Babcock plays a crucial role in international defence, ensuring critical services and readily available, affordable and long-lasting. Now more than ever, what we do matters.
The qualification develops and advances critical research, critical thinking and writing, analytical best practice as well as exploring relevant twentieth and twenty-first century intelligence operations. It is aimed at those wishing to develop advanced critical skills in relation to their existing or prospective intelligence sector careers in New Zealand.
Graduates of this year long programme will possess an advanced knowledge of intelligence analysis processes, be grounded in relevant previous operational intelligence experiences and have a critical understanding of the ethical and professional issues involved.
The programme of study consists of two 30-credit courses:
Qualification Requirements
Semester ONE, 294741: Intelligence in the International Security Environment
A critical examination of intelligence theory and practice, focusing on key concepts and methodologies of intelligence collection and analysis, analytical tools, frameworks and concepts applied to investigations and operations in the contemporary international security environment.
Course Controller:
Dr Rhys Ball, Centre for Defence and Security Studies (Auckland)
Semester TWO, 294744: Intelligence Operations
A comprehensive grounding in the operational intelligence environment in the second half of the 20th century, into the 21st century. Participants will consider the development of intelligence practices both in New Zealand and around the world, from the evolution of intelligence contributions from the end of World War Two, to the intelligence challenges of the 2020s. Intelligence operations are critically reviewed, including intelligence success and failure, espionage against friends and allies, and policing and private intelligence formats.
Course Controller:
Dr John Battersby, Senior Fellow, Centre for Defence and Security Studies (Wellington)
To enroll in this qualification, students must have been awarded or qualified for a relevant Bachelor's degree, or be able to demonstrate scholarly work in conjunction with extensive relevant professional experience for Admission with Equivalent Status.
For further information, please contact John: j.m.battersby@massey.ac.nz, or Rhys: r.ball@massey.ac.nz.
EDITOR’S NOTE
Kia ora and welcome to the Spring 2024 edition – and 33rd issue – of Line of Defence Magazine!
In this edition, we’re privileged to be joined by Defence Minister Hon Judith Collins KC and Police Minister Hon Mark Mitchell, with expert commentary and analysis from Hon Dr Wayne Mapp QSO, Associate Professors Damien Rogers and Lauren Sanders, Rob Mather, and Kyrylo Cyril Kutcher.
The appointment of five senior officers to key leadership roles and the arrival of the first C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft, writes Minister Collins, have made for a big couple of months for Defence. According to the Minister, the use, and threat of use, of military power is increasingly shaping states’ interactions, “and we face an increasing risk of conflict directly affecting our national security”
In his article, Dr Wayne Mapp makes the point that membership of AUKUS Pillar Two is an expression of shared security interests, not an alliance. It poses no threat to New Zealand’s foreign policy independence, he writes, so why all the hesitation about it?
In Homeland Security, Police Minister Mark Mitchell writes that sweeping operational, legislative, and sentencing reforms will empower police and place victims at the heart of the justice system. More beat police, a focus on gang disruption, new restrictions around patches and gatherings, and tougher sentencing settings are intended to enable Police to target gangs despite considerable resourcing constraints.
The NZSIS has been busy publishing reports recently, including their latest Security Threat Environment Report. Short on evidence, methodology, and analysis, writes Assoc Prof Damien Rogers, it isn’t the NZSIS’ best effort. Despite this, he acknowledges Director-General Andrew Hampton’s comments that the report is “a starting point for a healthy conversation on keeping each other safe and secure” – and that’s an important outcome in itself.
In his second editorial contribution to Line of Defence, Kyrylo Cyril Kutcher delivers an extended article exploring the Soviet concept of reflexive control. It’s a concept that provides insights into Russian approaches to psychological warfare, and – importantly – for everyone else it can inform strategies to fight against misinformation.
All this, and much more in this issue of Line of Defence, including the latest Defence Industry news, research into systemic bias in policing, the arrival of the C-130Js, service chiefs and other NZDF senior appointments, and Land Forces 2024!
Get in touch if you feel you’ve got something to contribute to the conversation!
Nicholas Dynon Auckland
Hon Judith Collins KC MP Hon Mark Mitchell MP
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp QSO Assoc Prof Damien Rogers
Assoc Prof Lauren Sanders Mr Rob Mather
Mr Kyrylo Cyril Kutcher Mr Nicholas Dynon
GA-ASI
SIPRI CONTRIBUTORS
SPONSORS & PARTNERS
GA-ASI
Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies
Babcock
ASIS International
SAFTECH Expo
COVER IMAGE
Cover image courtesy NZDF.
UPCOMING ISSUE
SUMMER – December 2024
Main themes: Space; Information Domain
Copy Deadline: 1st December2023
Publication: 10th December 2023
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
CONTACT DETAILS
Chief Editor:
Nicholas Dynon
M: +64 (0)22 366 3691
Publisher:
Craig Flint
T: +64 (0) 274 597 621
E: nick@defsec.net.nz E: craig@defsec.net.nz
Postal and delivery address: 27 West Cresent, Te Puru 3575, Thames RD5, New Zealand
38 NZ SIS Security Threat Environment Report: More Work Required
40 World-leading research into systemic bias points the way for policing in community
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.
42 Customs ESR Screening Laboratory marks decade of chemical detection at border
44 Police announce phased plan to reduce mental health service
46 Inspection report for Prisoners
47 Cor rections responds to Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit reportof Extreme Risk Unit released
Preparing for a challenging future – A period of change and renewal for Defence in New Zealand
The appointment of five senior officers to key leadership roles and the arrival of the first C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft have made for a big couple of months for Defence, writes Defence Minister Hon Judith Collins KC.
Hon Judith Collins KC, AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Defence, Minister for Digitising Government, Minister responsible for the GCSB, Minister responsible for the NZSIS, Minister for Science, Innovation & Technology, Minister for Space, Lead Coordination Minister for the Governments Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques.
The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) put that first new Hercules to work within days, moving freight across the country in conjunction with a testing and evaluation programme.
By the end of the year, the full fleet of five aircraft will have landed in New Zealand - ahead of schedule. I have no doubt they will be a mission critical capability for Defence and a national asset.
Their arrival ensures that New Zealand remains ready to respond to national and international events and emergencies.
In an increasingly volatile world, where NZDF personnel will be called upon more often, it is critical they are equipped to keep New Zealanders safe using modern, fit-for-purpose and efficient assets.
From left Chief of Defence Force Air Marshal Tony Davies, Minister of Defence Judith Collins KC, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Secretary of Defence Brook Barrington. Image courtsey NZDF
The new Hercules are replacing the existing fleet of C-130H (NZ) Hercules which, since their first deployment in the 1960s, have conducted more than 97,000 flights and 154,000 flight hours in service to New Zealand.
The Hercules have for decades been the backbone of our Defence Force. Rarely has there been an NZDF mission where the aircraft aren’t working away in the background, transporting essential personnel and supplies to communities in need across New Zealand, the Pacific and throughout the world.
Take, for example, the recent flights to New Caledonia, to evacuate hundreds of New Zealand and Australian citizens following the declaration of a State of Emergency. Or the delivery of relief supplies to communities in Papua New Guinea, affected by a large earthquake and landslides.
Just three years ago they were involved with international partners in evacuating hundreds of people from Kabul, as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban.
The new Hercules bring significant new capabilities and performance improvements. They can fly further and faster than their predecessor. They are longer, which allows more people and cargo to be carried.
Many of our international partners also use this aircraft. Our ally Australia operates a fleet of the C-130Js, as does the United States, Canada, France, Singapore and Germany.
When we operate the same assets and systems as our partners, our defence forces can work together on coalition operations in a more seamless way.
The delivery of this first new Hercules came just two weeks after the appointment of five senior officers to the key leadership roles of the Vice Chief of Defence Force, Commander Joint Forces New Zealand, Chief of Navy, Chief of Army and Chief of Air Force.
Rear Admiral Garin Golding and Major General Rose King are now the Chiefs of Navy and Army, respectively, and Air Vice-Marshal Darryn Webb has been confirmed
as the Chief of Air Force, all for the next three years.
Rear Admiral Mat Williams is the Vice Chief of Defence Force and Major General Rob Krushka the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand.
These leaders bring a wealth of experience and dedication to serving their country and our Defence Force personnel.
The Service Chiefs are responsible for stewarding their respective Services and for “raising, training and sustaining” their combat arms. It is their job to ensure that the Services have well-trained and combat capable forces, ready to deploy on any operation required of them by the Government.
The appointments occur just a few months after the appointment of Air Marshal Tony Davies as the Chief of Defence Force and Dr Brook Barrington as the Secretary of Defence.
I am focused on working with these accomplished military and civilian leaders to strengthen New Zealand’s security and contribute to global peace and stability.
This is front of mind for the Government.
As outlined in the Ministry of Defence’s new Statement of Intent 2024 - 2028, New Zealand is facing increasing and compounding threats to its security. The use, and threat of use, of military power is increasingly shaping states’ interactions, and we face an increasing risk of conflict directly affecting our national security.
These same challenges are faced by other like-minded countries, including Australia and Pacific nations in our immediate region.
That is why I am committed to reinvigorating our international defence relationships, supporting our personnel, and ensuring we can do our bit on the world stage, as we face an increasingly complex global security environment.
The first of the new C-130J Hercules fleet arriving at Base Auckland. Image courtsey NZDF
Uncrewed Aircraft—Expanding Roles and Future Directions
Uncrewed aircraft have been operating for decades with great effect, but their true potential has yet to be reached. Air domain awareness, anti-submarine warfare, and advanced teaming through autonomy are some of the new roles being realised.
As New Zealand continually seeks cost-effective solutions to protect its maritime borders and resources, the potential offered by uncrewed systems presents a compelling capability choice.
Strategic and technical developments unfolding day to day have placed the advanced users of uncrewed systems, including nations such as India and Japan, on the verge of a whole new era in which the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) MQ-9B SeaGuardian® / SkyGuardian® aircraft are conducting defence and security operations.
India’s SeaGuardians
The foundation stone for India’s planned acquisition of 31 SeaGuardian / SkyGuardian aircraft was laid when the Indian Navy began to fly pre-production SeaGuardian aircraft in a lease agreement with GA-ASI several years ago.
These are the most advanced systems of their kind in the world. The SeaGuardian can fly for more than 30 hours and carries a number of highly sophisticated onboard sensor systems.
S eaGuardian has proven to be an optimal complement to the Indian Navy’s expanding area and tempo of operations throughout the Indian Ocean, including counter-piracy missions.
Pirates in small skiffs hijacked merchant ships sailing east of the African continent. The attackers imprisoned the ships’ crews and demanded a ransom for their safety.
The Indian Navy responded with warships, helicopters, crewed patrol aircraft, and, critically, the SeaGuardian, which was used to great effect.
S eaGuardian’s ability to cover great distances and its extended persistence with high-fidelity 360-degree multi-intelligence sensors was critical to these operations. It enabled commanders to search, locate, and monitor the vessels’ position and condition, and coordinate with other responding units.
W hen the time came to act against the pirates, Indian Navy commanders did so with a complete understanding of the stricken vessels, their crews, and the pirates. In cases when special operations troops assaulted the ships, commanders could watch the operation in real time from their headquarters on land or afloat.
Networking and sensing also are what enable SeaGuardian and SkyGuardian to be something no other uncrewed aircraft has been before: certifiable by aviation regulators to integrate into national aerospace and to file and fly without the need for special accommodations such as segregated airspace.
The aircraft’s Detect and Avoid System (DAAS) means that it sees air traffic around it no differently than an onboard human pilot — in many cases, better. A combination of sensors, including ADS-B, TCAS, and an air-to-air radar, along with network equipment, lets the aircraft fly through national airspace just like a conventional aircraft.
GA-ASI’s MQ-9B SeaGuardian® unmanned aircraft system flying off the coast of Southern California on Sept. 11, 2020.
Artist rendering of an MQ-9B SeaGuardian conducting a maritime surveillance mission.
The road ahead
The future of uncrewed aircraft will represent a continuation and expansion of the capabilities that SeaGuardian has proven in tens of thousands of operational flight hours around the world, in addition to the eight million flight hours accrued by GA-ASI uncrewed aircraft in more than 30 years of service.
In the not-too-distant future, users will fly more of these platforms, covering more territory under surveillance and facilitating greater information-sharing as aircraft network with each other and other surface units to build an ever-broader operational picture.
