on logistics to underpin the huge undertakings of maintenance and shipping personnel, equipment and supporting resources to often remote, difficult to reach locations and then trying to sustain them. An effective logistics strategy can be the difference between the success and failure of an entire military campaign and fossil fuels play a key role here—the US DoD, for example, is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. For every tank there are three tankers chasing it. The US Army can use as much as 600,000 gallons of fuel a day to run an armoured division. For context, in the Afghanistan war, Pentagon officials told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel cost the military about $400 by the time it arrived in the remote locations where U.S. troops were operating.

All this ‘logistics’ comes with challenges. Look at the successful modern conflicts of recent times—all the victorious sides had air superiority. Gaining this superiority comes at a cost—air bases require a huge logistics footprint which opens up attack vulnerabilities. But, without air superiority the logistics footprint is a massive vulnerability. Consider fuel alone. Simply transporting fossil fuel to the forward operating base requires a huge convoy of military vehicles. Moreover, fuel stored in remote bases is housed in vast flexi-tanks, difficult to hide and incredibly vulnerable to aerial attack. Then the convoy and broader logistics support machine itself needs security, feeding, accommodation and support, thus perpetuating the need for more personnel who, in turn, need supporting themselves. All this comes at a human cost. US Army Environmental Policy Institute figures indicate the casualty factor for fuel resupplies in Afghanistan was 0.042, which is 0.042 casualties for every fuel-related resupply convoy—or almost one casualty for every 24 fuel resupply convoys. When you consider the number of U.S.-only fuel convoys required in Iraq in FY2007 was 5,133, the casualty count is quite alarming. Reducing the logistics footprint Switching to electric could deliver strategic battlefield advantages— limiting maintenance overhead and more importantly offering a direct benefit to saving lives. QinetiQ, a global organisation of scientists and engineers at the forefront of research and commentary on the use Line of Defence

of electric propulsion in the defence, security and aerospace sectors, has produced in-depth research on the state of military electrification. But the benefits of electrification are far more than ‘going green’—they can deliver huge logistical advantages in both the near and long term. Short term Battery life becomes a quickly limiting factor if we look at battlefield electrification in terms of entire vehicles. In the short term, it is far more likely we will see—and are starting to see—point electrification of support and secondary systems as the initial military focus. Forward operating bases consume vast volumes of electricity, often 1000s of kWh a day. This demand is currently met almost entirely by generators fuelled with diesel, which brings forward the supply chain concerns around efficiency and safety. Take one use case from the US Army in Afghanistan, called “Operation Nimroz.” The base installation mandated 13 generators, but many were running well below capacity. The Army changed to two generators and two “hybrid sites” which included a trailer with a generator, battery pack and solar panel, to provide power for very specific missions. Total fuel savings for the project came to about 1,600 gallons a week and 30-man hours per week were saved by not needing to refuel, with a further 20 hours of maintenance saved per week. This meant engineers could focus their time and efforts on more pressing maintenance concerns. Longer term Research from IDTechEx shows that electric vehicles for military, security and police duty will make up 15 percent of the total market in 2022. The bulk of this demand has been for air (UAVs) and is now for military vehicles on land; the water and airborne applications alone will each become businesses of well over one billion dollars yearly within the decade. The US Army has set out a ten-year goal for full electrification of its assets and equipment—witness its NextGen Combat Vehicle programme, a prototyping effort underway at the Army Tank Automotive Research, Line of Defence

Development and Engineering Center which promises two prototype tanks by 2022. There is a considerably reduced logistics footprint associated with these electrified assets. Electric vehicles in theory should weigh significantly less, are significantly less mechanically complex, use easily routed cables to deliver 4-wheel power (not vulnerable drive shafts), are simpler to maintain, run on renewable energy and have much lower failure rates. Combine this with the switch toward unmanned sea, land and air vehicles (UVs) in many operational functions and there is a distinct electrification opportunity that large, protected man-limited vehicles cannot realise. Most are genuine cases for realistic electrification. So, the already complex, multilayered, multi-tiered, support model across military operations and the broad portfolio of equipment and inventory types is about to broaden further and increase in complexity. Defence and in-service support organisations need to prepare for these eventualities in both the short and long term. There are significant electric advantages—but for these benefits to be realised now and into the future, it requires systematic change of supply chain and logistics processes, control of transformation through stages of implementation and the inherent ability to cope with variable equipment types. Supporting a solar panel farm in a deployed base is not

the same as supporting the fossil fuel generator that preceded it, even if the maintenance objectives are the same. As such, it’s key that military forces rely on enterprise asset management solutions with built-in adaptability for new assets and logistics principles— from procurement of the asset, right through to frontline maintenance and support. Nobody wants the electrification of the battlefield to become an IS project overhead, so choose wisely! Realisable now As the QinetiQ report clearly explains, the success or failure of electrical technologies in defence will depend on the quality of the infrastructure behind them—not just charging points but the multi-facetted supply chain, the IS processes and equipment visibility and much more. But we’re probably some years from effective electrification of major equipment or weapon systems—there are some major engineering challenges to overcome and battery technology needs to have an evolutionary moment. Nevertheless, electrification of support, certainly secondary support, can deliver strategic operational advantages to any modern fighting force and reduce the fossil fuel supply hydra! With the move of operational delivery toward unmanned capabilities, electrification is hitting the battlefield and things are changing now—and will continue to do so for good strategic reasons. 13

DEFENCE

P-8A Poseidon base works commence Minister of Defence Ron Mark turned the first sod of earth on the infrastructure works for the new P-8A Poseidon fleet at RNZAF Base Ohakea on 29 November.

Ron Mark with Chief of Air Force Air Vice Marshal Andrew Clark and Secretary of Defence Andrew Bridgman turning the first sod at RNZAF Base Ohakea for the new P-8A Poseidon fleet.

“The Coalition Government’s investment in Minister of Defence Ron Mark turned the first sod of earth on the infrastructure works for the new P-8A Poseidon fleet at RNZAF Base Ohakea on 29 November will ensure the Royal New Zealand Air Force can manage, maintain and task the new fleet efficiently ahead of the first aircraft’s arrival in 2023,” said Ron Mark. “The purchase by the Coalition Government of these aircraft to replace the aging 1960s-era P-3K2 Orions demonstrated a strong commitment to the security of New Zealand, and reinforced our foreign 14

policy interests through enabling stronger defence contributions to Pacific and global security.” “The Coalition Government will make the once in a generation decisions required, after years of under-investment leading to aging equipment and infrastructure,” says Mr Mark. “Basing the P-8A fleet at Ohakea will be a boost for the economy and vitality of Manawatu and the surrounding region through the construction phase, and over the long term as around 270 members of the Air Force’s 5 Squadron bring their families to the area,”

“The works I am starting today will feed into the region in the form of engagement of local services, manufacturing, equipment and materials industries. At its peak the construction project will be employing around 300 people, many of whom will be recruited from the local area,” said Mr Mark. The project’s infrastructure includes crew and maintenance simulators, an operations centre and hangar, warehousing and maintenance facilities. There will be two phases of work. The first stage, commencing 29 November, was awarded to Fulton Hogan and involves site preparation, roads, utilities and runway aprons, at a cost of $64.5 million. The second phase, focused on building construction, will be subject to a separate procurement process, with work expected to start in the second quarter of 2020. The total cost across both phases is estimated to be over $200 million. All infrastructure work is expected to be finished by early 2022. In July 2018 the Coalition Government announced the decision to buy the fleet of four P-8A aircraft at an overall cost of $2.346 billion. This follows the closing of a request for tender process on 12 September for the three-year construction and equipment fit out phase awarded to Fulton Hogan. “This is an opportunity for New Zealand industry to be part of delivering this once in a generation project, and offers development opportunities at a regional level,” Mr Mark said in August.

Line of Defence

New Zealand open for business at Pacific 2019 With $200 billion allocated for new capabilities, the Australian defence upgrade programme presents significant opportunity for New Zealand companies with niche, innovative technologies and solutions, says NZTE. As many of you will know the annual Pacific International Maritime Exposition (Pacific 2019) was held in Sydney held in the International Convention Centre in Sydney from Tuesday 8 to Thursday 10 October 2019. Pacific 2019 is the biennial and is billed as the most significant international naval exhibition of its kind in the region. It presents an opportunity for commercial maritime and naval defence industries to promote their capabilities to decision-makers from around the world. It’s a dynamic and energetic time for the defence industry in Australia with the defence upgrade programme well underway. The major defence spend has seen $200 billion allocated for new frigates, submarines, military vehicles, aircraft and many other defence assets. Each dollar of acquisition means $3-4 of sustainment (maintenance and operations) over the course of the life of the platform, presenting an opportunity to secure ongoing work that can be the basis of a sustainable business footprint in Australia. The presents a significant opportunity for New Zealand companies, because not only is our content invited it is needed to deliver the investment. Under Australian defence procurement rules, Prime contractors must maximise the use of the Australian and New Zealand industry as part of their tendering. New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (NZTE) hosted a New Zealand Pavilion, in partnership with the New Zealand Defence Industry Association, New Zealand Defence Force and Ministry of Defence. Six innovative New Zealand companies invested in a presence on the stand – Hamilton Jet, CZone, DiverDcad, SPIND, Cirrus Line of Defence

Materials Science, Shamrock Industries and Navicom Dynamics – and several other Kiwi firms came by while they visited the show including Boxfish Research. The pavilion was in a great spot with high footfall throughout the show, and NZTE organised meetings and visits from some of the major defence Prime contractors. On the Thursday of the exhibition, a New Zealand Breakfast was held co-hosted by New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Australia, Dame Annette King and New Zealand Chief of the Navy, Rear Admiral David Proctor. Australian Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Michael Noonan attended, demonstrating the longstanding and tight bonds between New Zealand and our key ally Australia. Graeme Solloway, Defence Programme Leader at NZTE said the activity is part of an ongoing programme that NZTE is running to help New Zealand exporters make the most of the opportunity in Australia. “By supporting New Zealand companies to engage in Australia, we build capacity that will also support

the needs of New Zealand’s Defence Force, to provide technology and sustain operations,” he said. “To maximise this opportunity for New Zealand, we will be working with companies that have niche, innovative technologies and solutions, such as robotics, 3D printing, additive manufacturing, internet-ofthings, cyber-security, electronic and metallurgical sciences and fabrication technologies. “Working in the Australian defence market offers long-term, scalable opportunities that fund growth in companies and jobs in regions, where many of our specialised manufacturing, technology and services companies are based,’ said Solloway. Working in defence markets requires patience, tenacity and a capability to work with a demanding buyer. The rewards can be significant, with Primes especially interested in long-term partnerships to embed innovation into their global supply chains. But lead times are long, and projects may be cyclical. NZTE will be offering its capability workshops to identified customers in its portfolio from early next year. 15

DEFENCE

Defence minister commits to rebuilding reserve force To deliver the people-power needed to advance the Pacific Reset, writes LTCOL (Ret) Dr Simon Ewing-Jarvie, a strong, well-resourced, operationally focused and resilient Reserve Force is key. Defence Minister Hon Ron Mark launched “Advancing Pacific Partnerships: A Framework for Defence’s Approach to the Pacific” on 29 October at Te Papa in Wellington. This is the latest in a series of Defence Assessments conducted by the Ministry of Defence and designed to provide more detail around the Government’s Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018. During questioning, I asked the Minister what role he saw for an enhanced and re-invigorated Reserve Force in delivering what is undoubtedly an ambitious plan to provide the same level of defence priority in the Pacific as in New Zealand. In answering, he acknowledged that the Reserve Force was run down to unacceptably low levels and that it was vital to desired capabilities, both now and in the future. In particular, he noted that without Reserves, the NZDF could not have undertaken operations on the scale of East Timor, Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Middle East and Afghanistan.