Anticipating this need, GA-ASI has developed software that lets several aircraft fly and cooperate under the supervision of one or more operators. Sophisticated machine learning and artificial intelligence mean that the pilot’s work also doesn’t look very much like that done by crews operating traditional uncrewed aircraft.
Human operators will always remain central to the operation of these aircraft. However, what’s changing is the work that goes into searching, finding, and producing the intelligence required.
Mission commanders may instruct an aircraft to search a box of ocean and not report back until it has identified the suspicious ship or until it has seen suspicious activity—such as two ships positioned very close to each other. This means the human crews and operators at the ground station can focus on other things, or manage other aircraft searches, until the system taps them on the shoulder to say: “I’ve found something of interest.”
For example, a SeaGuardian using its own maritime search radar and Automatic Identification System (AIS) has the ability to detect anomalies in transmitted AIS data and flag this to the operator.
Future capabilities
The future of uncrewed systems involves taking these capabilities, many of which have been proven by GAASI, and scaling them up, improving them, and altering
human practices accordingly. One lesson that has always been true about any new technology is that people find ways to use it that surprise its inventors. Another is that iterative production yields improvements: the newer, fullrate production model SeaGuardian is even more capable than the pre-production variant that has been at work so successfully in India.
Advances in technology are evident in GA-ASI’s jet-powered Avenger®—a larger and heavier aircraft than SeaGuardian and with greater speed. The Avenger has broken a number of milestones in demonstrating the latest technology for artificial intelligence, machine learning, and autonomy in combat aircraft.
Engineers are able to update its autonomy software in mid-flight, “teaching” the aircraft in real time what it did right, or wrong, and helping it learn as it goes. This “reinforcement” is what makes Avenger and its supporting systems more capable each time it flies— something that will be vital for uncrewed aircraft today and tomorrow, to adapt to changing missions and needs.
GA-ASI is now developing a series of new autonomous aircraft that will collaborate with other uncrewed and crewed aircraft for the next generation of air combat and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles. These aircraft are aimed at reducing the cost of expensive crewed aircraft, reducing risks to crews as well as reducing workforce.
Uncrewed aircraft are making their mark around the world. In the case of advanced users such as India, the SeaGuardian has already recorded more than 10,000 flight hours in the service of the Indian Navy.
Like India, New Zealand has extensive maritime borders and resources to protect. The SeaGuardian offers a cost-effective uncrewed capability that can operate alone or in teams with other New Zealand air and surface units. The uncrewed system’s autonomy, under development by GA-ASI, will offer reduced workforce requirements in the future and open the aperture of what is possible with uncrewed systems.
GA-ASI’s MQ-20 Avenger® UAS serves as a key testbed for advancing nextgen autonomous capabilities.
SeaGuardian shown in its ASW configuration with sonobuoy dispenser and monitoring / control systems.
Demand is booming again for defence manufacturers but production lags
After scaling back operations due to reduced demand and shrinking stock levels, defence manufacturers are now struggling to match renewed demand, writes Rob Mather, Vice President, Aerospace and Defence Industries, IFS.
Defence manufacturers everywhere are struggling to match rising demand levels following a period when they all scaled back operations and stock levels shrank to new lows—exemplified by the US defence sector losing over 40% of its value. Operations must ramp-up, but still these companies have too many separate internal manufacturing systems hindering their ability to fast-forward production.
Many of the challenges defence manufacturers are facing are external, but some are internal. Manufacturers are being held back by disparate internal manufacturing
systems that they have never addressed, and inconsistent information sources that are hindering their ability to streamline operations and fast forward production.
A recent Deloitte report pulled no punches when it argued that to unlock growth and efficiency in today’s growing defence market environments, A&D organisations had to take digital transformation seriously. “Modernising and integrating processes and enabling technologies are some significant steps for the A&D industry to improve production throughput and cost efficiency. Embracing
Rob Mather is Vice President, Aerospace and Defence Industries, IFS. He holds a degree in Aerospace Engineering from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
digital transformation can reshape A&D production processes at all stages, significantly reducing industrialisation cycle times, improving efficiencies, increasing production yield, and elevating quality standards.”
This means a companywide approach to software and information that connects the shop floor to the top floor so that they all operate efficiently to increase production, precision, and agility.
This must start with moving away from siloed and inconsistent information sources to a single integrated management system that gathers data from the Manufacturing Execution System (MES) and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system to inform the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system—providing a single source of the truth!
Here are the four key operational trigger points where technology will enable defence organisations to achieve the high-performance manufacturing operations they need to take advantage of the boom years ahead.
1. AI enabled problem detection augments and de-risks lean operations
To help deal with surges in demand, defence manufacturers have reversed inventory strategies from lean and just-in-time principles to over-stocking parts to ensure inventory buffer. Despite reducing production risks, financial risks have been increased due to cost of purchase, storage, and tracking of materials and parts.
To better balance risk, defence manufacturers can look to integrate operations and take advantage of demand-driven material requirements planning (DDMRP). This will ensure inventory levels match demand levels and supply chain variability. By looking at actual usage data, DDMRP can determine if the stock level for a part is sufficient to cover demand, making defence manufacturers more sensitive to supply chain disruptions, variations in demand, and production downtime.
The use of AI within defence forces and manufacturers is on the rise. With U.S. Department of Defence (DOD) budgeting
$1.8 billion for AI applications, and stating that AI applications will be used to help defence forces and organiations recognise patterns, learn from experience, make predictions, and generate recommendations.
AI can help further de-risk production and financial issues. Manufacturers should look to combine anomaly detection and pattern recognition with real-time data correlation. The combination of AI anomaly detection and DDMRP can radically increase the speed and accuracy of problem detection throughout all aspects of the organisation, and action potential chokepoints before they escalate into complex and costly problems.
2. Drive efficiency by integrating management platforms to unify planning and production
Defence manufacturing projects by their very nature are complex, with multiple production lines working to intricate assembly requirements. Project management, already a major challenge for defence manufacturers, is further exacerbated by this current ERP management software causing a disconnect throughout operations, alongside a lack of a skilled workforce readily available to defence manufacturers.
Recent reports from Guidant Global highlight the workforce issues facing the UK defence sector, with key decision makers stating they’re already facing a lack of skilled manufacturers and mechanics.
Implementing integrated project management software will allow defence manufacturers to align their planning through their operations to optimise their production and increase efficiency. The use of IoT technologies such as integrated project management software allows for data to flow in real time so people, systems, and capabilities can be leveraged in every aspect of their operations.
The increased visibility brought by integrated project management software can allow for manufacturing teams to react quickly to new priorities. Ensuring workers and machinery are coordinated to maximise efficiency and capacity, and avoid time, money, and resources being wasted.
3. Increased organisation-wide visibility with robust business intelligence to automate workflow triggers
One of the biggest challenges defence manufacturers are struggling to overcome due to rising demand levels is reducing lead times—in August 2023 the delivery time for production materials reached 87 days . Despite being reduced by 13 days compared to 2022, the average lead time has yet to recover to prepandemic levels.
Integrated workflows can help defence manufacturers reduce this with its ability to provide all relevant parties with data so that people, machines, and assets’ time and skills are all optimised.
A key part of digital transformation within the defence manufacturing industry is to move away from siloed data to real-time data that flows from the shop floor to the top floor of defence manufacturers. Powerful
Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) with integrated workflow engines will allow for data to flow from end-to-end, so every worker has operational visibility of what’s happening and what needs prioritising.
Utilising powerful MES with integrated workflow engines brings far more benefits to defence manufacturers compared to typical ERP systems with data aggregators or business intelligence reports. Integrated workflow systems are accessible for all relevant parties— providing vital insights into ongoing work everywhere.
4. A single source of the truth keeps defence manufacturers on the right side of regulations Defence manufacturers operate in an industry defined by regulatory requirements whether it’s supply chain, cyber security, sustainability, or employment—they all have their own regulations to comply with. This requires defence manufacturers to have fully traceable operations and processes which generate information that is readily available for regulatory reporting.
As regulations get stricter, current disjointed systems make it hard for defence manufacturers to meet requirements, with slow data compilation and increased risk of
information being inaccurate or outof-date. A real-time, single source of the truth is needed.
This means manufacturing management platforms should include integrated and automated templates for mandatory government reports that are ready to use when called upon. Combining MES and ERP in one place will also help them comply with the ISA-95 standard from the International Society of Automation (ISA). This ensures they are using these standardized data models and communications to enable consistent and accurate data exchanges throughout all business systems.
Putting the digital building blocks in place to achieve highperformance manufacturing
Within the defence manufacturing industry, some organisations may choose to partner with strategic technology partners to help them achieve their financial and production target. These partners can better understand the challenges that defence manufacturers are facing, and the integrated management platform they need to meet challenges, optimise operations, and increase customer trust and satisfaction.
This means focusing on moving away from siloed and disparate data to an integrated system and single source of the truth with data from operational systems such as MES and EAM systems being passed straight to the CRM and ERP system. An integrated management platform can help defence manufacturers deliver on increasing demands—but make the most of their existing workforce and stay compliant.
Getting this digital transformation right is critical for defence manufacturers to grasp control of internal challenges they are facing, and unlock the highperformance manufacturing needed to make the most of this recent rise in demand.
Sentinel Boats Awarded NZDF Contract for Replacement Naval Sea Boats
Following the successful delivery of three 1250 Littoral Manoeuvre Craft (LMC) last year, Sentinel Boats has been awarded the contract to replace the RNZN’s fleet of Naval Sea Boats with Sentinel 780R RHIBs.
The contract covers the construction of 17 RHIBs plus an option for three additional boats, and it will be structured will allow investigations to be undertaken on the viability of an electric power version that may be used for training purposes.
Just like the LMCs, the 7.8m sea boats will be built from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and be powered by an inboard diesel with Hamilton Jet propulsion.
Sentinel Boats CEO, George McGuire, said the award built on the success of the Sentinel 1250 LMC. The performance of the LMCs and Sentinel’s collaborative work with the project team and end users was recognised with the award of the “New Zealand Defence Prime Contractor of the Year 2023” by the Minister of Defence.
“The fact that Sentinel Boats has been selected over much larger multinational defence manufacturers is testament to the hard work and pride of the Sentinel team, our partners including one2three naval architects, and the undisputable performance of our boats,” Mr McGuire said.
“Sentinel Boats has pioneered the use of HDPE in high performance military and law enforcement craft, where it has been proven to offer unrivalled durability, impact resistance and anti-fatigue characteristics,” he said.
“At the same time HDPE hulls require minimal maintenance, eliminating downtime and maximising operational availability as well as significantly reducing inservice support costs.”
The hulls will be built at Sentinel’s specialised Hobart facilities, before being shipped to New Zealand for their final fit out and commissioning with partners Hamilton Jet, ENL Marine Electronics, Mainsail Electronics, Hosking Trailers and Shark Seats.
“We are incredibly proud to have earned the trust of the RNZN for this important project and we are confident that we will exceed the expectations and demands of the service men and women who will use
our boats as they undertake what are, at times, challenging and demanding operations,” said McGuire.
“Our aim is to collaboratively design and build boats that allow crews to perform their mission, and to get them home safely every time.”
Global maritime classification society DNV will be engaged to provide independent certification of the design, manufacture and sea trails. This is believed to be a first for a naval sea boat and will provide a high level of assurance over the quality, safety and fitness for purpose the vessel.
After completing design reviews, the first boat will be delivered in late 2025 and the full order of 17 (+3) boats completed in 2027.
What we know about Australia’s arms exports: we’ve analysed the data
The opacity of defence export reporting leaves many questions unanswered, writes Lauren Sanders, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Queensland (and Matt Garrow contributing).
Thousands of protesters have been out in force in Melbourne this week to disrupt the Land Forces International Land Defence Exposition , where defence companies from around the world are showcasing their latest designs in weapons and technology.
The activists are protesting the use of such weapons – in particular, allegations of use against Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in Gaza.
With the expo in Melbourne this week, there is also renewed attention on Australia’s weapons exports and imports. So, how much do we know about where Australia is sending its arms, and how many arms it is importing?
What gets reported?
The government limits what information is made publicly available about arms exports and imports due to both security and commercial reasons.
Australian exports include both military-specific and dual-use goods and technologies, such as computer components used in weapons. There is a strict export control system that is intended to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of our adversaries and to ensure they meet our obligations under international law.
But this system has been criticised for being opaque. This
is because Australia only publicly reports recipient countries for items it is obliged to disclose under the Arms Trade Treaty, or in some cases, during parliamentary hearings or other similar processes.