LTCOL (Ret) Dr Simon Ewing-Jarvie

The Minister went on to say that the current situation was unacceptable to him and that he had already had several conversations with the Chief of Defence Force, Air Marshal Kevin Short, about reversing the decline of the Reserves. He encouraged continued follow-up on the topic and that we should see something soon. This is a welcome public commitment and one that really needs urgent follow-through. Numbers exiting service far exceed those being recruited. It’s important not to forget, however, that this Minister’s party campaigned in 2017 on items such as re-establishment of the air combat force and the creation of an armed Coastguard as a sub-service of the Navy. When asked about why those items didn’t appear in discussions beyond the election, Mr Mark shrugged and said with a smile “That’s politics.” Therein lies an important cautionary tale. Only actions count. In order to give effect to this commitment, things need to change right away – from recruiting to course cancellations and changing dates for activities that burn off previously supportive employers. However, the most important change is to make it impossible for the NZDF to ‘re-prioritise’ money tagged for the Reserve Force to shore up training budget deficits in the full-time force. One Defence official, who did not wish to be named, said that this ‘cashgrab’ was ongoing and really made little difference to the full-time force capability as all front line units are ‘hollow’ anyway (meaning they do not have anywhere near the personnel to fill out their established structures and

therefore no amount of training money will get them to the Directed Level of Capability). One way to offset and eventually stop this ‘cash-grab’ is to allocate supplementary estimates for Reserves now and ring-fence an enhanced vote for Reserve Forces in the next budget and beyond. Appoint a Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for overseeing the rebuilding of Reserve Forces and link that with the Pacific Leadership Development Programme announced in this paper. I wrote a five-part series on the Reserve Forces in 2018, including how to go about rebuilding it. The only thing that has changed in that time is that the situation has gotten worse. Advancing Pacific Partnerships is an excellent read and a useful tool for explaining our foreign affairs and defence intent. However, let’s not be naïve. The unrequited need for defence assistance in the Pacific – even without a major humanitarian disaster – far exceeds anything that New Zealand and Australia combined can deliver on. We need to start with the basics on this promise and, as the Minister stated in his speech, that is ‘He Tangata’ – people. An extra 1500 full-time soldiers by 2035 – assuming this isn’t an aspirational target like police recruits – is not even a drop in the bucket of need. Some truly lateral thinking is needed to deliver the people-power needed to advance the Pacific Reset. A strong, well-resourced, operationally focused and resilient Reserve Force is the cornerstone of the solution. This article was originally published in the blog www.unclas.com. Line of Defence

New Zealand’s space economy worth $1.69 billion A new report has found New Zealand’s space sector contributed $1.69 billion to the economy in the last financial year and employs 12,000 people, Minister for Economic Development Phil Twyford announced on 14 November. The report by Deloitte was commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and shows New Zealand has a globally unique and diverse ‘New Space’ economy that is driven almost entirely by the private sector. “The findings of this report show that New Zealand is extremely well-placed to increase its share in the NZ$647 billion global space economy,” Economic Development Minister Phil Twyford said. “The space economy’s $1.69 billion contribution in the 2018/19 financial year is significant for New Zealand and there is huge potential for us to grow our share”. “The development of New Zealand’s space economy hasn’t followed traditional paths and its diversity reflects our innovative spirit”. “Through Rocket Lab, we are home to the world’s leading small-launch provider, and we are attracting other leading international space companies, such as Silicon Valley start-up LeoLabs who have built their KiwiSpace Radar in Central Otago”. “There are good reasons why we are attracting global interest in our industry – we are adaptable, innovative and the Government is committed to supporting the growth of an industry that represents huge opportunities for New Zealand,” Mr Twyford said. The report’s key findings are that New Zealand’s space economy is ‘New Space’-driven, characterised by a mix of start-up and well-established entrepreneur-driven and privately-funded space companies. It also found that New Zealand has strong space manufacturing and space applications sub-sectors, and cutting-edge research and development capability within several universities across the country. New Zealand’s space economy draws on local as well as international talent, and has strong connections with the global space economy.

LeoLabs

Line of Defence

Rocket Labs

Report Highlights Direct contribution of the space economy to New Zealand GDP in 2018/19 was $897 million, representing a valueadded share of 51 per cent of total revenue. Indirect contribution of the space economy to the New Zealand economy in 2018/19 was $789 million. Space directly supports an estimated 5,000 full-time equivalent roles (FTEs). Total employment (including indirect effects) is 12,000 FTE jobs. The total estimated revenue of the space economy was $1.75 billion in 2018-19, representing 0.27 per cent of global space economy revenues. By sector, this revenue is broken down as follows: • 14 per cent – Space Manufacturing • 8.6 per cent – Space Operations • 57.5 per cent – Space Applications • 12.6 per cent – Ancillary Services • 6.8 per cent – Research and Development • 0.5 per cent – Government The New Zealand space economy largely consists of small, new businesses. The most commonly reported turnover range of an organisation in New Zealand’s space economy was $200,000 to less than $2 million. The most commonly reported fulltime equivalent (FTE) range was 1-19 employees. However, there are some well-established companies earning significant revenue. Survey data shows there are 14 companies earning more than $10 million per annum and 16 companies employing more than 200 employees. There were eight respondents that identified as being part of a large multinational organisation. 17

DEFENCE Capability questions for the next government Hon Dr Wayne Mapp looks to the past in order to explore the maritime acquisition landscape of the future, focusing on the Offshore Patrol Vessel and Frigate replacement decisions facing the next government. The first two years of the Coalition government have been a pleasant surprise for those interested in defence matters. They have a coherent defence story, particularly well set out in the 2019 Capability Plan, which builds on the work of the previous National government. They have been able to make the big multibillion-dollar procurement decisions, something that eluded the previous government. The Coalition government has even managed to gain some degree of acceptance from the Green Party about the direction of defence policy.

Dr Wayne Mapp QSO was New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Minister of Defence and Minister of Science and Innovation from 2008 to 2011 18

It is now time to look forward, particularly beyond 2020. No big defence decisions will be made in election year. They will all be carried forward to the next term of government, whoever that government might be. As I have said in a number of my previous articles, the next big decisions will be about naval capability. This might be thought to be mostly about the frigate replacement. In fact, it is broader than that. By 2030 many of the major platforms will need replacing. The multirole ship, the Canterbury will be over 20 years old. So will the two offshore patrol vessels, the Wellington and the Otago. These ships have had a hard life, and 20 years or so would seem to be a reasonable service life. The two ANZAC frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha will be over 30 years old. The frigates should make it to 2035 due to their current midlife upgrade, but they also have the longest procurement timeline. So, between 2020 and 2023, it could be expected the government will need to make the key naval procurement decisions. The past provides a guide. In the early 2000s the Clark government wanted to reorient naval capability. Project Protector was the result. The capability planning process took nearly two years. The Maritime Patrol Review commenced in June 2000 and was released in February 2001, followed by the ship specific Maritime Forces Review released in January 2002.

In July 2002 the government sought expressions of interest from shipbuilders. It took nearly another two years to April 2004 to select Tenix as the supplier. The multi role ship was delivered in 2008, though it had immediate problems. As Minister, I spent much of 2009 sorting out these problems, which resulted in an $86 million settlement in early 2010 with BAE Systems who had acquired Tenix. All the Project Protector ships were finally properly in service in 2010. Thus, a process to deliver quite modest ships took a full 10 years from initial planning to actual delivery into service. There is no reason to think it will be much different this time, although there is probably a clearer understanding of what maritime capability is required than there was twenty years ago. It is almost certain the Navy will press the government for more capable ships than the current Project Protector fleet. The tight financial constraint of $500 million for the whole of the Project Protector fleet meant that corners were cut. The government was warned about this at the time. It meant New Zealand got a oneoff multi role ship without a well deck, even though there were well proven designs with such capabilities available at the time at not much more cost. Experience has shown that the offshore patrol vessels should be larger to be able to effectively cope with the southern ocean. Line of Defence

HMNZS Canterbury

A new Project Protector programme will need to provide more capable ships. This will also make them more suitable for disaster relief as well as surveilling the seas around New Zealand, taking into account a certain amount of scientific capability to do climate change oceanographic work. The Canadian Harry DeWolf ships would meet the criteria. These are 6,000 tonne ships with a cost of $400 million per ship. A multi role ship with a well deck would cost $500 million. Overall it is a $1.3 billion programme, a similar scale cost to replacing the C130 Hercules fleet. It would be hard to imagine any political party currently in parliament opposing such a programme. It could be reasonably expected that a decision of this nature should be made in the term of parliament of 2020 to 2023, irrespective of who is in government. The other part of the naval procurement package is likely to be more challenging. This involves replacing the ANZAC frigates with frigates of similar capability. In my last article I forecast that the Line of Defence

Type 31 frigate would be an appropriate replacement for the ANZAC frigates. This is a slightly larger ship than the ANZAC ships, but basically has the same capability. The cost for two would be in the region of $2 billion. If the next government has the same composition as the current government, or is National led, then it could be expected to make the decision to acquire this class of ship. Within the current government, New Zealand First would be a strong advocate for frigates, and Labour would also see the logic, given New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defence relationships. The Green Party would not be enthusiastic but might see the frigate purchase as a part of an overall naval package that included the new Project Protector programme. However, if New Zealand First did not make it back into Parliament and the government was a Labour Green government, then a decision to acquire frigates could be quite a lot more difficult. In fact, it is likely that such a purchase could not be made. The alternative for such a government might be three DeWolf sized offshore patrol vessels instead of two.

Defence planners might see an option to defer the frigate decision to beyond 2023. A decision made between 2023 and 2026 would result in new ships being delivered in the early 2030s, still within the likely lifetime of the current ANZAC ships. Obviously, any such decision will be dependent on who the government is at the time. Irrespective of the frigate decision, it would be reasonable to expect that whoever is the government in the term of 2020 to 2023 will make the decisions on replacing the Project Protector vessels. Failure to do so will make it more difficult for New Zealand to fulfil its responsibilities in the South Pacific, from the Antarctic to the Equator, especially as the reality of climate change becomes more evident. It would raise questions about how seriously New Zealand takes its responsibilities in the South Pacific. The current government has shown an admirable ability to make the necessary decisions to modernise New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defence force. We can only hope that the government of 2020 to 2023 can do so as well. 19

DEFENCE Speech: Minister launches Advancing Pacific Partnerships Defence Minister Ron Mark launched the Advancing Pacific Partnerships 2019 Defence Assessment at Te Papa on 20 October, articulating an alignment of defence capability to the needs of the region. Aligning with the Coalition Government’s Pacific Reset, this Defence Assessment outlines how Defence will partner with New Zealand’s Pacific Island neighbours and invest in Pacific regional security architecture. In this extract from the launch speech the minister focuses on regional security architecture and optimising Defence’s capacity and capability to deliver in the Pacific: Last year, our Strategic Defence Policy Statement recognised that in an increasingly complex strategic environment in the Pacific, active engagement in support of regional security architecture will increase in importance. Advancing Pacific Partnerships underscores the importance of investing in Pacific regional security architecture. Transnational challenges require regional approaches, and regionalism elevates Pacific voices.

Defence Minister Ron Mark

Ehara taku toa I te toa taki tahi Engari he toa takitini [My strength is not that of an individual but that of a collective] We are guided by the Boe Declaration, a statement by the Pacific Islands Forum leaders that highlights the importance of collective action. It is our compass for Defence efforts to advance regional security. As I noted earlier, the Boe Declaration “reaffirms that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific.” New Zealand Defence has been proactive and responsive to this affirmation by Pacific leaders. For those of us in New Zealand and in the Pacific, the many varied manifestations of climate change are affecting communities today. Too often for our Pacific partners, the impacts on lives and livelihoods are severe. Last December, I released another Defence Assessment, titled The Climate Crisis: Defence readiness and responsibilities. It reinforces New Zealand’s view that climate change is one of the greatest security challenges of our time. Over time there will be an increased requirement for our Defence and other security forces to respond with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, more search and rescue missions. We have made capability investment decisions on this basis, something I will address more fully in a few moments.