S eparately, Australia’s Defence Export Office publishes quarterly reports with very basic information, such as the number and types of export applications it receives and the total value of permits it issues. It only specifies the export permits for “end users” by continent, not country.
I n the year 2023–24, the office finalised more than 4,000 export defence permits, with the value of permits issued exceeding an estimated A$100 billion.
Unlike other countries, Australia does not specify exactly what types of goods it has approved for import or export.
The government also does not report how many issued permits are actually used by companies to trade goods. The movement of military goods to and from Australia is tracked through other processes, such as customs controls.
Finally, requests for further information are typically met with resistance from the government, on the basis such disclosures would breach security or commercial confidentiality arrangements.
Howe ver, while not authoritative,
Lauren Sanders, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Queensland
Matt Garrow is the Editorial Web Developer at The Conversation AU.
information about Australian exports can be pieced together from a variety of sources. This includes reports from exporting companies themselves, reports sent by exporters to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and statements made in parliament and in other government reporting.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) also tracks arms shipments between countries by assessing public information. Some countries provide information directly to their analysts.
Here is some data we have compiled from SIPRI showing Australia’s exports and imports for the most recent five-year period from 2019–23, based on what is publicly known.
Australia’s
arms exports
According to SIPRI, Australia ranked 13th in overall military expenditures globally in 2022–23, spending US$32.3 billion (A$49 billion), or about 1.9% of GDP.
Australia was also one of the top 20 arms exporters in the world from 2019–23, though its share of total global arms exports was just 0.6%, similar to Canada. This share was up from 0.3% in 2014–18.
The United States, meanwhile, accounted for 42% of global arms exports in 2019–23. The top
recipients for Australian arms during this five-year period. The top three recipients were Canada (32% of Australia’s total exports), Chile (28%) and the United States (11%).
What do we know about Israel?
According to SIPRI, Israel’s arms imports for 2019–23 came primarily from the US (69%) and Germany (30%).
The Albanese government maintains Australia hasn’t supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel in the past five years. This week, it also explicitly backed the United Kingdom’s decision to curb arms exports to Israel.
S ome of what we know about Australia’s exports to Israel has been the result of questions being put to parliamentarians .
I n June, the government said it had granted eight permits to export defence-related equipment to Israel since the Gaza war began last October. It clarified that most of the items were being sent to Israel for repair and then returned to Australian defence and law enforcement for their use.
Th is reporting, however, does not capture sub-components that are manufactured in Australia and sent to a central repository overseas to be used in a larger platform , like an F-35 jet, which can then be sent to Israel from the US or Europe .
What do we know about Ukraine?
In the case of Ukraine, Australia has exported conventional arms such as Bushmaster armoured vehicles and artillery. Some of these have been included in its public reporting , given the type of equipment being provided.
According to SIPRI, the largest sources of military goods to Ukraine have been the US, Germany and Poland.
Australia’s arms imports
SIPRI’s data shows that Australia was eighth-largest importer of arms from 2019–23, accounting for 3.7% of global arms imports .
The vast majority (80%) of its imports during this period came from the United States, followed by Spain at 15%.
The types of items that Australia has reported importing from the US include ships, aircraft, helicopters and missile defence systems. In addition, SIPRI noted that Australia ordered 300 long-range missiles from the US in 2023.
However, because it often takes years for these large defence items to be built, quite often there is a lag in the reporting of import data.
For example, Australia’s recently announced deal with Hanwha , a Korean defence company, to build artillery and armoured vehicles will not be featured in these statistics as some components of the vehicles and artillery will be built in a factory in Geelong, Australia, while others will not be delivered in this reporting period.
A lso, while export control measures deal with goods that are built elsewhere and brought to Australia, some permits are required to import the know-how to build controlled defence goods in Australia. This is another reason imports like these might not appear on public reports.
This article was originally published in The Conversation on 12 September 2024.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles visited Ukraine on 27 April 2024.
(ADF photo by Cpl. Andrew Sleema)
New appointments for NZDF’s senior leadership
RADM Garin Golding, MAJGEN Rose King and AVM Darryn Webb are the new chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Force respectively, and MAJGEN Robert Krushka is the new Commander Joint Forces New Zealand.
“These accomplished leaders are the New Zealand Defence Force’s most senior officers in their service, bringing a wealth of experience and strategic insight and being dedicated to serving our country,” said Defence Minister Judith Collins upon their appointments.
“I look forward to working closely with them and advancing the Government’s commitment to strengthening New Zealand’s security and contributing to global peace and stability.”
All three service chiefs have been appointed for three years from 27 August.
RADM Golding was promoted from Commodore and MAJGEN King from Brigadier following their
appointments. Air Vice-Marshal Webb, who has been Chief of Air Force since last year, will retain his current rank.
The NZDF leadership change was completed by Chief of Defence Force Air Marshal Tony Davies’ appointments of Commodore Mathew Williams as Vice Chief of Defence Force and Brigadier Robert Krushka as Commander Joint Forces New Zealand, who also received promotions.
“I welcome these appointments and look forward to working with my senior leadership team over the next three years,” Air Marshal Davies said. RADM Williams took up his new role on 27 August and MAJGEN Krushka on 30 August.
Minister Collins with the new appointees. Image courtesy NZDF.
Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Garin Golding
Prior to his appointment, RADM Golding was the NZDF’s Maritime Component Commander, a role he has held since 2021.
He was Director Maritime Domain from 2020-2021 and Deputy Chief of Navy (Strategy and Engagement) in 2019. RADM Golding was the Commander, Deployable Joint Inter-Agency Task Force, from 2016-2019.
Between 2013 and 2016 he was the Project Manager, Littoral Operations Capability (ship replacement project) and from 2012-2013 he was Inspector General (Maritime). From 2009 to 2012 he was Department Head, Joint Training Coordination.
RADM Golding holds a Master of Arts in International Security and Strategy (Distinction), King’s College London, a Master of Strategic Studies (Victoria University of Wellington) and a Diploma in Applied Business Management (Auckland University of Technology). In 2012 he was awarded the United States Navy and Marine Corps commendation and has received Chief of Navy commendations. He joined the Navy in 1988.
Chief of Army Major General Rose King
MAJGEN King has been Acting Chief of Army since June. From 2022 to 2024 she was the Deputy Chief of Army.
Between 2019 and 2021 MAJGEN King was Director, Strategic Commitments and in 2021 she was seconded to Head of Operations, Managed Isolation and Quarantine, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
From 2018-2019 MAJGEN King was Chief of Staff, Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand, and in 2018 she was the Chief Operational Planner – Resolute Support Headquarters, Afghanistan.
MAJGEN King holds a Bachelor of Defence Studies (Massey University), a Master of Arts in Strategic Studies (Deakin University) and a Master of Management in Defence Studies (University of Canberra). In 2018 she
was awarded the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, the US Meritorious Service Medal and the US Army Commendation Medal.
MAJGEN King joined the Army in 1991. She is the first woman to be appointed Chief of Army, and to be made a service chief across New Zealand’s armed forces.
Chief of Air Force Air Vice-Marshal Darryn Webb
AVM Webb has been Chief of Air Force since 2023. From 2021 to 2023 he was Assistant Chief of Defence –Strategic Commitments and Engagements.
Between 2018 and 2021 AVM Webb was Assistant Chief of Defence (Capability). He was seconded in 2020-2021 to COVID-19 Operational Lead, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
AVM Webb was Air Component Commander from 2016 to 2018, and deputy Chief of Air Force from 2016 to 2018. He was Senior Commander, Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea and Officer Commanding 488 Wing from 2010 to 2014.
AVM Webb holds a Master of Strategic Studies (Deakin University) and a Post Graduate Diploma in Defence and Security Studies (Massey University). He is a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit and in 2017 attended the Capstone Leadership Course (US Department of Defense). He joined the Air Force in 1990.
Image courtesy NZDF.
Image courtesy NZDF.
Image courtesy NZDF.
DEFENCE
Vice Chief of the Defence Force Rear Admiral
Mathew Williams
Prior to his most recent appointment, RADM Williams was the acting Vice Chief of the Defence Force and before that, he headed up Defence Capability, a role he held since 2021. Amongst his other roles, he has been Maritime Component Commander, and Deputy Chief of Navy.
He served most of his formative years at sea, including on exchange in the Royal Australian Navy. He joined the Navy in 1989 as a seaman officer.
R eturning to New Zealand in 2001, RADM Williams served as the first Maritime Planner at Headquarters, Joint Forces New Zealand, as well as numerous other roles including a three-year command of HMNZS Te Kaha from 2008.
R ADM Williams has been involved in Coalition Maritime Force counter-piracy operations throughout the Middle East region, and had appointments at Defence Headquarters, New Zealand Naval Attaché to the United States (NZ Embassy, Washington DC) and Military Secretary to the Minister of Defence.
R ADM Williams holds a Master of International Security and Strategy (King’s College, London); Master of Public Management (Victoria University), Bachelor of Business Studies (Massey University), and a Graduate Diploma in Applied Science (University of New South Wales).
R ADM Williams was appointed a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2007 New Year Honours list, and is a Member of the Royal College of Defence Studies, London.
Commander Joint Forces New Zealand Major General Robert Krushka
Prior to his most recent appointment, MAJGEN Krushka was Chief of Joint Defence Services, a role he has been in since 2019.
Prior to this he held roles in Commander Logistics, Defence Logistics Command, Logistic Commander (Land), and Military Secretary, Army General Staff, Commanding Officer, 2nd Logistics Battalion and then Chief of Staff, 2nd Land Force Group.
M AJGEN Krushka has deployed numerous times including to Iraq as a United Nations Military Advisor, Timor-Leste as the Officer Commanding Combat Services Support Company, and Antarctica as a Detachment Commander.
I n January 2004 MAJGEN Krushka was posted to Headquarters Joint Operations Command, Sydney Australia as the Staff Officer Grade Two Logistics Operations and Plans.
M AJGEN Krushka is a graduate of the New Zealand Defence Force Command and Staff College (Dux) and the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy (Distinguished Graduate). He holds a Graduate Certificate in Supply Chain Management, Post Graduate Diploma in Arts (Distinction), Master of Business Administration and a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy (Distinction).
I n 2006, MAJGEN Krushka was awarded an Australian Defence Force (ADF) Deputy Chief of Joint Operations Commendation for his role in ADF support to the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami and in June 2006 he was appointed as a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit. He enlisted into the New Zealand Army in January 1989.
Image courtesy NZDF.
Image courtesy NZDF.
Defence Ministry releases latest report on major projects
On 22 August the Ministry of Defence announced the release of the 14th edition of the Defence Major Projects Report, citing both good progress and delays.
The 2023 Defence Major Projects Report has been released. Providing information about Defence’s management of projects for the financial year ending 30 June 2023, it highlighted progress on eleven significant procurement projects.
Presenting to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee on 22 August, Deputy Secretary of Capability Delivery Sarah Minson said the report highlighted the progress Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force were making on a number of complex procurement programmes and projects.
The two programmes and nine projects included in the report have a whole of life cost greater than $25 million and are deemed medium or high risk.
“ The Ministry has about $6 billion of major defence capability projects in delivery, with about two thirds of that funding spent to date,” stated Ms Minson. “The delivery environment in which that investment is taking place is challenging.
“However, good progress continues to be made and while a number of projects are experiencing schedule delays, all are forecasting to deliver the agreed quality and scope within their Cabinet-approved budgets.”
Project milestones highlighted in the report include:
• Frigate HMNZS Te Mana successfully completed a live firing of the SeaCeaptor local area defence missile. The firing marked the end of the Naval Operational Testing and Evaluation process. While the final milestone of Operational Release is still to be achieved, the upgraded systems delivered as part of the Frigate System Upgrade project are available and are being used.
• I n December 2023, the Air Surveillance Maritime Patrol project completed ahead of schedule the second phase of releasing the P-8A Poseidon capability. This means the aircraft can now be used operationally for global maritime surveillance and patrol, search and rescue, and humanitarian aid and disaster relief.
• A ll 43 Bushmaster protected vehicles were delivered and driver training is underway. The selection of a
Prime Systems Integrator to give the vehicles secure communications and access to the Network Enabled Army’s Sitaware Battle Management System is progressing on schedule.
• Flight testing of the new C-130J aircraft commenced in March, and the fleet remain on track for delivery beginning later this year.
E ach year the Major Projects Report is presented to the Select Committee. This year, presenting were Sarah Minson from the Ministry and NZDF’s Acting Vice Chief of Defence Force, Commodore Mat Williams (now VCDF, RADM Williams).
The 2023 report covers the following programmes and projects: Air Surveillance Maritime Patrol (P-8A Poseidon); Future Air Mobility Capability – Tactical (C130-J Hercules); Frigate Sustainment Programme; Anzac Frigate Systems Upgrade; Frigate Sustainment Communications; Operational and Regulatory Aviation Compliance Sustainment; Dive and Hydrographic Vessel (HMNZS Manawanui); Maritime Sustainment Capability (HMNZS Aotearoa); Fixed High Frequency Radio Refresh; Network Enabled Army (NEA) C4 and NEA Reconnaissance and Surveillance; and the Protected Vehicle Medium (NZ 5.5 Bushmasters).
Protected Vehicle Medium (NZ 5.5 Bushmasters).
Image courtsey of NZDF
AUKUS Pillar Two doesn’t lock us into an alliance, so why all the hesitation?
Membership of AUKUS Pillar Two is an expression of shared security interests that poses no threat to New Zealand’s foreign policy independence, writes Dr Wayne Mapp.
Senior Contributor Hon Dr Wayne Mapp QSO was New Zealand’s Minister of Defence and Minister of Science and Innovation from 2008 to 2011.
New Zealand has been discussing AUKUS Pillar Two for nearly two years, without coming to a definitive view. That is more time than the original AUKUS parties spent establishing the original AUKUS arrangements on issues that were far more significant than the matters of Pillar Two.
W hy the angst and extent of the debate and hence the delay?
The core nations of Australia, United States and the United Kingdom are much more certain about their security priorities than the supposed Pillar Two nations. All three original AUKUS nations are deeply enmeshed in their military alliance relationships. In contrast, New Zealand has had a degree of ambivalence about its security relationships ever since the breakdown of the ANZUS arrangements nearly 40 years ago.
The last quarter century has seen New Zealand progressively deepen its defence ties with the United States, but without specifically resurrecting the ANZUS alliance. However in the Prime Minister’s recent trip to Australia, Prime Minster Luxon specifically referenced ANZUS as underpinning New Zealand’s relationship with Australia. The signal to both Australia and the United States could hardly have been more specific, that New Zealand is still committed to the purpose of
common defence as was originally envisaged by ANZUS.
I f things were a simple as that there should be no debate about whether New Zealand should join AUKUS Pillar Two. It would be simply a logical extension of the commitments of ANZUS.
But that would ignore the reality of the rift of the last 40 years. Even though it was the United States that suspended the ANZUS obligations, the result of that decision is that New Zealand has not regarded itself as being in an alliance relationship with the United States since 1985.
Th at means joining AUKUS Pillar Two is not axiomatic. There is a real debate on the merits and costs of joining that is being publicly played out. In essence New Zealand is weighing the arguments for and against. New Zealand is not in the position of automatically joining Pillar Two as would be a formal ally.
Former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark and former National Leader Dr Don Brash are leading the argument for not joining. Their perspective is strongly driven by the fact that New Zealand is not an ally of the United States and thus New Zealand has choices that a formal ally would not have.
From this perspective New Zealand’s independent foreign policy has substance because New Zealand is not in an alliance relationship with
the United States. However, this approach pays little regard to New Zealand’s alliance relationship with Australia.
The Australian alliance is not regarded as of much relevance in the arguments set out by Helen Clark and Don Brash. For them the issue turns almost solely on whether New Zealand runs the risk of being drawn into the United States’ contest with China. They assess this risk as being too great to consider joining Pillar Two.
The argument for joining is essentially being run by the government. Former Defence Minister Andrew Little has also argued the case for joining. The essence of the case for joining is the long standing security relationships with the AUKUS partners. In the case of Australia and the United Kingdom this security relationship extends literally back to the formal establishment of New Zealand under the Treaty of Waitangi.
The importance of the security relationships outweigh more recent economic relationships with China. However, the government is not blind to the significance of New Zealand’s economic relationship with China. The recent statements by Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins have become more nuanced.
Both Ministers have stressed that joining AUKUS Pillar Two is about affirming long standing security relationships, not about joining an alliance against China. Both Ministers have stated the importance of New Zealand’s overall relationship with China. In doing so they are seeking to reassure China that AUKUS Pillar Two is simply a continuation of how New Zealand has managed its overall relationships in the Asia Pacific in both the security and economic arenas.
Given the number of statements by government Ministers in support of joining AUKUS Pillar Two, it is hard to imagine that the government will not follow through.
Not to join now would be a back down of much greater significance than New Zealand not being part of the coalition that invaded Iraq. It would be a direct rejection of the importance of New Zealand’s alliance with Australia, a point fully understood by the Prime Minister when he referred to ANZUS as underpinning New Zealand’s security alliance with Australia.
The challenge for New Zealand will be managing the ongoing relationship with China. However, New Zealand is not alone in this dilemma. Australia has the same challenge.
As with New Zealand, China is Australia’s foremost economic partner. The Albanese government has shown itself to be considerably more astute about this than the previous government lead by former Prime Minister Morrison. The bellicose statements about China that were a feature of the Morrison administration are no longer present. As a consequence the Australia China relationship has significantly improved.
Managing the China relationship should be easier for New Zealand. After all New Zealand is not seeking to become a core member of AUKUS. The technologies envisaged by Pillar Two are not of the same significance as nuclear submarines. They will not tip the strategic balance in the same way. Rather it is an ongoing expression of shared security interests.
An analogy may be made to the 2003 Iraq invasion. France is a NATO ally of the United States, but that did not mean that France had an alliance obligation to join the Iraq invasion. Article 5 of NATO had not been invoked.
New Zealand’s non-participation in the Iraq invasion is seen as a high point of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy. Having a shared security interest, as envisaged by AUKUS Pillar Two, will not obligate New Zealand to blindly follow whatever security decisions made by other partners, most notably those made by the United States.
Joining AUKUS Pillar Two is not the same as a formal decision to enter into a military alliance. There will be no provision in AUKUS Pillar Two that is analogous to Article 5 of NATO, the invoking of which commits all NATO nations to joint military action.
In short, New Zealand will be able to join AUKUS Pillar Two without having the spectre of being an unwilling participant in military actions against other Asia Pacific nations.
DEFENCE Team New Zealand at Land Forces
Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre hosted the biennial Land Forces International Land Defence Exposition over 11-13 September, with New Zealand Defence and Industry represented.
Land Forces grabbed media headlines internationally for the wrong reasons after violent scenes between protesters and police saw dozens of people arrested, police horses punched, and dozens of police in need of medical treatment.
Protesters set fire to trash cans and threw projectiles and horse manure at officers, while the 1,000-strong police contingent responded with rubber bullets, both sides accusing the other of violence.
With tensions heightened by international conflict, in pa rticular the continuing violence in Gaza, protesters took aim at the exposition and its delegates. But despite the headline-grabbing scenes outside the venue, the event itself was a major success, and Team New Zealand was there.
“Than ks... to the officers of Victoria Police and AFP for their hard work over the last few days under very difficult circumstances,” stated Cratos CEO and NZDIA Board Member Mick Turner.
“As this year’s Land Forces has drawn to a close I wou ld like to thank the NZDIA Team who have put in a great deal of hard work to make our stand successful and showcase our NZ industry to the wider region,” he said.
Mr Tur ner also thanked new Chief of Army, Major General Rose King, who was part of the NZDF contingent along with new Sergeant Major of the Army WO1 Dave Alder, and thanked her “for her clear support to NZ Industry”.
“What has been a very successful show has high lighted the phenomenal speed of technology evolution and that Industry has stepped up and developed solutions to issues that are apparent from recent conflicts,” he continued.
“The ot her thing that has struck me is the way in which companies are far more open to collaboration and partnerships to deliver successful programs and outcomes for our customers.”
New platform to make R&D facilities and equipment
more
accessible
The Science, Innovation and Technology sector is working together to improve collaboration and access to infrastructure and expertise via a new online platform.
Kitmap, the first-of-its-kind in New Zealand online directory and database of scientific infrastructure and equipment owned by publicly funded institutes, was announced by Judith Collins in her capacity as Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology on 20 September.
The online platform is part of a wider project led by the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that seeks to optimise the use of Aotearoa‘s science and technology research infrastructure.
“ We are excited to be part of the delivery and management of a tool that streamlines access to facilities that also helps to enhance collaboration and efficiency,” said Callaghan Innovation Chief Executive, Stefan Korn.
K itmap includes advanced facilities such as clean rooms, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certified testing, pilot and manufacturing infrastructure, and specialised Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy capabilities that are now more accessible.
It currently catalogues 260 R&D items of infrastructure, specialised equipment, much of which are found nowhere else, or not easily accessible locally, providing easy access to equipment and facilities owned by Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), the National eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) and Callaghan Innovation.
“Our colleagues at MBIE have done the heavy lifting gathering the relevant information for this tool,” said Dr Korn. “As an innovation agency and R&D provider, we are very happy to host and promote Kitmap to support improved collaboration, and optimised resource use across the public sector and beyond.
“As scientific fields, interdisciplinary research and private sector R&D areas continue to evolve rapidly, it’s crucial that our public science and technology resources are deployed to the areas where they can deliver the greatest impact for New Zealand.
“And as the fourth industrial revolution gathers pace, Kitmap will offer valuable insights and access to a broad
spectrum of research facilities and equipment, ensuring Kiwi innovators have the tools they need to successfully develop products and inventions.
“In the near future Kitmap will look to incorporate generative AI functionality to suggest potential methods and machinery required for rapid prototyping of new products or innovations,” said Dr Korn.
K itmap resource categories include:
• L aboratories: Conventional research rooms/buildings
• Field sites: Physical spaces for non-laboratory research activities
• L ivestock facilities: Spaces for rearing or researching livestock, including animals, fish, and insects
• Vessels: Ships or boats equipped for sea research
• Digital collections: Online databases and digital archives
• C omputing: Physical computing hardware or virtual networks
• Workshops: Spaces with CNC machinery, tools and equipment for rapid prototyping
• S ample collections: Physical specimen collections
• Mon itoring: Networks of monitoring equipment
• Pilot plants: Facilities for pre-commercial production technology trials
Stefan Korn, Chief Executive Callaghan Innovation
Aerospace innovators among Ārohia Trailblazer grant recipients
Callaghan Innovation to support trailblazing businesses with bold ideas to succeed in global markets, while forging new pathways for like-minded Kiwi innovators.
Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, Judith Collins announced the Ārohia Trailblazer grant recipients at the New Zealand Aerospace Summit on 24 September in Christchurch.
Callaghan Innovation has allocated $17.5 million in co-funding to Astrix Astronautics, Basis NZ, Emrod, Fabrum Solutions, Toku Eyes, Zincovery Process Technologies and Zenno Astronautics. The Ārohia Trailblazer Innovation Grant supports businesses that are benefiting the innovation ecosystem, and which have global potential.
“Congratulations to these Kiwi innovators who have developed these impressive, and ambitious innovations with the potential for success here and in global markets,” said Callaghan Innovation Chief Product Officer, Brett Calton.
“ We look forward to following their success as they inspire and enable other, like-minded ambitious innovators. These trailblazers represent diverse sectors, including HealthTech, CleanTech and aerospace, that are growing and have the potential to make a bigger impact globally.”
About the recipients
Auckland-based Astrix Astronautics design unique, reliable high performance power systems for small satellites using a state-of-the art inflatable deployment mechanism that delivers solar power to megaconstellations.
Z enno Astronautics Limited is building the future of agile and sustainable operations in space. They have developed a patented technology based on superconducting magnets that enables spacecraft operators to reduce their costs while also increasing their mission value.
E mrod Limited is pioneering the transition to a wireless, global energy network. Its technology is hardware for wirelessly sending large amounts of power over long distances, safely and efficiently. Just as the
internet transformed communication, wireless power will transform the world’s ability to generate and use energy.
The fundamental technologies that Christchurchbased Fabrum Solutions Limited has developed leverage over 20 years of composite and cryogenic discovery.
The company has developed a very desirable library of patents and trade secrets, including cryocoolers, refuelling technologies, liquefiers and storage systems for hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and LNG. Fabrum operates around the globe with 80% of its product made in New Zealand and exported globally.
B asis NZ Limited has developed the world’s first residential Smart Panel, enabling homeowners to reduce their electricity costs, make their homes dramatically safer and lower barriers to adopting electrification technologies (EV, battery & solar).