This May, at the South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting, regional defence leaders unanimously supported recommendations for future work on defence, security, and climate change. I am proud of the strides that New Zealand Defence has made in this area, from elevating these issues in a range of international forums to advancing a South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting study focused on climate change and security in the Pacific; from creating new responsibilities in our Ministry, to co-hosting, together with the US Indo-Pacific Command, the Pacific Environmental Security Forum in Wellington in May. This is just the beginning of our efforts on the climate crisis with more commitments on the horizon, and the Pacific has New Zealand Defence’s commitment to be your faithful and constant partner in these efforts… Finally, New Zealand Defence is aiming to optimise our delivery of the Advancing Pacific Partnerships approach. A major way we are taking our Pacific priority forward is by increasing the Defence Force’s capability and capacity to deliver operations and other activities in the Pacific. This is at the heart of our ability to be a reliable and responsive partner. This requirement, this solemn obligation we have to our region, especially in the context of climate change, forms the foundation of the Force that will be delivered through the Defence Capability Plan 2019, which I announced in June. Line of Defence

Photo courtesy of New Zealand Defence Force

This capability plan comprises a range of investments critical to enhancing our ability to respond in the Pacific, including the introduction of a second, more capable sealift vessel. Since the Canterbury first deployed for humanitarian and disaster relief following the impact the 2009 earthquake and tsunami in Samoa, the ship has been a critical component of New Zealand Defence Force activities in the Pacific. In response to cyclone Pam in Vanuatu in 2015, over the course of 27 days the ship provided personnel, medical stores, construction materials, food and fresh water to local populations impacted by the cyclone. The Canterbury was also critical to recovery efforts following Cyclone Winston in Fiji. The importance of a strong sealift capability is inherent in the Pacific. A second amphibious vessel will more than double our capacity and effectiveness in this area. The Defence Capability Plan also calls for growing the size of the New Zealand Army by 1500 people, bringing the total to 6000 by the year 2035. Line of Defence

Increasing the size of the Army will provide for longer sustainment of operations, and a greater ability to contribute resources across our areas of responsibility. It is another way in which we will be better postured to deliver in partnership with Pacific countries. In addition, two of our Coalition Government’s recent, major capability decisions also have important bearing on our operations and activities in the Pacific. This includes the C-130 J-30 Super Hercules and the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. Our current C-130H Hercules are among the most Pacific-focused capabilities of the Defence Force, crucial to transporting New Zealand Defence Force people and equipment, as well as our partners, to operations and activities around the region. The Capability Plan provides for these aircraft to be replaced within the next five years. Government has announced the selection of the C-130 J-30 Super Hercules as the preferred option, ensuring that this capability is maintained for decades to come.

In addition, New Zealand will acquire four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to replace the ageing P-3K2 Orion fleet. The P-8A will bring enhanced capability to the roles performed by the Orions including search and rescue, disaster response, resource protection, and environmental and marine resource monitoring in New Zealand, the Pacific, and beyond. This capability will be complemented by an Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability. The Coalition Government’s Defence Capability Plan 2019 includes additional capabilities that will contribute to New Zealand’s maritime domain awareness, including Maritime Satellite Surveillance and Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial systems. Maritime security is fundamental to New Zealand’s national security and to our contributions to Pacific security. The above is an excerpt from the Minister’s speech. For the full speech visit https:// www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-launchadvancing-pacific-partnerships. 21

DEFENCE Defence capability investment and the role of industry In New Zealand there is a great story of industry working in partnership with Defence to deliver value to the community, the nation, and the world. We just need to get better at telling it, writes Minister of Defence Ron Mark.

Launched in June, the Defence Capability Plan 2019 set out the Coalition Government’s vision for the future Defence Force. The Plan was the outcome of a comprehensive review of the Defence procurement programme and the policies underpinning it. That review was signalled in the Coalition Agreement signed in October 2017. The end result is a government commitment to renew all of the Defence Force’s major capabilities, as well as regenerate the Defence Estate. While the Defence Capability Plan maintains the envelope of $20 billion in new investment out to 2030, it gives that investment a much sharper and human focus. It recognises the vital role the Defence Force plays in promoting the overall well-being and resilience of New Zealand, its communities and the environment. Harnessing the collective skills and energy of our people – Regular Force, Reserve Force, and civilians – starts from having a robust plan and a track record of delivery. Defence industry is a key part of that plan. I am very proud to say that our track record on implementing the 2019 Defence Capability Plan has included some of the biggest decisions in over 35 years. Since coming to Office, the Coalition Government has approved contracts with industry worth over $3 billion in new military capability and infrastructure. The decision to acquire the P-8 Poseidon aircraft demonstrates this 22

Government’s commitment to a combat capable Defence Force that is flexible and can support security for New Zealand and the South Pacific, whilst also contributing to efforts to reinforce the international rules based order. Investment in infrastructure to support the P-8 capability will inject over $300 million into the Manawatu and Rangitikei regions, while the through-life dividend could be four times that. That investment commenced on Friday with the turning of soil to start the infrastructure build at Ohakea for the P-8 capability. The Government has also announced the C-130J Super Hercules as the preferred option for the replacement of our aging C-130H Hercules aircraft. Other highlights in delivering on our ambitions for the future Defence Force include the purchase and delivery of a new dive and hydrographic vessel, HMNZS Manawanui, the naming and commencement of sea trials for HMNZS Aotearoa, the build of an NH90 Flight Training Simulator, the Frigate Systems Upgrade, and, as part of the Network Enabled Army programme, the further rollout of a modern communications and combat management system for our soldiers. We have also started early industry engagement on the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel. In light of the Government’s commitment to implementing the Defence Capability Plan, business

confidence in the sector should be high. For every dollar spent on new capability, three to four dollars are spent supporting it through life. Currently over 2,000 suppliers are engaged in supporting our air, land and maritime capabilities. These suppliers range in size from one to over 500 staff. They are based not only in the major centres, but also in regional hubs in Whangarei, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Blenheim and Nelson. In Whangarei, McKay Electrical has a workforce of over 300 people providing electrical services to the marine and naval sectors. In Palmerston North, Noske Kaeser employs 25 locals in building and supporting marine and transport heating and ventilation systems. And in Hamilton, two very different companies, Tidd Ross Todd and Loop Technologies between them employ over 300 people in manufacturing transport systems and repairing and reengineering electrical systems. Many suppliers to the Defence Force are also exporting their products and services into Australia and further afield. I am told that the Defence sector generates $125 million in wages, and $60 million in profits. I suspect these numbers are much higher. I am also confident that on the back of the Government’s investment in Defence these figures will grow. There is a great story here of industry working in partnership with Defence to deliver value to the Line of Defence

Community, Nation, and World. We need to get better at telling that story. Defence industry is often based, or with a base, in New Zealand employing New Zealanders and supporting a local supply chain. Industry is often at the forefront of technological innovation, both at home and overseas, much of which has not just a military application, but very often evolves in other ways into a civil or commercial application. And not only does industry supply goods and services to the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force, but they actively encourage and support their staff that are members of the New Zealand Defence Force Reserves and New Zealand Cadet Force. Line of Defence

Without that support our Reserves could not train and our Cadet Forces would cease to operate. And firms involved with defence also support the Defence Forceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Youth Development Unit and the Ministry of Social Development in helping our young people turn their lives around through the Limited Service Volunteer programme, which we have doubled in size. So the community benefits of defence and defence industry are wide and deep. This is a very exciting time for all of those involved in Defence, and in delivering the right military capability for New Zealand and our region. The investment decisions already taken by the Coalition Government are evidence of our commitment to

ensuring that New Zealand has the Defence Force it needs to deliver value to the Community, Nation, and World. Further decisions to come on the Future Air Mobility Capability, the Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability, and a Protected Mobility Capability, and many smaller decisions will continue this momentum. At the heart of delivering these capabilities are the people of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force, supported by industry and employers, big and small. Against this backdrop, I am confident that the high ambition set out in the 2019 Defence Capability Plan is achievable and that the pay-off will be great for both the New Zealand Defence Force, industry, and the communities they support. 23

DEFENCE Value destruction or value for money Tim Cummins, Chair of the International Association for Commercial & Contract Management (IACCM), notes that the strong connections between methods deployed in engineering and those in contracting highlight ‘value for money’ questions. The ideas behind value engineering are not new. In fact, they go back to the 1940s, when the construction industry in particular was seeking new and more scientific ways to guide its purchasing decisions. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the methodology and its use would have matured by now. But you would be wrong; it has actually gone backwards. In its latest edition, Architectural Products (a US industry publication) states the following: “Today, value engineering in construction has fallen far from its origins, with products being chosen and changed out simply because they are cheaper, many times sacrificing performance and longevity. This new process is no longer about creating actual value. Acknowledging that

Tim Cummins, Chair of the International Association for Commercial & Contract Management (IACCM).

budget is always a concern, there must still be a better way.” Is modern procurement practise ‘dumbing down’ decisions? One conclusion clearly could be that the procurement practises of recent years (driven by an obsession with short-term financial results) are at fault. ‘Value’ has often been overtaken by ‘price’. Measurements are based on input costs, not outputs or outcomes over time. It is clear that there is some validity to this view. In spite of (or arguably in some cases because of ) the massive investments in technology, corporations seem to lack the ability and incentives to operate on objective judgments of value. And, as incidents such as the Grenfell fire and the Morandi bridge collapse illustrate, that can prove extremely costly in terms of lives, reputation and money. But is it that simple? The article specifically calls out decisions made on the basis that an item or resource is cheaper. Certainly there are many occasions where such decisions are wrong. But we must also remember that, since the 1940s, the social ethos has changed. We live in a world where everyone wants perfect, everyone wants new, everything is disposable. So why buy things that last 20 years when the building may undergo fundamental alterations or change of purpose every 5 or 10 years? Seen in that light, it could be argued that ‘value’ and a short

lifespan are synonymous. A great comeback? Today, at least in principle, we are seeing a massive shift in those social values. The concepts behind sustainability demand a rethink of the measurements and behaviours that underlie the disposable culture. So will value engineering experience a rebirth? I like to think the answer is yes - and indeed it lies at the heart of work IACCM has been undertaking to redefine principles for contract governance and performance management. Those principles draw on another concept from the world of engineering - that is, uncertainty analysis. As part of its research, IACCM has recognised the need to build strong connections between the methods deployed in engineering and those in contracting. Together, they can provide users (whether in Procurement, Project or Contract Management) with powerful tools to better segment their commercial decisions and supply relationships. The result, we believe, will be delivery of true value, both to business and to society. This article was originally published as two separate articles in the Commitment Matters blog, 19 September 2019 – https:// blog.iaccm.com/commitment-matters-timcummins-blog.

Line of Defence

NZDIA Chair sets out goals for year ahead Recently returned as a Director and Chair of the NZDIA Board, Andrew Ford talks Women in Defence and Defence Industry, STEM learning, and early communication of Defence procurement planning. We have come a long way in the past five years, having participated in partnership with NZDF and MoD in developing an improved industry engagement framework, and a move toward relationship-based contracting for our members. The level of interaction between Defence and Industry has continued to improve, which has led to a better understanding of client needs and better value demonstrated in the delivery of support and services to meet those needs. I believe there is genuine recognition by Defence that industry is a necessary and valued element of their delivery of outcomes for the community, nation and world. In the twelve months ahead, there are some key strategic initiatives that we need to consider and progress as a Board:

Andrew Ford is a Director and Chair of the NZDIA Board.

Line of Defence

Representation and recognition of Women in Defence and Defence Industry careers: Take any time to scan the audience at our members meetings and our forums and the predominant demographic is obvious to see. For a sustainable and balanced workforce we need to be active in positively promoting the career opportunities for women in Defence and related industries. To enable young women to see themselves in future defence-related careers we need to make a conscious effort and provide for the specific recognition of the influence that women are making in the sector. Changing the public perspective of Industry supporting defence: Despite distraction and disruption from a vocal minority of the public, there is huge support for the great work that our Defence Force and National Security Agencies do in protecting our communities and our national prosperity. We need to broaden the perspective of the contribution industry makes in supporting defence and national security outcomes, and this requires Defence, National Security Agencies and Industry to be working together to tell those positive stories. STEM learning: A large number of the industries supporting defence are dependent on a technically skilled workforce. Defence has taken some positive steps toward promoting technical careers in Defence and industry can step up to support and to emphasise the broader career options in those technical fields.

Capacity versus capability in support of regional Defence market opportunities: There are strong estate, infrastructure, and defence equipment investment programmes across NZ and Australia, and therefore competition for a limited pool of contracted workforce to deliver and support those new assets. There is potential with the much larger opportunities in the Australian market that NZ industry skills and capacity are attracted overseas. Therefore we need to continue to encourage Defence to provide early notification of the pipeline of work through procurement plans to enable NZ businesses to plan to compete. Since establishing a full time CEO and staff to deliver the day to day business of the NZDIA in terms of events, membership growth and administration, the Board has been able to refocus on where the association should aim next. Our board can be extended by the short term addition of appointed directors and we have used this to bring diversity of thought and governance. Our elected Directors will be looking to appoint one or more directors to the board to help balance the table and lend some specific insight to progress the initiatives above. The greatest yardstick of the success and engagement of our association is the continued and steady growth in membership. In doing this we are continuing to deliver on our mission of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Connecting Industry with Defence and National Security agencies for the benefit of New Zealandâ&#x20AC;?. 25

DEFENCE

A wrap up of 2019 and a big thank you to our overseas personnel Acknowledging NZDF personnel deployed overseas and their families during the festive season, Mark Mitchell expresses disappointment over the government’s handling of the Defence Estate Regeneration. The summer holidays are a great time of year to spend time with family and friends. However, as Christmas approaches, it’s important to remember that not all members of the NZDF are on home soil. I would like to acknowledge our troops who are on overseas deployments this Christmas. We appreciate the sacrifices you make so that New Zealand can contribute to international peace and security. Around 250 NZDF personnel are currently serving on 11 operations overseas. Working alongside our international partners, these personnel are deployed on peace keeping operations and training missions around the world.

Hon Mark Mitchell is the Opposition Spokesperson for Defence, the previous Minister of Defence, and a former Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee. 26

While they are serving in overseas headquarters, their families are at home offering support. I would like to acknowledge the family members and friends of NZDF personnel deployed around the world. Each and every one of you plays an important part in supporting our overseas operations. As Opposition spokesperson for Defence, I have spent 2019 holding the Minister to account on funding commitments for defence. Our relentless pressure on the Government has paid off with the effective relaunch of National’s Defence Capability Plan earlier in the year. Recently, I was very pleased to see the announcement on the preparatory work at RNZAF Base Ohakea for the arrival of the P8 Poseidons. I remember my meeting with US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis in Copenhagen where a commitment was made that our respective departments would work together on the procurement of the P8s. I want to thank and acknowledge both the US Department of Defence and our own Ministry of Defence on the great work they did in putting us in a position to procure the P8s. However, as previously expressed, I am continually disappointed by the Government’s inability to make estate regeneration a priority. While spending on Defence Estate isn’t sexy or popular, it is long overdue and very important for the health, safety and effectiveness of our Defence Force members. The Minister has spent most of 2019 looking for reasons to stall vital and overdue investment in our defence estate. National knows how crucial world class facilities and infrastructure

is to our Defence Force to maintain military capability. It can be easy to forget just how much the NZDF does that doesn’t involve the traditional perceptions of security and protecting our citizens from foreign threats. This year the NZDF sent a helicopter to support the Fox River Clean Up mid-year. There is no road access to this area, so the quickest way was by air. They dropped food, mail and equipment to support the work of Government agencies in the middle of the Kermadecs on Raoul Island. Our Defence Force has supported the work of other government agencies in the Kermadecs for years. In November, the NZDF began its annual support to Antarctica. The NZDF has been involved in Antarctica since 1955, supporting New Zealand’s contribution to improve scientific knowledge and safeguard the environment. Without this support, New Zealand wouldn’t be able to carry out important work in the region. And more recently the NZDF has sent firefighters over to Australia to help control the bushfires that were spreading across New South Wales and Queensland. I’d like to thank the Line of Defence team for the opportunity to regularly contribute to its quarterly magazine. I really enjoy being able to share with our NZDF personnel National’s position on defence related issues and what we are doing to hold the Government to account. I look forward to connecting with you in the next issue and in the meantime I would like to wish you all a safe, happy Christmas, wherever you may be. Line of Defence

ADF Selects GA-ASI’s MQ-9B for Project Air 7003 The Australian Defence Force selects the leading manufacturer to deliver armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems following recent acquisitions by the UK, Belgium.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI), the leading manufacturer of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), has been advised that the Australian Government has selected GA-ASI’s MQ-9B SkyGuardian® variant to provide the armed RPAS for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) under Project Air 7003. This follows the Government’s announcement in November 2018 that GA-ASI would provide Armed RPAS to the ADF. The ADF expects to take first delivery in the early 2020s. “We have worked closely with the ADF to determine the right RPAS to meet their needs,” said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI. “MQ-9B will provide the all-weather, multi-mission support, and interoperability that the ADF requires. We look forward to working closely with our Australian industry partners to provide a highly capable RPAS to the ADF, while creating hightech jobs in Australia.” The ADF joins other top-tier military forces in choosing a GA-ASI RPAS because of its proven multirole combat performance. MQ-9B is part of GA-ASI’s Predator ® series of RPAS, the world’s most trusted and capable armed Medium-altitude, Longendurance (MALE) RPAS, and hails from a family of aircraft that has flown more than six million flight hours. The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is acquiring the MQ-9B as part of its Protector RG Mk1 program and is scheduled for first delivery in the early 2020s. The Government of Belgium has approved Belgian Defence to negotiate for the acquisition of MQ-9B to meet the nation’s RPA requirements. Line of Defence

MQ-9B development is the result of a five-year, company funded program to deliver an unmanned aircraft system to meet the stringent airworthiness type-certification requirements of NATO and civil aviation authorities throughout the world. MQ-9B is provisioned for the GA-ASI-developed Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, which consists of airto-air radar, Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II), and Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B). The MQ-9B is built for all-weather performance with lightning protection, damage tolerance, and de-icing system. GA-ASI announced its intention to offer a MALE RPAS to the ADF during AVALON 2017 with the launch of Team Reaper Australia, a group of Australian industry partners. The team currently consists of ten world-class Australian companies providing a range of innovative sensor, communication, manufacturing and life-cycle support capabilities including Cobham (lead industry partner), CAE, Raytheon, Flight Data Systems, TAE Aerospace, Quickstep,

AirSpeed, Collins Aerospace, Ultra, and SentientVision. Just last month, GA‑ASI announced that the Predator ®-series, which includes the Predator, Predator B, Gray Eagle, Avenger ® and MQ-9B SkyGuardian® lines, had surpassed six million flight hours. The milestone was achieved on October 31, 2019 with GA-ASI aircraft having completed 430,495 total missions with close to 90 percent of those missions flown in combat. GA-ASI designs and manufactures proven RPA systems, radars, and electro-optic and related mission systems, including the Predator ® RPA series and the Lynx ® Multi-mode Radar. GA-ASI provides longendurance, mission-capable aircraft with integrated sensor and data link systems required to deliver persistent flight that enables situational awareness and rapid strike. The company also produces a variety of ground control stations and sensor control/image analysis software, offers pilot training and support services, and develops metamaterial antennas. 27

HOMELAND SECURITY

Private security and the privatisation of public space ‘Public places’ are increasingly the scenes of armed attacks, but what we commonly think of as public space is increasingly privately owned. Is it time to consider private security as part of a broader counter-terror system, asks editor Nicholas Dynon? In the post-9/11 context, the prevalence of terror attacks perpetrated in sporting stadia, shopping malls, city sidewalks, tourist hotspots and places of worship, has led to an increasing focus by security commentators and policy makers on locations where people congregate – ‘crowded places’ and ‘public spaces’ – as the attack venue of choice of terrorists and fixated persons. These notionally public spaces are often – and increasingly – privately rather than publicly owned. And it’s in these spaces that private security takes a particularly public dimension.

Line of Defence Magazine Chief Editor Nicholas Dynon

On the spot in public spaces In stadium-based terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015 and Manchester in 2017, the interventions of security guards in denying entry to would-be bombers resulted in there being fewer fatalities that might have otherwise been the case. In November 2018, when a deranged individual took to Melbourne’s Bourke Street with a gas cylinder-laden ute, a large knife, and an apparent intent to cause harm, three members of the public were randomly stabbed, including an on-duty SECUREcorp security guard. It all happened so fast that the hapless guard had no opportunity to defend himself against the initial blow. Had things been different and he’d had time to observe, report and react, he would have effectively been first responder. Victoria Police officers arrived at the scene minutes later. The fact is, citizens are far more likely to encounter security personnel and privately installed security surveillance devices than police officers in their day to day activities”. Collectively, private security officers possess a relative ‘surveillance ubiquity’ due to their number, and also due to the fact that they are deployed to the type of both publicly and privately owned ‘public places’ that have become the venues of recent weapons attacks and acts of terror. In the event of an attack, they may be already at the scene, or otherwise positioned closer to it than the nearest police officer. They also cost less than state-provided security and law enforcement.

While the weapon of choice of attackers has been shown in recent examples to be dependent on availability and opportunity, such as automatic assault rifle in Christchurch, hostile vehicle in Nice, knives in Melbourne and London, and bombs in Paris, London and elsewhere, the one constant in these attacks is the choice of a public space as venue. From a counter-terrorism preparedness perspective, it is these very spaces and their owners and operators that have become the focus of government strategies such as the Australia-New Zealand CounterTerrorism Committee’s Australia’s Strateg y for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism. On any given day, private security personnel provide security to any number of malls, office buildings, transport hubs, government offices, defence facilities and critical infrastructure sites. The point is, private security staff could be the ‘eyes and ears’ before any attack and the first response after any security-related incident” and they are more likely than their defence and law enforcement colleagues to be ‘on the spot’. Superior personnel numbers and ubiquity in public spaces are characteristics that support the proposition that the private security industry is well-placed to serve as a potential national security enabler. But it’s a complicated picture. It’s complicated In the shopping malls, retail precincts, entertainment and leisure complexes and al fresco café footpaths of Line of Defence

contemporary New Zealand, notions of public and private space have become increasingly complex. From a public or community security perspective, this presents challenges in terms of the proximity of the state (government agencies and law enforcement) to these sites for the purposes of surveillance and response. The rise of the private security industry in recent decades is in large part the product of the privatisation of (i) publicly provided security services (policing), and (ii) publicly owned space. The proliferation of privately owned public spaces (POPS) has fuelled growth in private security. On the one hand, the state has pushed responsibilities for the surveillance and policing of these spaces onto the private sector, while on the other hand venue owners see commercial and legal compliance benefits in providing for the security of their patrons/visitors. With so-called public spaces and crowded places now of significance to state counter-terror and national security considerations, private security presents as a potential national security enabler that remains as yet largely untapped. The rise of private ‘public spaces’ Heralded as “New Zealand’s first American-styled shopping centre”, Lynnmall opened in West Auckland on 30 October 1963. Since the 1960s, notes Aril Walrond, “there has been a trend toward public life taking place on private property, with recent decades witnessing what has been referred to as ‘spatial privatisation’ or the ‘mass Line of Defence

privatisation’ or ‘territorialisation’ of public space, including the privatisation of public space ownership and management. Shopping malls, entertainment and lifestyle complexes, sporting and leisure centres and transport hubs are described as examples of ‘privately owned public spaces’ (POPS), or ‘augmented’, ‘semi-‘ or ‘pseudo public space’. The expansion of mass private property environments in the UK and elsewhere is identified by several researchers as a key factor in the growth of private security, as property owners have recognised the commercial benefits of employing their own security forces. Researchers note, for example, that shoppers often feel safer [in malls]than on traditional shopping streets due to being sheltered from the weather and protected by private security guards. University of Auckland researchers Alison Greenaway et al., note the increasing privatisation of public space management in Auckland through the use of private security guards “and the ‘cleaning up’ of public spaces”. Publics in the UK, Australia and New Zealand are spending increasing amounts of time in POPS like shopping centres to the extent that these sites have become the subject of legal and philosophical debates over accessibility, surveillance and conditions of entry. Are the rules that govern behaviour in malls, for example, stricter than those on public land? A number of researchers note that designers and managers of POPS foster a sense of ‘ontological security’

among the users of their spaces, using safety and security as a key element in the attraction of patronage and, ultimately, the achievement of commercial success. Private security officers in these locations often enforce rules and behavioural conditions set by premise owners that are more restrictive than one might be subject to in a public space owned by the state. Spatial privatisation is not limited to single buildings, with ‘precincts’ and in some cases multiple city blocks – and the lanes and thoroughfares that criss-cross them – in private hands. In many cases, entire city centre schemes are in the hands of a small group of private landlords. This is the case in massive multiblock developments such as London’s Canary Wharf, but also in New Zealand in developments such as downtown Auckland’s privately owned Britomart precinct. Importantly, and as critics of spatial privatisation, such as Jack Shenker writing for The Guardian, note, given that POPS have the look and feel of public land, a pedestrian may not have any awareness of where the public land ends and privately-owned space begins. According to Auckland CBD business association Heart of the City, “We’ve seen a laneway renaissance in downtown Auckland over the last few years, with property owners turning under-used ground floors and carparks into vibrant areas for bars, cafes, and most importantly, people.” “One thing that Britomart and the Fort Street area have in common is the blurring between public and private spaces, with privately owned laneways 29

HOMELAND SECURITY

that look like public streets and even have the same style of paving stones carrying through from the street outside.” In shared-street contexts, there is also the dynamic of what has been described as ‘café creep,’ or ‘brasserie bulge’ or ‘trattoria trickle’ – publiclyowned space encroached upon by private shop owners. Occuring on sidewalks, pedestrian laneways and pedestrianised malls, these spaces further complicate the already complex relationship between public and private spaces and the management of the security and safety of these. A resource in the national interest? New Zealand’s over 20,000-25,000strong private security personnel sector is a potential national security enabler that remains largely untapped. By comparison, as of June 2016, the NZ Police numbered a total of 12,034 staff. This roughly 2:1 ratio between public and private security populations is consistent with what is found in other comparable jurisdictions, such as Australia and the UK. Security guards are more voluminous and ubiquitous than beat police and they effect surveillance and public order functions in most of the 30

places where members of the public congregate. In some areas, the private security sector has resources and capabilities beyond those of government. Private security already performs functions previously delivered by police, including alarm response, security of cash and valuables in transit, and the securing of public events. Private security personnel also carry out firstresponder, public safety and crime prevention roles in the course of carrying out their work. The sector also has a comparative ability to ‘surge’ in response to unexpected demand. The larger security guarding and patrol providers, for example, maintain pools of temporary staff and networks of trusted subcontractors for work beyond their capacity or geographic footprint. The sector contributes to the security of New Zealanders in the various roles it performs for public and private sector clients, and it does so successfully despite issues around pay, skills and standards. The proposition that private security may be harnessed purposefully by the state as a national security enabler has been raised – and indeed enacted – in several jurisdictions internationally.