Toku Eyes Limited has developed a product that can identify individuals with elevated chronic kidney disease risk (CKD) using retinal fundus images only. Commercialisation of this AI medical device will remove the need for blood and urine test to identify high-risk CKD individuals, enabling preventative care to avoid costly debilitating kidney failure.
Christchurch-based Zincovery Process Technologies Limited is looking to bring the first 100% recycled, low carbon and high purity zinc product to the market. This is enabled by their innovative zinc recycling technology that avoids the use of fossil fuels, reducing emissions by up to 95% and processing costs by 45%.
UK Defence Support selects AI software for enhanced information analysis
Information intelligence software provider Adarga has been awarded a contract with Defence Support, part of the UK’s Strategic Command.
UK Defence Support has selected Adarga’s Vantage software to accelerate analysis as it explores threats to UK military operations worldwide in a fast-moving information environment. The new platform offers search, discovery, and generative AI capabilities to deliver enriched and enhanced intelligence outputs to decision-makers, as well as streamline work processes.
“ Driving efficiency and boosting productivity is undoubtedly a key priority for defence, and humanmachine teaming is a fundamental driver of this”, said Adarga’s Senior Vice President Public Sector, Charlie Maconochie.
“ We are delighted to hear that Defence Support are not only saving significant amounts of time through the use of Vantage, but can also more effectively scale their research efforts and produce better results having had more time to focus on higherlevel analysis,” he added.
Users are able to more rapidly interpret a large volume of curated data that has been automatically collated, contextualised, and connected – as well as translated from over 75 languages – with a tool purpose-built to augment rather than replace human intelligence.
A s a result, Defence Support has reported an increase in the quality of their insights with the ability to access a wide range of global
information that would typically remain inaccessible. This is not only broadening their knowledge base but also introducing diverse perspectives on various topics.
The platform’s Question and Answer (Q&A) function has also been recognised as a powerful tool by Defence Support, enableing users to generate natural language answers to complex questions rapidly and ask questions of specific outputs and reports that have been generated in the platform.
The capability is powered by a carefully calibrated large language model and features robust guardrails to ensure it is used safely and with confidence, providing citations and links back to source documents.
“Our software provides a powerful means to uncover insights that may otherwise have been missed, with the ability to interrogate and contextualise both proprietary and publicly available data in one secure place,” added Mr Maconochie.
“ This is a vital capability for our armed forces and we are proud to be supporting the Defence Support team in generating well-informed and nuanced analyses for more strategic, evidence-based decision-making,”
Adarga’s technology is deployed to allied armed forces, national security organisations, and the commercial sector, delivering information and decision advantage in a context of increasing geopolitical threats.
Adarga’s AI software is to deliver enhanced information analysis to Defence Support. Courtesy Adarga
Reclaiming Truth: Reflexive control and Russian disinformation
The Soviet concept of reflexive control provides insights into Russian approaches to psychological warfare, and – importantly – it can inform strategies to fight against misinformation, writes Kyrylo Cyril Kutcher.
One of the most consequential security challenges of the 21st century, according to the United States National Intelligence Council, is metastasising disinformation. Russian statesanctioned influence campaigns specifically pose an increasingly higher threat to democratic societies worldwide, manipulating public opinion and focusing on societal polarisation, confusion, and diminishing trust in domestic and international governing institutions.
Successful management of and protection from this threat requires an interdisciplinary approach
marrying security and psychology studies. Psychological theories in particular might help us understand how disinformation influences individual and collective minds and reveal potential responses to protect societies.
With this purpose in mind, this article considers Russian disinformation as form of psychological warfare through the prism of the Russian strategy of reflexive control, concluding with recommendations on how to counter this challenge through public awareness and synergising private and government counterintelligence efforts.
Russian Disinformation as a Global Security Challenge Russia leads the way in strategic nihilism, which Yale University professor Timothy Snyder describes as a deliberate strategy of seeding chaos and confusion within societies through a notion that objective truth does not exist and that all political systems are corrupt and mendacious.
In the book The Revenge of Power, Moisés Naím explores the nature and application of this concept psychologically worldwide, defining it as a broader political strategy of ‘3P’ – populism, polarisation, and post-truth. Naím’s framework highlights how autocratic leaders (often originally democratically elected, as in Hungary) manipulate information to foster division and maintain power through pseudolawful mechanisms.
Both Snyder and Naím’s conclusions align with the US National Security Council assessment that “Russia aims to engender cynicism among foreign audiences, diminish trust in institutions, promote conspiracy theories,
and drive wedges in societies”. Recognising these manipulations is the first step towards understanding the security challenge presented by Russian disinformation.
COVID-19 is a case in point. Throughout the pandemic, Russia disseminated conspiracy theories about the virus and vaccines, sowing confusion, and mistrust within societies. In a 2022 report, Microsoft catalogued a significant surge in Russian propaganda in several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, with consumption among Kiwis peaking right before the protests in Wellington in early 2022.
Manipulations of available information kindle fear and undermine public trust in government institutions and scientific authorities, sabotage health agencies’ efforts, and, in the long run, can damage societal cohesion.
As a tool of its global hybrid warfare, Russia harnessed social media platforms to spread false information and amplify divisive issues through fake accounts and
bot farms to influence voting at the Brexit referendum and at the US presidential elections in 2016. In 2014, Russia launched a media disinformation campaign to justify its annexation of Crimea and destabilise Ukraine.
On top of digital disinformation, Russia sponsors foreign politicians to promote its narrative and expand its reach. In Europe, Moscow has been exposed as paying members of foreign parliaments, raising concerns about its use of similar methods in other regions. These actions align with the aims of strategic nihilism in eroding popular trust in democratic politics.
Reflexive Control within Psychological Theories
Reflexive control is a psychological concept that when applied to politics refers to the manipulating of perceptions and opinions of target societies and consequently influencing their governments’ decision-making processes. It originated in Soviet Russia and was systematically applied to portray the state abroad as a “champion of peace and social justice”, discredit democratic countries, and expand its influence.
Technically, it works through disseminating carefully constructed information to influence social opinions and thus steer political leadership towards decisions beneficial to the manipulator.
Traditional propaganda that promotes specific narratives or distracts attention from vital issues is the simplest example of reflexive control. Its full scope, however, is multi-stage and designed to target subjects of varying levels of critical thinking and fact-checking capability. It can shape public opinion by exploiting the human mind’s cognitive predispositions and, by extension, it can also shape the actions of target state and non-state actors.
Protestors and their tents at the 2022 protest in Parliament grounds, Wellington. Image courtesy of Wikimedia.
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Reflexive control theory can be seen in context with the psychological theories of cognitive appraisal and social identities. The former suggests that individuals’ emotional responses and behaviour are determined by their interpretation of events and information. By manipulating information available to target subjects, it is possible to influence their evaluation process and, consequently, their reaction to events or news.
Reflexive control also exploits social identities and group affiliations, with desired reactions varying depending on the manipulator’s goals, such as triggering a sense of fear or overconfidence, opposition or support, urgency or detachment.
As such reflexive control falls within the construct of ‘human security psychology’, which is an approach to understanding how various security threats psychologically impact individuals and societies, and specifically how information available to people can undermine the objectivity of their appraisals of threats and their abilities to ensure their own – and other’s – security.
How control over information construction and dissemination over a prolonged period manipulated Hutu perceptions of reality and made their participation in the Tutsi genocide conceivable, can be seen as a chilling example of reflexive control.
Understanding How Reflexive Control Works
One of the first reflexive control operations with global impact still relevant today was Operation Infektion by the KGB in the 1980s in which Soviet agents planted in an Indian newspaper a carefully constructed article about the alleged origination of AIDS in a US lab in an Indian local newspaper.
Once the ‘fake news’ spread internationally, Moscow exploited German scientists to add credibility to the story. The seemingly unaffiliated source of the news and the claim’s academic backing influenced public opinion through people’s cognitive biases, undermining international trust in the US government.
Contemporary reflexive control techniques include years-long multistage psychological operations engaging traditional and digital social media platforms and paid foreign individuals to reinforce false narratives.
Another example is ‘Carlos’, a Spanish citizen and fake air traffic controller, who claimed to work in Ukraine and provided a Moscowskewed account about the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in 2014.
Posting persistently on Twitter from 2012 and constructing credibility through an interview arranged by news agency Russia Today, Carlos gained enough followers and a strong enough reputation to be ‘activated’ by the Russian secret service to support Moscow’s disinformation campaign when needed. He became the primary source for Russian news agencies and some independent researchers in the initial stages of
investigation before being exposed as a fraud on Russia’s payroll.
Sophisticated disguises like this make it difficult for individuals to distinguish between fact and fiction.
A pivotal conductor of reflexive control is the concept of siege mentality, which Russia nourishes domestically and exports abroad. This mechanism has been fostered since pre-Soviet times through the persistent promotion of the narrative of the external threat, which encouraging default hostility towards external parties.
Since 2014, Russia has fanned hostility among its domestic population towards Ukraine, constructing an image of modern Ukraine as a Nazi state, which played an integral role rallying domestic support and justifying its 2022 invasion.
At the same time, Russian disinformation campaigns internationally looked to exploit, among other things, pre-existing social identity divisions, in support of its Ukraine invasion. Using social media to amplify siege mentality views on US border security among people in the US, Russia has looked to influence the outcome of the US presidential elections in favour of the relatively isolationist Donald Trump since at least 2016.
A Buk SAM of the type used by the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade. Image: Wikipedia.
How to Counter Russian Disinformation
Defending against the tactics of reflexive control requires a complex multi-vector and multitier approach. The US National Security Council urges policymakers to take the dangers of disinformation seriously.
To effectively counter these dangers and avoid a destabilising psychological impact on societies, Illia Varzhanskyi stresses that enhanced awareness and understanding of these tactics are crucial within governments, intelligence agencies, media, private organisations, and the general public.
A key strategy for countering disinformation is prebuttal, which is about preventing the development of bias through the pre-emptive debunking of false narratives. This approach requires timely and accurate intelligence acquisition, analysis and dissemination.
A recent example of prebuttal is the US government’s intentional sharing of intelligence about imminent Russian invasions of 2022, which gave Ukraine an opportunity to not only militarily prepare but also to expose Russian false pretexts. Private sector efforts in open-source intelligence mining and media dissemination were essential.
Private counterintelligence efforts have proven to be a valuable
addition to the work of traditional government-controlled intelligence agencies. Citing the role of opensource intelligence in the RussoUkrainian war and previous investigative successes of nongovernment organisation Bellingcat, Ben Scott, writing in the Lowy Institute’s Interpreter argues the case for an Australian open-source intelligence agency.
I mportantly, considering source credibility bias, publicly available non-government intelligence can help deliver trusted messages to elements within society that tend to treat authoritative sources with scepticism.
R esponsible media and regulated digital platforms are critical in detecting disinformation and preventing dissemination, and adherence to high journalistic standards and fact-checking requirements absolutely necessary. Technology can play a role in developing digital algorithms to detect and flag false information.
R egulation of digital platforms like Facebook or X, including tighter legal accountability and potent prosecution avenues for spreading disinformation, argues intelligence veteran Mark Lowenthal, is needed at national and international levels. Suspension of broadcasting by Russia Today and other media in Australia
as part of a sanctions regime is a recent example
P ublic awareness about disinformation, its trends and perpetrators, and the psychological nature of the mechanism behind it is essential to keep societies secure. Incorporating media literacy into educational curricula can equip future generations to effectively and responsibly navigate an exponentially growing informational landscape by critically evaluating information sources, recognising disinformation tactics, objectively interpreting and effectively reacting.
Conclusion
The security challenge of disinformation, particularly that which has been comprehensively planned and executed by the Russian state as part of their global hybrid warfare, constitutes a significant threat to societies as far away as New Zealand through undermining trust in national and international institutions and manipulating public opinion, which can influence political decision-making.
Understanding the Russian concept of reflexive control can help us to comprehend how disinformation campaigns can be designed and executed, and to develop effective strategies to counter informational invasion and preserve the integrity and cohesion of our societies.
Addressing this challenge requires a complex approach involving combined government and private effort, existing and emerging technological capabilities, improved legislation frameworks and prosecution mechanisms, and public education and awareness campaigns.
I mportantly, using psychological parameters for evaluating how proposed measures may impact on cumulative public opinion will be critical for building national resilience to the increasing disinformation threats we face.
Russia Today broadcasting in Australia suspended.
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Border agencies converge to target criminal infiltration in global supply chains
Border agencies from around the world converged at Melbourne Airport in early September to counter criminal infiltration of international supply chains.
Officers from the New Zealand Customs Service, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and US Customs & Border Protection were hosted by the Australian Border Force (ABF) for a week of training, tradecraft, and capability-building to tackle the threats posed by insiders within the aviation environment.
Highlights of the week included several practical training exercises focused on aircraft search techniques, allowing agencies to learn from each other’s experience.
When not on the tarmac, officers discussed intelligence gathering, concealment methods, tools and technologies, and current and emerging threats to borders.
Officers also visited the ABF’s detector dog facility, where detector dogs are bred and trained, some of which go on to work internationally. Here they re-created a warrant scenario to demonstrate tools and technologies, including the detector dogs and mobile x-ray.
“We operate in a complex geopolitical environment in which close collaboration with key partners is crucial for us to stay ahead of emerging threats, especially in the aviation sector,” said Chris Howley, New Zealand Customs Counsellor based in Canberra.
“Through ongoing engagement with our partners and operational and intelligence cooperation, we are able to better target and tackle the scourge of transnational crime.”
ABF Inspector Costas Karatzas said the week allowed experts in the field to come together and further best practice to combat criminal infiltration.
“Commercial aviation isn’t in the business of drug trafficking, it is the few bad actors who are our target,”
ABF Inspector Karatzas said.
“Criminals attempt to recruit, exploit or coerce trusted insiders, within global supply chains, for the sole purpose of advancing their illicit drug trafficking ventures. Border agencies are being tested in ways we have never been tested before.”
“Continued international collaboration is crucial to staying a step ahead of crime syndicates and uphold Australia’s border as a hostile environment for attempts to import illegal goods,” he said.
Canada Border Services Agency, Director General of International
Policy, Partnerships and Operations, Natasha Manji, said “CBSA is proud to work closely with our international partners to improve border security at home and abroad.”
“By combining our efforts and expertise, we are positioning ourselves to have the upper hand against the existing and emerging threats that transcend borders,” she said.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection San Francisco Field Office, Field Operations Director, David A. Salazar, similarly praised the week-long exercise.
“We are honoured to join forces with our Australian, New Zealand and Canadian counterparts and other international partners to share best practices in a continuing effort to build a resilient network that safeguards our borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel,” he said.
2024 Asia Power Index: US widens lead but loses ground to China on military capability
According to the just-released Lowy Institute power index, Japan is emerging as a security and diplomacy powerhouse as Russia’s influence in the region declines sharply.
The 2024 Asia Power Index shows China edging towards the United States in terms of its ‘military posture’ in Asia, an expert assessment of countries’ ability to deploy rapidly and for a sustained period in the event of an interstate conflict in the region. But China remains lodged behind its rival superpower at the top of the table.
The sixth edition of the annual assessment, first published in 2018, evaluates the power of 27 states and territories across Asia, based on 131 indicators across eight thematic measures, including Military Capability and Defence Networks, Economic Capability and Relationships, Diplomatic and Cultural Influence, as well as Resilience and Future Resources.
The 2024 Index reveals that the top five countries for overall power are: the United States, China, India, Japan, and Australia. China is neither collapsing nor increasing exponentially but plateauing — with power below that of the United States, but well ahead of any other country in Asia.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to contradict pessimists by demonstrating its staying power in the region, buoyed by its economic capabilities and alliance networks. Despite this, the US has lost ground to China in two areas over the past six years: Military Capability and Economic Relationships.
This year’s Index also shows renewed dynamism in the region, with no less than 11 ranking changes in the table, including India (3rd) and Australia (5th) climbing one place each.
India is rising slowly, having overtaken Japan to become the third-ranked power in Asia, but its clout remains below the potential promised by its resources. Australia continues to rise up the Asia Power Index, making it into the top five as others falter, but its own power is just holding steady.
While Asia remains a “bipolar” game dominated by two superpowers, when it comes to Diplomatic Influence, power is more widely distributed, and Japan is a leading player.
Japan is changing from an economic and cultural powerhouse
to one much more active in defence and security cooperation.
Indonesia’s power has grown more than any other Index country since 2018. In contrast, Russia has slipped down the power rankings to sixth place. Its relevance to Asia is declining as its war on Ukraine saps resources and focus.
The annual Asia Power Index ranks the relative power of 27 countries and territories in the Indo-Pacific region, by assessing their strengths against 131 indicators across eight thematic measures. It surveys countries as far west as Pakistan, as far north as Russia, and as far into the Pacific as Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
The Lowy Institute 2024 Asia Power Index is available at power. lowyinstitute.org.
Force Multiplier: Targeting gangs to minimise social harm
Operational, legislative, and sentencing reforms will empower police and place victims at the heart of the system, writes Hon Mark Mitchell, Minister for Police, Minister for Corrections, and Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery.
Hon Mark Mitchell MP is Minister of Police, Minister of Corrections, and Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. He is a former Defence Minister and previously a New Zealand Police officer and private security contractor.
Police do incredible work with the time and resources they have, but their capacity is limited. To keep up with ever increasing demand, Police need to be smart about targeting the areas that will have the most impact on crime and safety.
Despite being less than 0.25% of New Zealand’s population, Criminal Gangs in New Zealand are responsible for 18% of all serious violent crime, 19% of all homicides, and 25% of all kidnapping and abductions. They commit 30% of all non-cannabis drug supply offences, and 29% of drug manufacturing and distribution offences. The social harm they cause is measured in the hundreds of millions. They are a blight on our society, causing harm everywhere they go, and causing lawabiding citizens to feel unsafe.
The opportunity for Police, is that by targeting a small group of gang members, a massive amount of harm can be prevented. Police know this and are keen to get started. The coalition government is supporting them to do just that.
This includes investing in Police to deliver an additional 500 frontline Police Officers. Alongside boosting the number of Police on the beat across the country, Police have allocated 77 of the new Officers to newly established Gang Disruption Units. The Units will be located in areas where we see the highest levels of gang activity, with dedicated teams focused on suppressing and containing the misery gangs cause.
We also have a large legislative programme that will give Police
Mongrel Mob was founded in1962 in the Hawke’s Bay. Image courtesy of RongoKeene/ Wikimedia Commons.
more powers and tools to go after gang members who break the law.
Last week saw the passing of the gang patch Bill banning the display
of gang insignia in all public places, meaning by the end of November, gang members won’t be able to flaunt their patches and intimidate Kiwis.
It will also stop gang members from gathering in public. Police will be able to intervene when a gang meeting is disrupting members of the public by issuing dispersal notices, so that they can’t associate with one another for seven days. This will be supplemented by new non-consorting orders, which can stop gang members from engaging with each other for up to three years.
We’ve campaigned on this for a long time, and now we are walking the talk and delivering.
We’ve also just introduced a new package of sentencing reforms – so that criminals face proper consequences for their crimes.
These reforms will cap sentencing discounts that judges can apply at 40 percent and prevent the use of remorse discounts for repeat offenders.
It will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those who offend against sole charge workers – like dairy owners or service stations, and for those who live stream or post their crimes online or exploit children by aiding them to offend.
It’s a big suite of reforms – also encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed on bail, in custody or on parole, implementing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas with a maximum sentence discount of 25 percent, reducing to 5 percent for a guilty plea entered during the trial. Finally, it will also amend the principles of sentencing to include any information provided to the court about victims’ interests.
These changes begin to reset our justice system to rid New Zealand of lawlessness and put victims – not criminals, at the heart of the system.
When we deliver on these aims we can meet our target to ensure there are 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime, and a 15 percent reduction in serious youth offending by 2029.
Image courtesy of Stuartyeates/Wikimedia Commons
Head Hunters Motorcycle Club was founded in 1967 in Auckland. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
SAFTECH Expo to tour New Zealand: Three cities, one day each in August 2025
Building on successful roadshows ENTECH and SECTECH comes a new one-day, three city expo for the Security and Fire Tech sector next August. Showing in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch the tradeshow freights all exhibitor equipment from Auckland and return.
“We run Tuesday, Thursday, then Tuesday” says founder Julius Grafton. “Exhibitors love the ease and that they can visit clients in between and be home for the weekend”.
Most recently Grafton and his partner Kate McKenzie ran their AV roadshow ENTECH across NZ last winter. “The format is small stands, maximum size 6m x 3m” says McKenzie. “Exhibitors arrive at 8.30am and are set up by 11am when doors open. Best of all, once Happy Hour concludes and the show closes at 6pm, pretty well everyone is out to dinner by 6.30!”
The show has run many years and a million kilometres around Australia, first as ENTECH and then with the duo inventing the SECTECH Roadshow which continues. While they still operate ENTECH, they exited SECTECH
recently. It sells out – the boutique format with a curated mix of local and multinational firms, big brands and small, avoids the ‘miles of aisles’ and large tradeshow fatigue of a traditional multi-day show.
“Ask any exhibitors or delegates, they love our format” says Grafton. “Everyone can see everyone, all firms in front of most buyers in each territory, free trade entry, free all day barista coffee and the longest Happy Hour possible – 90 minutes with amazing NZ finger food, beers and wines. But it also returns exceptional ROI with free bar code scanning and a ‘business first’ determination”.
Adding to the compelling draw for trade is the SAFtalks Theatre located on the trade floor with headphones for the audience who are more engaged with the topics –and these vary from technical presentations to industry issues.
Surrounded by exhibitor stands and café seating, the entire event is contained within the show hall. “We have run every format since 1994” says Grafton, “and this one is the best because no one wanders off looking for a meeting room somewhere. Loudspeakers are distracting, this is the best form of presentation”.
So why hasn’t this been done before? “It is hard work for us”, says McKenzie, “but it is tested and proven. The logistics are a system we have finessed, and the marketing as well. We’re running a cost effective format with the knowns onboard and we have micromanaged the risks. We’ve never opened a show late since Julius started the business thirty years ago!”
The tour starts at AOTEA on Tuesday 5, Thursday 7 Lower Hutt Wellington, then Tuesday 12 August Te Pae Christchurch. www.saftech. co.nz
TOURING 2025
SAFTECH EXPO is carefully curated and delivered with a sharp focus on ROI for participating exhibitors.
From the people who designed SECTECH Roadshow in Australia and ENTECH Roadshow in NZ, comes a compact, easy expo format that travels to three cities.
Tuesday 5 August - AOTEA Auckland
Thursday 7 August - Lower Hutt Wellington
Tuesday 12 August - Te Pae Christchurch
The Expo is ALL INCLUSIVE, one package buys the three-city run with freight. There are zero annoying ‘add-ons’ like power, carpet, forklifts, furniture, water and marketing.
HOMELAND SECURITY
International passengers can ditch paper and go digital
The New Zealand Traveller Declaration (NZTD) is now in full use for both air and maritime travellers arriving in New Zealand, including passengers and crew of international cruise ships.
In August 2023, the New Zealand Traveller Declaration was introduced to digitise the paper ‘Passenger Arrival Card’. The NZTD was extended to passengers and crew of international cruise ships arriving at Aotearoa in March this year.
Passengers travelling to New Zealand are required to complete a New Zealand Traveller Declaration, which is free.
The NZTD system collects individuals’ travel, customs, immigration and biosecurity information. It aims to improve the safety and security of New Zealand, and covers questions about individuals’ trips and what they’re bringing into the country.
“We know the system works, enabling a more automated and streamlined border experience that gives travellers a more flexible
option. It is straightforward to use and helpful in guiding people through what they need to declare,” said Customs Deputy Chief Executive Finance, Technology and Infrastructure, Sharon May.
The earliest that travellers can submit their declaration depends on whether they are travelling by air or sea.
For air travellers, the earliest travellers can submit the declaration is 24 hours before they start their trip to New Zealand. For sea travellers, the earliest the declaration can be submitted is 24 hours before departing the vessel’s last foreign port prior to arriving in New Zealand.
The declaration is linked to a traveller’s passport and is automatically assessed when scanned on arrival in New Zealand. Travellers can use the NZTD app to scan their
passport, which will instantly upload one’s passport details.
The NZTD system allows border agencies to add requirements for extra information related to specific risks that may arise from, for example, a biosecurity or health threat.
The NZTD can be accessed and completed online at www. travellerdeclaration.govt.nz or via the NZTD app.
Sea travellers who can complete the NZTD include those on cruise an recreational vessels, yachts or small craft, commercial, specialist, or fishing vessels, and Diplomaticallycleared and New Zealand Defence Force personnel.