In the UK, promotion by the state of private sector involvement in criminal justice through legislation change, outsourcing and the fostering of partnerships has resulted in a greater public security role for private security providers. Project Griffin – a public-private partnership approach to deterring, disrupting and support operations targeting terrorist and extremist activity – is perhaps the bestknown example of this. In Australia, a Project Griffin spin-off was established in 2007 by Victoria Police Counter- Terrorism and Emergency Management Division to train security staff on identifying potential threats to client premises; and in 2017, Australia’s Strateg y for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism identified a key role for private security consultants in advising owners and operators of crowded places. But in New Zealand it’s a proposition that has its problems. Although numerically strong, the licensed security guard population tends to be perceived as low skilled, and their generally low wages (often at the minimum wage) reinforce this. Although regulated by the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 and the Private Security Personnel Licensing Line of Defence

Authority (PSPLA) within the Ministry of Justice, barriers to entry and compliance mechanisms reflect a regulatory light touch, and the industry suffers from a generally poor reputation among the public and among government security and law enforcement partners. Although trusted to protect often sensitive government sites and critical infrastructure, the private security sector tends to be shut out of the security planning processes of its government customers; and the Southern Response fiasco and resulting SSC inquiry into the use of security consultants by government agencies haven’t exactly furthered the case for close public-private engagement. In concert, these present barriers limiting the potential of private security to play a meaningful and formalised role in New Zealand’s national security. Barriers According to the governmentpublished National Security System Handbook, New Zealand’s capacity to deal with the full range of national security challenges requires a system “able to leverage partnerships between government agencies, local government, private companies, and individuals.” Line of Defence

Indeed, the 2012 Formal Review of the New Zealand Police by Treasury, SSC and DPMC acknowledges the role of private security firms in “providing a first response capability and contributing to the safety of New Zealand communities.” Such recognition, however, is largely platitudinal. In reality, the private security industry is given no place in the National Security System, and industry peak bodies, such as the New Zealand Security Association (NZSA), are not engaged by police or relevant government agencies on matters of security planning despite efforts to achieve cut-through. The absence of a published national security or counter-terrorism strategy – let alone one that acknowledges any role for the private security sector – doesn’t help. International experience suggests that New Zealand lags behind other comparable jurisdictions, such as Sweden, the U.K. and Australia, in fostering public-private cooperation in the security sector. In a nutshell, the private security industry does not feature in the New Zealand Government’s National Security System, it is absent from national security planning, and there exists not a single institutionalised relationship between the security

industry and any of the government agencies one might assume it would have a relationship with. Relative to comparable jurisdictions internationally, public-private cooperation in security in New Zealand is hampered by a continuing assumption by the state of its absolute preponderance in security affairs. Ironically, this assumption is at odds with the government-driven privatisation that has fuelled the security industry’s growth. Exactly how the state might more meaningfully engage with the sector, and how it might harness the surveillance, reporting, incident response and security management roles of the private security industry as a ‘complementary capability’ in the national interest are important questions for the future. They are – or ought to be – inevitable questions, the answers to which have the potential to make New Zealand a safer place. This is an abridged except of an article published in the inaugural issue of the National Security Journal (Massey University, October 2019). Part two of this article will appear in the Spring 2020 issue of Line of Defence.

HOMELAND SECURITY Interview: Soft defences and managed retreat against climate change Dr Judy Lawrence, Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University Wellington’s Climate Change Research Institute, says that greater central government direction is needed on climate change adaptation. LoD: You’ve stated that the recent Nelson fires are a climate change warning for New Zealand. Are we likely to see more of the same, or can we expect worse? JL: Parts of New Zealand are expected to get dryer especially in the east. With this comes enhanced risk of fire in rural areas and where people are close to those areas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report in 2014 categorised fire as a key risk for New Zealand. LoD: You’ve called for leadership in the form of a National Adaptation Plan for climate change, based on a national risk assessment. Who would carry out this risk assessment, who would devise the plan, and who would you expect be responsible for its implementation?

JL: This was a recommendation of the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group (CCATWG) in 2018 and has now been included in the Zero Carbon Bill currently before Parliament. The first Climate Change Risk Assessment is currently being undertaken and the Bill envisages that the proposed Climate Change Commission would prepare the National Adaptation Plan based on the National Risk Assessment and do the second National Risk Assessment and review the National Adaptation Plan as an independent agency much like in the UK. The NAP would be done by the Government with reporting to the Climate Commission who would independently review and monitor its implementation. Local government and sectors would develop their own plans to complement the national adaptation plan. LoD: Hard defences against rising sea levels and the relocating of new development away from areas prone to flooding are capital intensive endeavours. Is there a need for more focused management of funds for adaptation (and for crisis response), a climate change war chest so to speak?

Dr Judy Lawrence, Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University Wellington’s Climate Change Research Institute.

JL: The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 specifically takes a precautionary approach and discourages hard defences as an adaptation option while encouraging soft defences and

managed retreat ahead of hard defences where practicable. The National Policy Statement (NPS) mandated in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has direction powers for local government to implement its policies. The RMA also has provisions to reduce hazard risks like sea-level rise and also to have particular regard to the effects of climate change. Those exercising functions under the RMA also must recognise and provide for the effects of significant natural hazards (this includes climate change impacts). All councils have the function of controlling the use of land for avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards. Regarding a “war chest”. Yes, this issue has been raised in a paper prepared by Jonathan Boston and myself in 2017. Some risks are different from others. Some can be adapted to more readily through preparation and the residual by the emergency services and the Defence establishment (note the residual becomes greater as the frequency of events increases and sea levels rise while we do not plan to avoid the risks). There is a case for a Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Fund but it needs careful design to avoid moral hazard. We do want to see taxpayers money rewarding bad council or individual decisions on the one hand while cases of specific need are crowded out where decisions have been made that leave Line of Defence

if we take preventative actions now, rather than leave the action till events become disruptive across society and the economy. LoD: How susceptible is New Zealand to the impacts of climate change relative to other countries?

individuals stranded due to no fault of their own. This means procedural justice in allocation of funds would be necessary. LoD: Are Councils best placed to lead on climate change, or should Central Government by seeking to effect legislative change to take some of the climate change-related decision making away from local government? JL: There is a strong case for the implementation of all the CCATWG recommendations. They are a complementary package that would strengthen the support for local government to make decisions about land use planning. However, local government comes under great pressure from local interests and ratepayers around developments at the coast and in floodplains, making it difficult for contested issues like this to be implemented especially if it results in an increase in rates or displaces other regional or local competing expenditure. This situation suggests that greater central government direction is required as to the priority of adapting to the impacts of climate change. However, Line of Defence

councils and central government don’t have controls over all private sector and individual decisions and interests. This means that it could only seek legislative influence over some private decisions. There is evidence that councils plans are not being updated fast enough to keep up with their responsibilities for climate change impacts in their regions and districts. Greater regional direction from regional councils using their existing mandates would also strengthen land use decisions by district councils. LoD: Is the average New Zealander concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, or is it still largely ‘out of mind’? JL: There is a perception generally that climate change is a distant threat but increasingly as climate change events are occurring more frequently and temperatures are rising, that the signals are raising concerns in areas affected. There is a greater attention to emissions reduction and awareness about greenhouse gas emissions than there is about climate change related hazard events. We can control the latter

JL: New Zealand is exposed to many of the impacts of climate change as the IPCC Fifth assessment highlighted. But it is a matter of scale compared with our ability to address the impacts that is important. Some countries have much greater populations exposed to risk e.g. Bangladesh and India but if one compares risk to GDP, New Zealand has risks related to most of its population living close to the sea and thus exposed to sea level rise, which is ongoing and won’t stop immediately on greenhouse gas reductions. Impacts to our major productive sectors, our biodiversity and health will also have flow on effects across the counry. The impacts are likely to be many times greater than the initial assessments by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 2015 report Rising Seas (work done by NIWA) and the recent assessment by Local Government NZ for local government infrastructure. Both of these are incomplete and further work, some recently released by NIWA on sea level rise and flooding exposure, is currently underway to fill the gaps. LoD: Is climate change a national security issue? JL: Any disruption that has widespread impacts frequently affecting our communications infrastructure and civilians must be considered a security risk. Climate change impacts on New Zealand must be considered in that light. The New Zealand Defence Force has, I understand, done an assessment of the risks. The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC for New Zealand will be completed by October 2021, and this will update the key risks to New Zealand which assesses new knowledge since the Fifth assessment (2014) and theRoyal Society of New Zealand report on the local impacts of climate change in 2016. 33

HOMELAND SECURITY Face-off between surveillance and privacy David Horsburgh CPP PSP PCI, Managing Director at Security Risk Management, explores the legal and ethical issues around the use of facial recognition – a technology New Zealand still appears to be making its mind up about.

Live street surveillance systems have traditionally identified events in real time that require intervention or have been used as a post-event investigation tool. In contrast, live facial recognition technology targets the individual comparing people against a database of faces – a watchlist. This key point of difference is a precipitator to increasing international opposition to the technology. In May 2019, the City of San Francisco became the first US city to ban the use of facial recognition technology by local government agencies. In October 2019, the city of Berkeley followed suit, and it is expected that a number of other cities in the US will ban the technology. In May 2019 during live facial recognition trials by the UK Metropolitan Police a man was charged

David Horsburgh CPP PSP PCI, Managing Director at Security Risk Management

with disorderly behaviour as he walked past a police van that was equipped with facial recognition cameras – because he hid his face. In August 2019, a Swedish school was fined 20,000 euros by the Swedish Data Protection Authority for using facial recognition to check pupil attendance at the school. My research on the topic focuses on two key questions: • Does the state agency use of facial recognition breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) and the Privacy Act 1993? • Does the private sector use of live facial recognition technology breach the Privacy Act?