There are some exemptions to this, including people who arrive in New Zealand after having been medically evacuated, rescued at sea, or on a temporary basis due to weather conditions.
Air travellers who are transiting through New Zealand and stay in the transit area of an airport do not need to complete a declaration.
In some international regions where the NZTD app cannot be downloaded, travellers can still complete a digital declaration by visiting the Traveller Declaration website from their device. For travellers who cannot complete a declaration online, a paper declaration form is available. If a traveller completes a digital declaration, they do not need to complete a paper form.
NZSIS releases annual threat environment report
The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) has released its annual Security Threat Environment report, with updated assessments on the nature of foreign interference, espionage and violent extremism in New Zealand.
The second annual edition of the report, released on 03 September, highlights common behaviours and activities associated with foreign interference, espionage and violent extremism in Aotearoa.
Director-General of Security Andrew Hampton said the release of last year’s unclassified report was a significant step in raising awareness, and this year’s edition goes even further.
“Our independent assessment is about being as upfront as we can about the reality of national security threats facing our country. The point is not to alarm anyone but to alert New Zealanders to the threats so that we can work together to manage them,” he said.
“In recent years there has been considerably more public discussion around topics such as foreign interference and violent extremism, which is why our annual assessment is so important. We aim to provide an upfront and factual basis to this ongoing national conversation.”
The report, New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment 2024: an assessment by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, contains links to protective security advice to assist individuals and organisations take steps to increase their resilience to security threats. It also provides advice on how to respond after witnessing concerning behaviours or activities.
“ When we all understand what’s happening and some of the
such as ‘what might this threat look like in our community’ or ‘what does this mean for our business or organisation?’
A mong its assessments, the report states that:
• Its unique place and role in the Pacific can make New Zealand vulnerable to the activities of other states striving for influence and position throughout the region;
• A small number of foreign states conduct interference and espionage in and against New Zealand and New Zealanders. These states seek to disrupt
acts of espionage, unauthorised disclosure of information, the loss or degradation of a resource or capability, or in extreme cases acts of terrorism;
• The most likely terrorist attack scenario in New Zealand is a lone actor, acting with little to no intelligence forewarning; and
• There are a small number of people who subscribe to a range of known violent extremist ideologies. Increasingly, the NZSIS is seeing individuals that it assesses as supporting violence from a mixed, unstable, or unclear ideological outlook.
NZSIS Security Threat Environment Report: More Work Required
Short on evidence, methodology, and analysis, the NZSIS’s latest threat report is not its best effort, writes Damien Rogers, Associate Professor of International Relations and Security Studies at Massey University.
Associate Professor of International Relations and Security Studies at Massey University.
It’s good to see the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) release its report on New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment earlier this month. While they get an A+ for presentation, there is a lot more work to do on its substantive elements.
The report describes four important security problems confronting New Zealand today: foreign influence; espionage; insider threat; and terrorism and violent extremism. It then illustrates the ways in which each of these security problems might impact on New Zealanders and our democratic institutions.
This is a promising start, but rather than decontextualise these problems and render them in the abstract, the report needed to put the evolution of these problems in a broader historical context because their causes and intensifiers are complex, dynamic, and worth knowing.
The report also needed to evaluate the likelihood of associated harms and the magnitude of their impact, as well as differentiate among them to show why they are national security priorities. It needed to take a step back, identify, and account for the major events and ongoing trends in contemporary world affairs that
might make these problems more likely to materialise or more harmful to New Zealanders if realised.
As well, it needed to consider, and describe for New Zealanders, all the possible responses to these four problems and their likely outcomes before justifying the courses of action chosen by the NZSIS to treat them. Finally, the report needed to evaluate the extent to which the NZSIS has the operational capabilities and resources required to manage these problems.
While methodology is mentioned, the report doesn’t describe the analytical process that informs its assessment. This means it cannot be tested by independent experts. The report mentioned it relied on academic research, but no sources are listed. It also stated academics and subject-matter experts were consulted but does so without naming them.
This obfuscation deserves remedying because the New Zealand Government now refers to sociologists, demographers, and indigenous educationalists as though they were security experts when, clearly, they are not.
The appointment of co-directors to He Whenua Taurikura is a case in point. One wonders how exactly two academics, without bone fide expertise in Terrorism Studies or
Damien Rogers is
New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment
international order. But nowhere in this story is it acknowledged that China and Russia are singled out here as top security priorities because they challenge US hegemony.
Nowhere in this story is it acknowledged that the international order, which New Zealand diplomats and security professionals so desperately want to preserve, creates and sustains the deplorable conditions needed for Israel to attack civilians in Gaza, massacring over 40,000 Palestinians. This grisly and macabre consequence of the US-led rules-based international order is simply written out of the story.
Security Studies more broadly, were invited onto the selection panel in the first place but then ended up in taking the roles they were seeking to fill before gaining control of the research funding.
Some of the report’s judgements are questionable too. Let me quote one example: “The NZSIS maintains its assessment that the most likely form of violent extremist attack would be an individual who has self-radicalised, taken steps to avoid detection, and acted alone.” This isn’t a judgement reached by analysing data and assessing trends. It is merely an obvious reckoning made in hindsight. This sparks a concern that
the ‘generals’ here are preparing for the last battle they lost.
Overall, the report is too descriptive, insufficiently analytical, and missing too many key elements needed for a comprehensive and authoritative assessment. If my postgraduate students turned this into me to grade, I’d give it a C+ and encourage them to try much harder.
While the report lacks evidence to support its claims, the series of case studies are an interesting feature. However, they aren’t case studies. They are, in fact, vignettes.
Collectively, these vignettes tell a story about China and Russia as threats to New Zealand and to the
The report uses key concepts like ‘strategic competition’ and ‘IndoPacific’ which are US terms that our diplomats and security professionals have seemingly adopted without question. The story reads like it is supposed to reflect and endorse US foreign policy. This raises important questions about the integrity and independence of New Zealand’s foreign policy when its military and intelligence services are so closely integrated with, and in some cases embedded in, the US national security apparatus.
Ultimately, the report’s credibility depends on the NZSIS’s ‘next steps’ since its Director-General, Andrew Hampton, says it is “a starting point for a healthy conversation on keeping each other safe and secure.”
In addition to transparency, the intelligence and security agencies need to actively foster an informed citizenry capable of making their own judgements on security problems and on the performance of their intelligence and security agencies. They also need to start investing in the expert knowledge on New Zealand security that would obviously deepen their understanding of the problems they are obliged to manage.
What the NZSIS will do next, however, remains to be seen.
HOMELAND SECURITY
World-leading research into systemic bias points the way for policing in community
A world-leading research project into police systemic bias, Understanding Policing Delivery (UPD), has released the first suite of seven reports in the three-year programme.
The research has seen New Zealand Police, an Independent Panel, a team of external researchers and a 30-strong Operational Advisory Group of frontline officers work collaboratively to better understand fairness and equity as part of policing in New Zealand.
The first seven reports published on 21 August as part of Phase One used existing information analysed through the lens of ‘fairness and equity’.
Researchers looked at who Police stop, how they engage with them, and decision-making processes on using force and prosecution.
The Independent Panel’s report has made 40 recommendations, some of which Police are already progressing, and some of which will be further informed by Phase Two recommendations due for release later this year, which will draw on additional data and take a closer look at how communities and Police interact daily across a range of services.
“Ultimately, this is about meaningful system change through learning opportunities both in training and on the job,” said Independent Panel Chairperson, Professor Khylee Quince. “Our recommendations cover the gamut from Police training, operations to service delivery,”
Panel recommendations include creating a ‘systems review’ learning approach to shine light on good practice, innovation and positive outcomes.
Importance of trust
Police Commissioner Andrew Coster commissioned the Understanding Policing Delivery programme in 2020 at a pivotal time as Police jurisdictions around the world came under close public scrutiny following the George Floyd killing, the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, and, in New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal Justice System Inquiry and Abuse in Care Inquiry.
The Commissioner invited Tā Kim Workman to Chair an Independent Panel, mandated to monitor Police data and systems and to provide advice back to Police.
“The legitimacy of policing has been questioned by people in many countries, including New Zealand, so this project is a fundamental contribution to the future approach of policing,” said Professor Quince said. “It was created to serve the needs of all our communities.”
Evidence confirmed that how Police officers conduct themselves has an influence on public trust and confidence in the Police – either to strengthen trust or to weaken it.
“If policing is not delivered in a fair and equitable way to all citizens, no matter their ethnicity, disability, sexuality or other characteristics, it requires us to investigate the root causes and make recommendations for meaningful, systemic change,” Professor Quince said.
The Panel worked in partnership with the Police while guiding and commissioning the research according to kaupapa Māori methodology.
The study examined recruitment and training practices, data collection methods, and the contents of the Police operations manual. The approach was supported by the Police Association and the Police Officers Guild.
“Police come to work every day to make a difference to the safety of all our communities and this work helps to ensure our systems and processes are set up to support them to do just that,” said Commissioner Coster.
“We know that community trust in Police is fundamentally important to our ability to do our jobs. Having that trust encourages more people to report crime, more to provide evidence, and more to support prevention.
“That’s especially important for those communities currently on the wrong end of most justice sector statistics from victims to offenders, and from use of force to prosecution.”
Areas for improvement
The Commissioner acknowledged that the research highlighted a number of areas where there are opportunities for improvements to Police systems.
Findings indicated a number of unsatisfactory and inequitable experiences of Police by Māori, including high levels of TASER deployment, complaints about use of force and warrantless searches. Māori voiced dissatisfaction about the impact police interactions in their homes had on children, feeling unsafe with Police and frustration at inappropriate Police responses to family harm incidents.
“We welcome this level of scrutiny and expectation as an important part of Police being
accountable to the community, and ensuring we retain and build trust from the community,” he said.
“Everyone finds dealing with issues of ‘fairness and equity’ difficult and policing is no different,” noted Dr Catherine Leonard, Managing Director of Ihi Research and Development, one of the appointed researchers.
“The Police and the Operational Advisory Group have been consistently open to learning, willing to engage in challenging conversations about equity and exploring Police practices. This is the first step in addressing longstanding issues identified in Police/ community partnerships.”
According to the Chair of the Independent Panel, taking on
Understanding Policing Delivery
Independent Panel Report 1 August 2024
learnings and delivering on the interim recommendations to build trust with Māori and communities is the next step for Police.
“These problems are well documented and understood already, however Police have been brave enough to ask the question - what more can they do to make sure their actions and decisions don’t exacerbate the outcomes further for those individuals who are often at the lowest points in their lives?
“We wish to mihi the courage shown to date by the Police,” Professor Quince said.
Recommendations being actioned
The programme specifically focused on Police systems, not individual officer behaviour and was sensechecked by officers against the realities of day-to-day policing, and there are early signs of that the UPD is working operationally.
“We are encouraged that Police have already committed to progressing eight of the 40 recommendations over the next six months,” stated the report’s executive summary.
“The relational model that we have developed with Police, and the inclusion of police officers and employees in the research process means that some of the insights have already been contributing to organisational learning and improvements towards fairer policing, outside of the formal recommendations.”
“There is no point making recommendations if they’re not received, owned and actioned using an appropriate implementation and monitoring mechanism, which includes independent community oversight,” said Professor Quince.
“The outcome of the entire process has proven the high value of taking a relational approach anchored in whakawhaungatanga. This has turned into being an essential part of the solution.”
HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs ESR Screening Laboratory marks decade of chemical detection at border
The New Zealand Customs Service and Environmental Science and Research (ESR) celebrate ten years of success in identifying drugs at the border.
The Customs ESR Screening Laboratory (CESL) is responsible for screening and identifying suspected drug samples and other unknown material seized by Customs at the border and through the international mail centre.
During its ten years of operation, more than 17,000 samples have been analysed at CESL, with an average of one in three resulting in the detection of an illicit drug, medicine or precursor chemical.
In the year to 31 July 2024, Customs referred 1,523 samples to ESR for testing, which resulted in 474 positive cases of illicit drugs, medicines or precursor chemicals being identified.
According to Customs Group Manager Border Operations Dana McDonald, CESL is a crucial capability for assessing incoming risks.
“Our partnership with ESR has been hugely beneficial in staying on top of new and emerging drugs and chemically concealed compounds. The cutting-edge technology in the CESL with real-time testing capabilities enables Customs to identify drugs quickly and speed up investigations against drug smugglers. Longer-term, it has helped us build a picture of drug trends and keep ahead of potential threats.