Fischer and Green (1998) define security as: a stable, relatively predictable environment in which an individual or group may pursue its ends without disruption or harm and without fear of disturbance or injury. I argue that the Fischer and Green definition needs to be viewed from a broad perspective. Does, for example, the definition include the protection of human rights including the right to privacy, freedom of expression, association and movement, and freedom from discrimination? Interpretations of ‘security’ are influenced by our individual roles within society. As a police officer I Line of Defence

spent three years on the ‘Mr Asia’ investigation and during that period in 1978 we got new legislation that enabled us to install listening devices inside premises – and I was a great supporter of that. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s in particular focused on trade union officials and peace activists as being threats to our society. I can honestly say that during my service with the Police and NZSIS the privacy rights of others were not high on my priority list, but that I now take a somewhat different view. Security needs to be ‘proportionate’ and I can’t emphasise the importance of that word enough. I will demonstrate that under New Zealand legislation and also under international law to which we are a signatory there is a requirement for security to be proportionate. Security mitigation strategies should be proportionate to the identified threat. People need to be treated with dignity and respect and state agencies, especially, need to recognise human rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA). Line of Defence

UK Metropolitan Police live facial recognition field trials These trials took place between 2017 and 2019. Six of those field trials between June 2018 and May 2019 were independently reviewed by a US university. The review had the support of the Metropolitan Police. The review personnel undertook an ethnographic research approach using observation and interaction methodologies. They were entitled to attend police briefings and debriefings and to take part in observations in the field. The review questioned the legality of live facial recognition by law enforcement. It found that there was no explicit statute authorising the use of facial recognition technologies. Conversely the Police claimed that they had an implicit authority to use it because they had a statutory function of protecting the public order and the prevention of crime. The review considered that the interference with human rights, including the right to privacy, must be in accordance with the law, must pursue a legitimate aim, and must be necessary in a democratic society –

and this view flows into New Zealand legislation under the NZBoRA. The finding of the review was that the term “in accordance with the law” requires explicit statute. When I refer to Omar Hamed’s case later in this article, the term explicit statute becomes of great significant in the New Zealand context. The review found that implicit legal authority – as claimed by the police – is insufficient and does not meet the legal threshold of “in accordance with the law”. It found that police had failed to establish that live facial recognition was necessary in a democratic society. The human right requirement is intended to ensure that the measures useful for the protection of public order and the prevention of crime do not inappropriately undermine other rights, including those necessary for the effective functioning of a democratic society, such as the right to private life, the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to freedom of assembly and association. In the UK there are further legal impediments to the use of facial recognition. The European Union’s General Data Protection Legislation (GDPR) 35

HOMELAND SECURITY currently applies in the UK. Whether it will apply after Brexit remains to be seen, but under GDPR the collection of sensitive biometric data that can uniquely identify people without their explicit consent is prohibited. The UK also has the Data Protection Impact Assessment, which creates a legal requirement for sensitive data processing. Automated facial recognition involves processing biometric data to uniquely identify an individual and as such it falls into the category of sensitive data processing. UK case law has found that mere observation of people in a public place without further analysis does not give rise to interference with the rights to private life (Perry v The United Kingdom). However, private life considerations arise if instead of mere monitoring, areas of a public scene are recorded and analysed (P.G. and J.H. v The United Kingdom). In Omar Hamed’s case, Justice Sir Peter Blanchard found that you do not have a reasonable expectation, under most circumstances, of privacy in a public place. Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias took a very different view. On 22nd August 2019, the Financial Times reported that the European Commission is planning regulation that will give EU citizens explicit rights over the use of facial recognition technologies as part of the overhaul in the way Europe regulates artificial intelligence. The aim is to limit the indiscriminate use of facial recognition technology by companies and public authorities.

New Zealand Perspective In May 2018, a Dunedin man was mistakenly identified as a shoplifter in a New World supermarket, and he was detained by staff. The customer was advised that they had identified him as a known shoplifter – an allegation that was subsequently proven to be incorrect. The Otago Daily Times reported that the store was using facial recognition technologies, although the store claims that the technology was not used in this particular case. In another case in December 2016, a woman entered a supermarket and examined hams on display just prior to Christmas. She subsequently left the shop without making a purchase. The following day a friend of hers who worked at another supermarket advised her that her photograph had been placed in the supermarket noticeboard and staffroom. She had been identified by the manager when she examined the hams as a suspicious person. He had done a frame grab of the video, and it had not only been put up in the staffroom of that supermarket but had also been put up in the staffroom of a number of other supermarkets in the city. The manager said that this had happened because her behaviour had made him suspicious, but he agreed that there was no evidence to support his suspicion. The use of live facial recognition technology is being used increasingly in retail outlets in New Zealand. Image databases known as ‘watchlists’

are being used by retailers not only to identify people who have been convicted of shoplifting or who have been trespassed from their premises, but also to identify people suspected of being potentially involved in crime. The use of the technology in this way by retail outlets increases the likelihood of Privacy Act breaches. The New Zealand Police report that they use facial recognition technology for post-event investigation and do not have any current plans to use it in a live format. However, there is an increasing rollout of street surveillance systems throughout New Zealand and an increasing number of these are being live streamed to police stations. It is not unrealistic to expect that there will be an increasing desire by the police to use live facial recognition technology in the future. State agency use of facial recognition technologies has the potential to breach both the NZBoRA and the Privacy Act. New Zealand Bill of Rights Applicable sections of the NZBoRA are Sections 16 (Freedom of Peaceful Assembly), Section 17 (Freedom of Association), Section 18 (Freedom of Movement), Section 19 (Freedom from Discrimination), and most importantly Section 21 (Unreasonable Search and Seizure). Section 21 states that everyone has the right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure whether of the person, property or correspondence or otherwise.

Line of Defence

There is an argument that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Senior judiciary in this country have differing views as to whether that position is correct. The Law Commission has found that public surveillance is not explicitly addressed by the Search and Surveillance Act. Key points from the Commission’s review of that Act include that public surveillance: • is often used for general screening purposes and this is relevant to a proportionality assessment underlying Section 21. • may impact on the privacy of large numbers of people many of whom may not be suspected of any wrongdoing. • may have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. The Law Commission further states that the free expression of opinions and exchange of information is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our society. If public surveillance became commonplace it would spell the end of the practical obscurity that many people take for granted when they move about in public. Widespread monitoring of the general population by the state, said the Commission, must be avoided. Line of Defence

Omar Hamed and Others v The Queen This Supreme Court case involved the police undertaking a covert operation on Tuhoe land, with Chief Justice Elias writing at length on her interpretation of Section 21 of the NZBoRA and on New Zealand’s obligations under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to Article 17, “no one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Elias expressed the view that Section 21 is a constraint on state activity; it protects personal freedom and dignity from unreasonable and arbitrary state intrusion providing for the right to be left alone. Of importance, Elias stated that in principle there is no reason why activity in a public place should by virtue of that circumstance alone be outside the protection of Section 21 of the NZBoRA. She discussed at length the UK decision Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others, in which it is stated that for private reasons the

rule is that you may do anything you choose that is not prohibited by the law. So, normal citizens they can do whatever they like as long as there isn’t a law that says you can’t do it. But, says Elias, for public bodies, the rule is opposite and so of another character altogether – that the action taken by state agencies must be justified by positive law. This links back to the review conducted in the UK about assertive law being required for use of facial recognition. Elias went on to say that a police search that is not authorised by law is unlawful and that unlawful police search is itself unreasonable search contrary to Section 21 of the NZBoRA. Importantly, she further stated that intrusive search is not a power to be treated as implicit in general statutory policing powers. She said, “I consider that the police cannot undertake surveillance lawfully in the absence of specific authority of law.” Our further link to the findings of the independent review in the UK is Section 5 of our NZBoRA, which states that the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 37

HOMELAND SECURITY So, here we’ve got the same terminology that is used in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – “justified in a free and democratic society”. In Omar Hamed’s case, Justice Blanchard took a different view to Elias. He stated that with some exceptions filming in a public place is not a breach of Section 21. He did, however, state that if filming involved technological enhancements, such as the use of infrared illumination, that a potential breach may occur. So, in the context of a darkened alley at night you cannot see what’s happening, but if you use infrared technology then you breach Section 21 because the darkness would provide for a reasonable expectation of privacy in that alleyway. Bearing in mind that that the Omar Hamed case concluded in 2011, the question therefore arises as to whether the use of facial recognition technology falls within the meaning of Blanchard’s description of technological enhancements and as such breaches Section 21 of the NZBoRA. Watchlists Watchlists are a dataset against which a template captured by facial recognition is compared. The following questions need to be considered in the design of a watchlist: • Do entries on the watchlist only relate to persons convicted of serious crimes? • Is it permitted to put on a watchlist people who have been identified as

being able to provide information relevant to an active criminal investigation? • Can watchlist compilations be abused, including against people who are political activists exercising their democratic rights to protest? (Case involving a public protest in the US against police use of force on a minority group where facial recognition was used to identify the people taking part in the protest). • Would the intelligence community have any influence over watchlist compilation? • Would the database be expanded to include driver licences and passport photographs of law-abiding citizens? In a recent public meeting conducted by Victoria University Wellington, a visiting law lecturer from the US stated that over 50 percent of all US adults are now enrolled on facial recognition databases, and that’s normally via their driver’s licence photographs. For example, the Michigan police database contains over 50 million driver’s licence photographs and mugshots. The dangers of a database compilation are highlighted by a case involving the Sensible Sentencing Trust. As reported by the Privacy Commissioner in Case Note 294302, the Sensible Sentencing Trust wrongly labelled a man on its website as being a paedophile. The man had the same first and last names of a convicted paedophile, but his middle name was different.

The Trust published his photograph on its website for a period of two years, and it wasn’t until a customer of the person told him that he was no longer welcome to visit the shop because he was a convicted paedophile that he knew about it. The Privacy Commissioner reported that the innocent person had been implicated in a terrible crime; that his reputation was tarnished, he had suffered emotional harm, and that he had been placed at risk of violence. This case is now before the Human Rights Commission who can impose a penalty of up to $200,000. Privacy Act The Privacy Act has 12 principles. The first principle is that the collection of information must be for a lawful purpose and it must be necessary. I can’t stress the importance of that term enough – ‘necessary’. Widespread surveillance for general screening purposes may be considered unnecessary, especially when the surveillance involves biometric scanning of law-abiding members of the public. Under Principle 2, the collection must be directly from the individual concerned. Public sector agencies have an escape clause for this on the grounds that compliance may interfere with the maintenance of the law. This escape clause is not available to private sector agencies. Private sector claims that compliance would prejudice the purpose of collection, or is not reasonably practicable, are likely to fail on the basis that the technology uses a scattergun approach. Non-compliance on the grounds that the individual concerned is not identifiable will also likely fail. Principle 3 requires the individual to be aware of the collection, the purpose of collection, and the right to access the information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has passed a view on Principle 3 in relation to facial recognition, and it says that there should be signage and messages posted that inform customers that facial recognition technology is being used and the reasons why it is being used. Line of Defence

Principle 4 states that the collection must not be by unlawful or unfair means or intrude to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual concerned. For both public and private agencies this principle is likely to be problematic because facial recognition technologies under most circumstances are likely to be considered unfair and to intrude to an unreasonable extent onto the personal affairs of the individual. Principle 8 is also particularly relevant. The information (contained on a watchlist) must be accurate, up to date, complete, relevant and not misleading. Watchlists based on mere suspicion are likely to fail Principle 8 requirements. Trials of facial recognition technology have been shown to be biased and inaccurate with extraordinarily high false positive rates. Limits on use as described in Principle 10 may also be problematic if state agencies intend to use driver’s license images for a purpose other than what the image was originally obtained for Accuracy As stated earlier, the Metropolitan Police conducted six trials between June 2018 and May 2019. The trials generated 42 matches, and the people matched were approached by police officers in the field. Those matches resulted in an 81 percent false positive rate. Line of Defence

In 2017 live facial recognition was used at the Cardiff Champions League final. 2,470 people were identified by facial recognition as being criminals. Subsequent research showed that there was a 92 percent false positive rate. In 2017 at the Notting Hill carnival, live facial recognition had a false positive rate of 98 percent. Although not used in the Metropolitan Police Service trials, live facial recognition software can be integrated into police body worn cameras and city-wide surveillance camera networks, and that data may be subjected to automated analysis. It is technically feasible to create a database containing a record of each individual’s movements around a city. The potential for this kind of use raises serious human rights concerns because the data may involve false positives, and could be used to identify unusual patterns of movement, participation at specific events or meeting with particular people Bias There is significant public interest in the issue of potential bias and discrimination. Concerns include discriminatory practices based on input data and watchlist composition, and bias built into live facial recognition technology on the basis of sex, race and colour. Different algorithms and different applications assert biases in different ways, which requires analysis on

an application-by-application basis. Independent tests on 127 commercially available facial recognition algorithms have identified gender bias where there are fewer false positives for men relative to women and racial bias where there is a higher false positive rate for dark-skinned females. An MIT study in the US showed that darker skinned women are misidentified as men 31 percent of the time. There are twice as many false positive rates for blacks as there are for whites. The US Justice Department is using artificial intelligence when somebody is arrested to predict whether they are likely to reoffend in the next two years, and that analysis is used to determine whether they get bail or they don’t get bail. Studies have shown that the assessment of the potentiality for a criminal to reoffend within two years has a significant bias against African Americans. I’d like to finish with the UK Camera Commissioner’s statement on the use of facial recognition, and regarding video surveillance. The Commissioner stated that overt surveillance is becoming increasingly intrusive on the privacy of citizens, in some cases more so than aspects of covert surveillance because of the evolving capabilities of the technologies. The use of live facial recognition has the potential to impact upon ECHR rights and thereby influence the sense of trust and confidence within communities. The Commissioner said that it should be a fundamental consideration of any relevant authority intending to deploy live facial recognition that a detailed risk assessment process is conducted and documented as to the operational risks, community impact risk, privacy and other human rights risks, and any risks associated with it prior to deployment. Such risks should be considered as part of the decision-making processes associated with the necessity and proportionality of its use. This is an abridged transcription of a presentation delivered by David Horsburgh at the ASIS New Zealand Chapter Auckland Members Breakfast Meeting in November 2019. 39

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY Has Defence gone off the Pacific deep end? The Advancing Pacific Partnerships 2019 defence assessment gives too much away to great power balancing, writes Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, and this isn’t necessarily in New Zealand’s interests. Since the Ardern government took office, we’ve been treated to a veritable deluge of publicly launched defence policy documents. Minister Ron Mark has had no need of a new White Paper – the next one is due no earlier than 2021. But last year he launched something arguably just as significant in a Strategic Defence Policy Statement which changed New Zealand’s tune on China and paved the way for the purchase of the P8 maritime surveillance and patrol aircraft. The government’s ambitious remit for the defence force has since been spelled out in a new Defence Capability Plan. There are now so many major projects (many exceeding $1billion) that one has to wonder about the breaking point for the pursestrings of future governments. And that’s not all for readers of defence policy pronouncements.

Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington

Boeing P8 maritime surveillance and patrol aircraft

Last year saw the first edition of a new series of Assessments explain how defence was taking climate change seriously, including in the Pacific. Jointly released by James Shaw, this was one way for Mr Mark to thank the Greens for their agreement to some of the above, including expensive aircraft good at finding submarines. The second assessment has now been launched, this time dealing New Zealand’s defence priorities in the South Pacific. Its ostensible purpose takes us back to one of the most important lines in last year’s big Statement: that the South Pacific would now be treated with the same operational importance as the defence of New Zealand and its immediate surrounds. As well as connecting to the government’s Pacific Reset, there is also a flow on from the climate change assessment. This week’s new

paper highlights the Boe Declaration in which Pacific Island Forum (PIF) countries identified climate change as the region’s most serious and urgent problem. But the writers of the new Pacific assessment seem to be even more worried about growing “strategic competition” in the South Pacific. These two words can readily be translated to mean China’s growing influence. China is only mentioned once in the document - in a list of the PIF’s dialogue partners. But Beijing’s presence hovers in the background when we read that: “the pace, intensity, and scope of engagement by external actors, who may not always respect our values across their activities, are at the heart of a growing sense of geostrategic competition that is animating many nations’ renewed focus on the Pacific.” Line of Defence

And who else but China can fit the following bill? “Geostrategic competition is not simply a consequential trend playing out among great powers. If external powers establish a greater regular presence, it could materially affect the Pacific and our own strategic circumstances.” New Zealand’s main response to this challenge is working with “likeminded partners” who “share our concern about intensifying complex disruptors and competition.” It’s obvious that the writers have some of New Zealand’s bigger western partners in mind. These include Australia, France and the United States who with New Zealand constitute the Quads grouping which garners special attention. The fine print of the Assessment also records that Washington’s

Compact arrangements in Micronesia “give the United States the authority to potentially deny access by other countries’ militaries and their personnel.” Is there a faint whiff here of strategic denial, an approach last entertained in the region when there were worries about Soviet influence at the end of the Cold War? It’s the language that gives the geopolitical game away. In their foreword, Chief of Defence Force Kevin Short and newly appointed Defence Secretary Andrew Bridgman explain that “Together with other government agencies, our Pacific partners, and likeminded partners, New Zealand Defence aims to contribute to the maintenance of our collective values and interests, including open access, freedom of movement, and transparency.”

This reads as if the South Pacific is connected by a hitherto undiscovered umbilical cord to the South China Sea. That New Zealand’s defence officials are increasingly inclined to connect the South Pacific to a wider contest is clear in what comes next: “A range of partners maintain special relationships and constitutional obligations in the Pacific, and undertake efforts to support democratic values and the rules-based order throughout the broader IndoPacific region.” The potential for contradictions rather than consistency is stark. New Zealand should rightly be concerned about the destabilising effects of geostrategic competition in the South Pacific. But if that is the case, why is Wellington seeking the help of traditional partners to intensify the rivalry? And if some of New Zealand’s Southeast Asian partners have been concerned that Indo-Pacific conceptions may marginalize their own architectural efforts, why would New Zealand want to drag this logic into the South Pacific where the power asymmetries are even grander? Is this really the time to be emphasising connections with traditional partners attached to IndoPacific enthusiasms and warnings whose leaders are playing dumb and dumber on climate change? Now to be fair to the Assessment, much is made of the importance of partnering with the Pacific countries themselves. This priority is depicted by proverb, image, diagram and oceangoing metaphor (canoe). But notwithstanding these efforts to promote New Zealand as a Pacific partner of choice which supports a resolute approach to climate change, the new assessment gives too much away to great power balancing. That’s a world where small states and their concerns aren’t important in and of themselves. As this would be inconsistent with New Zealand’s interests and values, a rethink of this aspect of the Reset is in order. This article was originally published in Incline on 31 October 2019, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University of Wellington - www.incline.org.nz.

Line of Defence

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY The Asia-Pacific Security Innovation Summit 2020 Dr Anita Abbott, chief of APSI Forum Committee, introduces the second Asia Pacific Security Innovation Summit scheduled for April 2020, an event that aims to promote a region more resilient to external and internal shocks. Economic globalisation, having dramatically accelerated in the three decades since the end of the Cold War, brought with it an impression that most major threats to national and international security would gradually disappear due to an international environment characterised by quantum leaps in international cooperation. Yet, as the economic influence of some emergent countries grows, so do their political ambitions with regard to the international arena. Other, more established countries with geographically overlapping yet competing interests are in turn likely to view such developments with deep apprehension. This uncertainty manifests itself perhaps most poignantly through the rapidly shifting security dynamics of the region, raising a set of problems both for individual states and for the international community as a whole.

Dr Anita Abbott is the Director of Global Partnership and Development Ltd and chief of APSI Forum committee.

It lays bare some fundamental aspects of the foreign, defence and economic policies of littoral states with regard to the region. While one might assume that such policies between states might complement each other in some ways, many observers point to the dynamic that over the past decade or so international relations in the Asia-Pacific have turned increasingly conflictive. It is indeed difficult to ignore the increasing frequency of incidents involving the military and maritime economic assets of several states with substantial interests in the region. It is this state of affairs that forms the background to and impetus for the New Zealand-based Asia-Pacific Security Innovation Forum (APSI) and its series of annual, eponymous summits. The summits will provide a platform for international experts to discuss issues of critical importance to regional security. Driven by the aspiration to provide a forum for discussion on the abovementioned issues, as well as a platform for the development of innovative problem-solving approaches, the APSI summits strive to make a tangible contribution to the development of a system of international relationships in the Asia-Pacific region that is more resilient to both external and internal shocks, and thus more safe and secure. The first APSI summit took place in Rotorua between 17 and 18 April 2019, and saw the participation of a host of highly qualified speakers on a wide range of issues affecting the security environment in the Asia-

Pacific region and beyond. With the forthcoming second Summit to be held in Queenstown between 15 and 17 April 2020, APSI intends to build upon the success of the previous edition. The missions of APSI are to facilitate security cooperation for peace, not war; and to facilitate cooperation on issues of common interest, including the human and social aspects of security; and to enhance awareness of security developments, including through early warning, with a view to preventing crises. Among next year’s group of summit speakers and participants are prominent subject experts, such as: • Lt Gen Olivier Rittimann, the current Vice Chief of Staff at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. • Lt Gen Vinod Bhatia, PVSM, AVSM, SM (ret.), the current Director of the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies in New Delhi, India. • Maj Gen Gert-Johannes Hagemann, the current Deputy Commander of the NATO Rapid Deployable Corps headquartered in Lille, France. In the area of human and social aspects of security, speakers will include Hon Alfred Ngaro MP, HE Dr Jesus S. Domingo, Ambassador of the Philippines to New Zealand; Professor Dwi Andreas Santosa of IPB University; Don Lord from Hagar New Zealand; and HE Dr Itzhak Gerberg, Ambassador of Israel to New Zealand. Line of Defence

She’ll be right: Security AWOL at Defence event New Zealand Security Association CEO Gary Morrison writes that for an invitee list heavy with senior diplomats and government figures, the Advancing Pacific Partnerships launch event in Wellington was disconcertingly light on security. In my Association’s May newsletter I opened with commentary on the tragic events that occurred in Christchurch on 15th March and referred specifically that our “she’ll be right” attitude towards security left us vulnerable to some form of attack and that it was only a matter of time before terrorism found its way to New Zealand. I also commented on the challenge for government, and other parties such as the security industry, to create a more risk aware society where security becomes an important consideration across our every-day lives, but without significantly impeding the social freedoms that New Zealanders enjoy and value. I was recently invited to attend the launch of the New Zealand Government’s Defence Assessment “Advancing Pacific Partnerships”. The

Gary Morrison, New Zealand Security Association CEO

Line of Defence

event was held at our national museum, Te Papa, and attended by a number of government ministers, ambassadors and senior ranking officials from New Zealand and Pacific defence agencies. Prior to attending the launch the thought crossed my mind as to the level of security that would need to be extended to such an event. Given the media exposure of the launch, the iconic venue (Te Papa), the political subject topic (defence in the Pacific) and the profile of the attendees, my expectation was for a very visible security presence with a requirement for identity verification and the probability of screening similar to what is the norm at domestic airport checkin. The reality however was very different and left me somewhat exasperated and disappointed at the example being set by lead government agencies and with the feeling that lessons haven’t been learnt. I arrived at the venue a few minutes early and at the same time as two others who were both casually dressed (the dress standard was service dress or suit equivalent). I was carrying a small overnight bag and one of the others carried a large case which I later observed contained electronic filming and recording equipment. The in-house security officer at the entry was engaged in discussion with a tourist and waved us to go inside where we were met at reception and asked if we were attending the launch. On confirming we were, we were given directions to the meeting room on level four.

When we arrived at the meeting room the two persons I was with said they were with the media and were allowed straight into the room – I was asked my name and when they couldn’t find it on the guest list, my details were promptly entered by hand and I was let through. To exacerbate matters, there was no form of health and safety induction or message what-so-ever. Whilst I am aware that there is extensive camera coverage throughout the Te Papa facility, there was no form of identity check, bags were not searched or screened and attendees were unescorted whilst on site. Yet this was an event that even the most basic risk assessment would have identified as being of significant risk. Unfortunately those who we would expect to lead by example are often negligent in their own knowledge of security awareness and it is my concern that it will only be a matter of time before we experience another terrorism-related tragedy. 43

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY On Tour: When international cricket meets international risk With the cricket season upon us, Chris Kumeroa, Managing Director of Global Risk Consulting, draws from years of security experience in Pakistan and the Middle East to risk assess the potential for an NZ Cricket return to Pakistan. When I read back in 2018 that the New Zealand Cricket Council was to carry out “due diligence” as they considered a request from Pakistan to play a Twenty20 game in Lahore, my first reaction was that Pakistan posed significant travel and security challenges. A number of highly experienced security risk management consulting companies have had personnel who have operated in this region for a number of years and seen first-hand the dangers when trying to operate within this environment.

Chris Kumeroa is director of Global Risk Consulting.

Pakistan is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world (11th least peaceful in the 2019 Global Peace Index). In 2009, international sporting tours were stopped after gunmen killed five people on the Sri Lankan team bus. New Zealaand Cricket hasn’t played in Pakistan since 2003 because of security concerns, with the UAE becoming home base for the Pakistan team. The internal security issues that plague Pakistan are greatly influenced by its neighbours, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Kashmir, and other geopolitical factors. The Pakistan Context Pakistan has two major allies, both superpowers and economic partners to Pakistan: China and the US. The Americans have invested heavily in Pakistan in recent decades, providing financial support for securing northwestern borders and combating terrorism in FATA/Swat, KPK and Baluchistan. For a number of years, the government had been slightly reluctant to intervene in FATA, KPK and Baluchistan’s (all rated extreme risk) political and security affairs with any form of military presence, although this has since changed. A guerrilla war waged by Baloch nationalists had kept the region – that borders Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – unstable and in turmoil for decades. The strong Taliban presence in the tribal areas of KPK has also made that province extremely difficult for the government to manage.

Political instability continues to plague Pakistan. There have been a number of military coups since the nation gained independence from Britain over seventy years ago. The absence of a strong political system and allegations of corruption over many years have given rise to crime and armed conflict, which has increased with international terror groups such as al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS (Daesh) more recently. It had been planned that a Silk Road corridor to be established by the Chinese; a six-lane highway from the northern China border to the Gwada port, in southern Baluchistan. The Silk Road would give China direct and easy access to Middle Eastern and African markets. Chinese investment into Pakistan will be substantial and would allow Pakistan to modernise and potentially unlock its rich natural resources, including oil and gas, gold and coal. At the time, Pakistan’s government wanted to bring stability to the region to ensure the Silk Road proceeded, and conducted a sustained military offensive against domestic militants in the west of the country. A number of Taliban commanders were captured or killed by the Pakistan Military, and others will killed by US drone strikes in cross-border operations. The risk assessment identifying security concerns facing the development of the Silk Road are the same issues that face tourists, businesses wishing to establish a base for commercial activity, and international cricket teams considering touring the country. Line of Defence

Assessing Security Risks I spent two years in Pakistan as Country Security Risk Manager for one of the world’s largest oil and gas service providers, based in Islamabad. It was a dynamic and complex environment, characterised by security risk levels that constantly shifted as a result of political decisions and security incidents. This would invariably affect the “Country Alert State” and, consequentially, our security advice. Pakistan risk levels are assessed as High (-12.2 out of -25) on the basis of a Country Security Risk Assessment System in which quantitative and qualitative data is crossed referenced by senior analysts and experienced global security consultants to ensure the threat and risk levels match trends on the ground. It is important to measure all security elements (including political, terrorism, travel, operational and security risks) within the threat landscape so as to adjust the ratings accordingly. If no adjustments are made as a result of misinterpretation of risks this gives rise to vulnerabilities for an organisation as extremists and criminal elements become adept at spotting weaknesses within a security structure. These can invariably lead to fatalities, injuries and a loss of business at the hands of sophisticated, well-funded, well-organised and sometimes complex attacks. When trying to improve security outcomes, it’s important to meet with the citizens and law enforcement of local communities. If you apply a Line of Defence

hearts and mind approach they are a great source of free information, effectively becoming allies to your broader security cause. More often than not this is a usual first step for current and former Special Forces personnel and the Private Security world, but for individuals and companies operating on their own, getting the locals on side is an often overlooked practice leading to unfortunate consequences. Getting the lay of the land early and trusting your instincts about the environment and people you deal with (what feels right and comfortable – developing and trusting your sixth sense) is important. Occasionally this means engaging a local (preferably former military or law enforcement officer – referred to you by the state) that understands the environment and is able to interpret it in a way that promotes safe operations. Local support Once you have established the country and area risk levels and ratings, the next step, as it should be in the case of a New Zealand Cricket Team tour, is to establish what additional support is required by the host nation and private security providers to achieve acceptable levels of control that match or exceed the organisational threshold and are line with a security management plan. This is known as the risk-based approach. Not long ago I stood in an underground bunker, under a safe house controlled by the US military, and listened to the mission breakdown of the hunt for Bin Laden. The US

conducted it without Pakistan’s consent or knowledge. This placed significant political pressure on an already frail relationship in which they needed each other to combat the growing influence of the Taliban and ISIS in the region, who were using Pakistan as a base to launch attacks against Coalition forces in Afghanistan. The attack on Bin Laden led to ongoing suspicion by the ISI (Pakistan Secrete Intelligence Service) that other foreign nations had intelligence personnel operating within its borders. It would be fair to say that all foreigners are now treated with suspicion, which presents new challenges for any security risk management provider. Anyone venturing into Pakistan, such as sporting teams or businesspeople, should bear this in mind. Reliance on government cooperation, whilst seemingly enthusiastically given, might not always be as reliable as an independent body familiar with the local environment. If a cricket match were to go ahead, this should be based on a comprehensive threat and risk assessment of the current political state of Pakistan and past and current shifts in the security operating environment. After establishing minimum security standards, state support for pre-match visits and for the tour itself should be requested. In conclusion A cricket match would be hugely significant for the game internationally and for the country as whole, but it will come with its inherent challenges on the security front, particularly if extremists were to see it as an opportunity to demonstrate to the West (not just New Zealand) that they can still create havoc. The Taliban have long memories and understand New Zealand’s role with the Coalition in Afghanistan some years ago, and they could use this as an opportunity for payback if a soft target presented itself. We have a saying in security: we as security providers have to be lucky all the time, whereas terrorists or highly sophisticated criminal groups only have to be lucky once. 45

NZDIA’s Guide to the new procurement environment covering Defence and other Agencies in New Zealand. At Pacific2019 in Sydney, the New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA) launched its Guide to the new procurement environment covering Defence and other Agencies in New Zealand. In the introductory welcome to the Guide, the CEO Jennie Vickers laid out the new environment and the challenges and opportunities for industry and Government agency staff. For ease of reference LOD has extracted a few key sections of the guide. Copies of the Guide can be downloaded from www.nzdia.co.nz

In the New Zealand Government Defence Capability Plan published in July 2019 (DCP) it says in Chapter 9 ‘Working with Industry’: International prime companies submitting proposals to provide their capabilities outlined in this capability plan will be required to provide activity reports setting out the steps they have taken to identify and use New Zealand industry to supply goods and services as part of their proposal..(para 260). This new concept in a New Zealand defence capability plan, reflects the changes being introduced wef 1 October 2019, to procurement processes agency- wide across New Zealand. The new Rules are captured in the Government Procurement Rules 4th Edition 2019 (“PR4”). Even in a small country like New Zealand, public sector procurement exceeds NZ$41 billion per annum and the government is committed to increasing the engagement and

opportunities for New Zealand business to be involved in government procurement. This commitment is recognised as having the potential to increase exports and support NZ economic growth. These new requirements present both challenges and opportunities to industry from outside and within New Zealand. NZDIA believes that these changes will bring substantial benefits to industry and government and we are here to support both. This introductory guide is designed to assist Primes and other businesses interested in pitching for work with New Zealand government agencies, and in particular with MOD and NZDF, to understand the new PR4 Rules. NZDIA is ready to assist businesses so they have the best chance of success for their business and the New Zealand economy.

Key facts for all suppliers interested in providing goods or services into NZ Government Agencies •

PR4 Rule Changes take effect on 1 October 2019;

•

The amendments to the previous rules are described as “essential in reforming government procurement to support broader social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes…”. “Through these Rules, government contracts will now be more explicitly leveraged to support broader outcomes.“ ”By seeking continual innovation and requiring high standards in the procurement process, we are ensuring that those who win contracts in New Zealand can compete in the international market.”;

•

Important new definitions in PR4 including those on the next page;

•

Agencies are working through how to implement these changes;

•

There is a new Supplier Code of Conduct with a Statement of Government Expectations of Suppliers;

•

There is a new Government Procurement Charter (GPR) setting out Government’s expectations of how each agency should conduct their procurement activity to achieve public value, for example appropriate management of risk; (These expectations follow down into relationships between Primes & their own supply chains);

•

All agency staff engaged in procurement (ie not just procurement people) must be trained in the Five

Procurement Principles and the Charter and the agency’s practices must reflect the Five Principles and the Charter; •

Business should also train their staff to ensure they play their part under the new rules;

•

Each Agency must be able to show how it has used sound research to plan an appropriate approach-to-market strategy that is proportionate;

•

Expect more detail in Procurement Plans: •

•

They must: •

contain all known or anticipated contract opportunities that the Rules apply to (not just those driven by the Procurement team);

•

be published 6 monthly (March/October) including for example, goods and services 100k plus, and recurrent contracts due for renewal;

Do not expect the Procurement Plans to be a fixed commitment to purchase goods or services;

•

Read the PR4 in the knowledge that the Rules are mandatory for Agencies and where it says must, the Rule is compulsory and where it says should, this indicates good practice

•

Never been a better time for New Zealand businesses to also join an Australian defence project supply chain NZTE can help.

PR4 - New and important definitions Public Value (Rules 3, 12 and 46): means the best available result for New Zealand for the money spent. It includes using resources effectively, economically and responsibly, and taking into account: •

•

the procurement’s contribution to the results you are trying to achieve, including any Broader Outcomes you are trying to achieve; and the total costs and benefits of a procurement (total cost of ownership).

The principle of public value when procuring goods, services or works does not mean selecting the lowest price but rather the best possible outcome for the total cost of ownership (over the wholeof-life of the goods, services or works). Selecting the most appropriate procurement process that is proportionate to the value, risk and complexity of the procurement will help achieve public value. New Zealand Business (Rule 17): A business that originated in New Zealand (not being a New Zealand subsidiary of an off-shore business), is majority owned or controlled by New Zealanders, and has its principal place of business in New Zealand.*

What to expect and do if you are a Business (New Zealand, Australian or International) interested in supplying Agencies •

Study the PR4 Rules;

•

Check that the Agency you are interested in is bound by the Rules: eg MOD and NZDF must apply the Rules (subject to the approved exceptions);

•

Watch out for the Annual Procurement Plans for all the Agencies (Expect to be given more time to prepare to respond to tenders);

•

Study the DCP and Procurement Plans from NZDF and MOD if you are interested in Defence;

•

Expect shorter and simpler tender documents;

•

Expect pre-conditions and mandatory requirements to be more proportionate eg reasonable not dis-proportionate insurance requirements;

•

Expect to be given more opportunities to be a subcontractor, to be in a consortium and to create new supply chains;

•

Expect risk to be managed by agencies appropriately, with responsibility for managing risks with the party best placed to manage the risk (PR4-6);

•

Expect your bid to be evaluated based on best Public Value over the whole-of-life of the goods, services or works.

BENEFITS OF NZDIA MEMBERSHIP •

Introductions to potential supply chain partners in New Zealand and overseas

•

Introductions to defence and national security agencies across New Zealand

•

Networking opportunities at all our events

•

Invitation to attend member only events such as the annual Defence Executive Lunch with senior Defence staff

•

Named membership on the NZDIA member directory www. nzdia.co.nz/members

•

Initial onboarding meeting with CEO to identify which new connections you want to make to support your business development

•

Preferential pricing at all NZDIA events

•

Preferential pricing on all sponsorship opportunities

•

Invitation to attend our regular member meetings, generally alternating between Auckland and Wellington, 2020 will see some regional locations included

•

Representation at International expos such as LandForces, CIVSEC, PACIFIC and Avalon and/or assistance and networking support for those who attend themselves

Broader Outcomes (Rule 16) are the secondary benefits which are generated due to the way goods, services or works are produced or delivered. They include economic, environmental, social and cultural outcomes. Designated Contracts Include: •

ICT services/computer software

•

Construction

•

Security services

•

Light vehicles

(These are contract categories identified by Cabinet in which priority outcomes must be included and published online.) * References in the DCP to New Zealand industry includes all companies located in, and employing people in, New Zealand.

Connecting Industry with Defence and National Security agencies for the benefit of New Zealand

Cost-Effective Force Multiplier

Leonardoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ATR 72MP is the most advanced, mission-proven, twin turboprop multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft available on the market. The platform is based on the most reliable, efficient and uniquely-flexible commercial aircraft in its class, with over 1,500 units sold internationally. A state of the art sensor suite enables electronic surveillance, C4I and real-time information management for unparalleled mission-success. Inspired by the vision, curiosity and creativity of the great master inventor Leonardo is designing the technology of tomorrow.

leonardocompany.com Helicopters | Aeronautics | Electronics, Defence & Security Systems | Space

Line of Defence - Summer 2019/20

Articles inside

On Tour: When international cricket meets international risk

She’ll be right: Security AWOL at Defence event

The Asia-Pacific Security Innovation Summit 2020

Has Defence gone off the Pacific deep end?

Face-off between surveillance and privacy

Interview: Soft defences and managed retreat against climate change

Private security and the privatisation of public space

ADF Selects GA-ASI’s MQ-9B for Project Air 7003

A wrap up of 2019 and a big thank you to our overseas personnel

NZDIA Chair sets out goals for year ahead

Value destruction or value for money

Defence capability investment and the role of industry

Speech: Minister launches Advancing Pacific Partnerships

Capability questions for the next government

New Zealand’s space economy worth $1.69 billion

Defence minister commits to rebuilding reserve force

New Zealand open for business at Pacific 2019

P-8A Poseidon base works commence

The battlefield advantages of switching to electric

Special awards recognise outstanding contributions

From Norway with innovation

The right equipment in a timely manner

Digital engagement with veterans recognised

DEFENCE Winners of Defence Industry and Employer Support Awards announced