“The scale of what Customs has seized over the last 10 years has
increased significantly. Intelligence built up though our partnerships with ESR and other agencies is helping us prevent transnational criminal groups from further exploiting our market for profit and causing untold damage to our communities,” said Mr McDonald.
“For ESR, being at the border and working shoulder to shoulder with our Customs colleagues has brought science closer to the action enabling us to get to those novel psychoactive substances (NPS) and drug precursors, much quicker, to confirm their identity,” stated Matthew Russell, Manager of the CESL laboratory.
“Detection of new and concealed drugs has become more challenging over the last 10 years
and to navigate around this, ESR has collaborated with Customs to assess, develop and introduce new capability to the lab at the airport to rapidly identify new and evolving drugs,” said Mr Russell.
The CESL was officially opened by former Prime Minister the Right Honourable Sir John Key in August 2014 at the Customs Air Cargo Inspection Facility at Auckland Airport. It was established using funds under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
“The new screening lab brings significant efficiencies to Customs’ work,” said then-Comptroller Carolyn Tremain upon its opening, “and I am confident that having this lab located at the border will benefit both agencies and New Zealand.”
The use of force by New Zealand Police remains low overall, although gang members are overrepresented in use of force events and are more likely to be armed, a new report shows.
New Zealand Police has released its Annual Tactical Options Report (TOR), which provides an overview of what frontline Police are facing and the tactics they are using.
The report, published on 6th September, found that in 2023 there was a 9% increase in TOR events, with 7,719 incidents overall. However, use of force continues to be infrequent at 0.3% of all jobs Police attend.
Worldwide, an increasing trend toward violence and the use of tactical options has been observed other jurisdictions. While New Zealand remains relatively safe, it is not immune to the forces driving such changes, which is reflected in these latest numbers.
Gang members accounted for 9% of TOR events despite making up only 0.2% of the national population, and Police are 45 times more likely to need to use force in these interactions. Gang members were more likely to be armed with a firearm (25%) than non-gang offenders (8%).
In 2023 there was a slight drop in the number of incidents involving firearms by offenders where Police were also required to use firearms as a tactical option.
In 98% of events involving Police use of a firearm, a firearm has presented only and not fired. Police discharged a firearm at seven separate events during 2023.
“The 2023 TASER figures also show that TASER use has remained stable since 2018, with TASERs deployed at one in four events where they are presented,” Assistant Commissioner Johnson said.
“While we do not want to use force, Police at times are required to use force due to the circumstances we face, in order to protect the public and ourselves. Communication will always be used as the primary method of de-escalation.
“The Frontline Skills Enhancement training (FSED) and the Tactical Response Model (TRM) continue to make a difference to our frontline staff when using deescalation tactics.”
FSED involves four days a year of enhanced scenario-based training, focused on appropriate de-escalation, decision-making under cognitive load and proportional tactical
responses. It was implemented in all districts throughout 2022.
TRM is designed to ensure the frontline is trained, equipped, and supported to keep themselves and communities safer.
Of all TOR events, 8% occur in the custody environment. TOR events in custody present a higher risk of injury to staff, with one staff member being injured for every 10 events compared to every 12 events in non-custody settings.
Māori continue to be overrepresented in use of force events, especially in relation to population numbers, with Māori accounting for half of all TOR events.
Māori men aged 18 – 45 make up only 3% of the general population but account for 30% of TOR events that result in a charge being filed for violence offence/s.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Police announce phased plan to reduce mental health service
Police will introduce new, higher thresholds for attending mental health callouts, with changes to be phased in from November 2024 and completed by September 2025.
Police Commissioner Andrew Coster announced on 30 August the commencement of a reduction in police resourcing of mental health calls for service, to relieve demand pressures.
Police have formally notified Health New Zealand authorities of the introduction of higher thresholds that will prioritise events where there is an immediate risk to life and safety. Events that fall short of the thresholds will not be attended by Police, but directed to more appropriate services.
“It is important to be clear that Police will still attend any jobs where there is an immediate risk to life or safety – that has not changed,”
Commissioner Coster said.
“It is well documented that mental health demand is increasing and our challenges in meeting this demand are ongoing and impacting our ability to service other needs in our community.”
Mental health demand accounted for 11% of calls to the police Emergency Communications Centre in the year to May 2024.
“Police receives one mental health-related call every seven minutes, taking up about half a million hours of Police frontline time per year,” he said. “Of those events, only 5% had a criminal element and 11% of calls are coded P1 and are given a priority response.
“It has been clear to me for some time, that this is simply not sustainable and prevents us from
keeping other areas of the community safe. It impacts on our ability to deliver core policing services.
To alleviate the level of demand, Police will be phasing a reduction of resources to mental health events that do not have a crime or high level of risk attached to them.
“The programme of change will be rolled out over four phases beginning in November this year with Police introducing a higher threshold of risk before committing staff to responding to requests for mental health transportation, or attendance at mental health facilities,” said Commissioner Coster.
According to Commissioner Coster, from 1st November Police staff will conduct handovers with Health staff, and depart after a maximum one hour unless there is a risk to life or safety. This will eventually reduce to 15 minutes later in the year.
“Another area that has added to our demand is the lower threshold
for searching for people reported missing from mental health facilities. We will need to work with Health agencies to better manage this with higher thresholds.
“We want those experiencing mental health distress to get the right help at the right time from the right people. They do not always want or need a Police car turning up or for Police Officers to sit with them for hours in emergency departments, further adding to the stigma of what is already a very difficult time.
“Immediately, there will be no changes, and we will continue to respond to mental health callouts as we always have. The changes will take a phased approach as we want to support our health partners by giving them time to adapt.”
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and Police Minister Mark Mitchell have welcomed the announcement by Health NZ and NZ Police on their transition to a stronger mental health-led response
for those requiring crisis mental health support.
“For too long, those seeking crisis support have often been met by a uniformed officer, which can cause further distress,” said Mr Doocey. “People in mental distress are not criminals. Those seeking assistance deserve a mental health response, rather than a criminal justice response.”
Phase 1: 1 November
• Voluntary handovers at emergency departments – Police will streamline the handover process for people wanting to undertake a mental health assessment voluntarily. Once handed over to Health staff, police will depart immediately.
• Mental Health transportation requests – will be subject to a higher threshold before Police agree to become involved.
• Police attendance at mental health facilities – will also be subject to a higher threshold.
Phase 2: January to March 2025
• 60 minute ED handovers –Police who have transported a person detained under the Mental Health Act for an assessment will remain for a maximum one hour before departing unless they consider there is an immediate risk to life or safety.
• Mental Health custody rules tightened – Police do not consider custody suites to be an appropriate place for mental health assessments to be conducted. Custody rules will ensure people in distress are not being assessed unnecessarily in Police custody.
Phase 3: April to June 2025
• Requests for assistance from health practitioners – Our new threshold will ensure Police are not directed unnecessarily to mental health work by practitioners.
• Missing Mental Health patients – Many of the missing person reports generated from mental health facilities and wards generate a more immediate response than other missing person reports. Police will work with agencies to establish a more appropriate model for managing these situations, including Police not being the first to begin searching for missing persons.
Phase 4: July to September 2025
• 15 minute ED handovers –Where police have detained a person under the Mental Health Act and transported them to an ED for mental health assessment, a handover process between Police and Health staff will occur, and Police staff will depart after 15 minutes, unless they consider there is an immediate threat to life or safety.
• Welfare checks from public and agencies – Police have been over responding to welfare checks where there is no risk of criminality or to life or safety. We are aiming to reduce demand on frontline staff but are conscious the issues are complex so we will continue to talk to partner agencies before making any final decisions.
“I want to acknowledge our Police staff who do an outstanding job with great empathy, but they are not trained mental health experts,” said Mr Mitchell.
“The shift requires a careful, measured approach and I am very supportive and assured of the joinedup efforts Police and Health are taking to get there.”
“At the end of the day, we want what’s best for both those suffering from mental distress, and the victims of crime,” said Mr Doocey. “The approach we are transitioning to aims to provide the appropriate support by the appropriate people.”
HOMELAND SECURITY
Inspection report for Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit released
The Department of Corrections’ independent Office of the Inspectorate has released a report finding “overly and unnecessarily restrictive” conditions at Auckland Prison’s Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU).
The PERU houses prisoners considered by Corrections to present a high ongoing level of risk, including some who pose a very high risk of violence and some who are involved in transnational organised crime.
“I acknowledge that these men need additional measures to be managed safely,” said Chief Inspector Janis Adair.
Howe ver, despite this, we found conditions in the PERU to be overly and unnecessarily restrictive. We found that all the men spent most of their time alone in their cells.
“ None of the men were mixing with any other prisoners, and there were very few interventions that offered meaningful human interaction or constructive activities,” she said. “Some of the men had spent months or years in these conditions, which likely amounted to prolonged solitary confinement.”
The report , which lists the findings of an inspection that took place in July 2023, stated that the isolation and hopelessness experienced by the men was raised as a concern by mental health clinicians.
“ We found many prisoners did not know what they could do, if anything, to progress out of the PERU and into a less restrictive regime,” said Chief Inspector Adair.
M s Adair said she expected Corrections to take steps to offer more meaningful human interaction and constructive activities to these men. She also expected Corrections to implement a robust assurance framework to provide safeguards to the PERU decision-makers and also to the prisoners.
The report makes 12 findings, which Corrections has responded to.
“I hope this report and its findings provides Corrections with important insights to consider how it might safely and securely manage those prisoners it considers pose the most significant risk, while giving proper regard for the impact of such a highly restrictive regime that separates individuals from others for prolonged periods of time,” she said.
The inspection process provides an ongoing insight into prisons and provides assurance that shortcomings are identified and addressed in a timely way, and that examples of good practice are acknowledged and shared across the prison network. Inspections are carried out using Inspection Standards, which guide Inspectors on the independent and objective assessments of the treatment of prisoners and prison conditions.
The Inspectorate is a part of the independent oversight of the Corrections system and operates under the Corrections Act 2004 and Corrections Regulations 2005. The Inspectorate, while part of Corrections, is operationally independent, which is necessary to ensure objectivity and integrity.
Corrections responds to Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit report
Corrections acknowledges improvements can be made in its management of PERU prisoners, with man already underway, writes Leigh Marsh, Commissioner Custodial Services, Department of Corrections.
Corrections states that it remains committed to managing New Zealand’s most dangerous prisoners safely to ensure they cannot cause further harm to our communities.
The Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) was set up in 2019 for this purpose, bringing together specialist staff with the right skills, capability and experience to manage the extreme risk posed by a small group of prisoners, including those with convictions for terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime.
Prisoners can be accommodated in the PERU if there is an ongoing risk they will threaten, intimidate or behave violently towards others, or influence other prisoners to do the same.
This includes prisoners who hold extremist views or who are at risk of radicalisation or violent extremism, as well as prisoners who are connected to sophisticated organised criminal networks and have the capability to seriously compromise the safety and security of our staff and prisons.
The independent Office of the Inspectorate carried out an inspection of the PERU in 2023 and on 24 August 2024 published its report from this inspection. The Inspectorate’s report does not make any recommendations but has 12 findings, which are informing the
work we have underway to refine how the unit operates.
The frontline staff working in PERU manage significant risks to the safety of themselves, the public, and prisoners every day, and they do an exceptional job in extremely challenging circumstances. I am proud of their commitment and professionalism. I was pleased to see the Inspectorate’s report found these staff felt safe, supported, motivated and listened to.
Corrections acknowledges there are improvements we can make in our management of prisoners in PERU, and we have made a number of changes since the Inspectorate’s visit in July 2023. These include:
• Providing additional training for staff working in PERU, supported by introducing and recruiting to a new Custodial Adviser Persons of Extreme Risk Directorate role. Recruitment of custodial staff in PERU has remained the focus, and staffing levels have been steadily increasing since mid2023 and are now at 73%.
• Increasing the range of rehabilitative, constructive and cultural activities offered to prisoners in PERU.
• Increasing access to AVL, supporting prisoners in PERU to have increased contact with family, particularly for those with family outside of Auckland.
• Establishing Clinical MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in early 2024, in addition to the existing PERU MDT meetings. These meetings provide an opportunity for Corrections’ health professionals, including Manager Psychological Services, the Clinical Manager Mental Health, and the Health Centre Manager to review and discuss the management and mental health of prisoners in PERU.
Corrections reiterated that it is committed to continuously improving how we operate the PERU while ensuring that the safety of our staff, the public and all prisoners remains paramount.
REACH NEW HEIGHTS in
Professional Excellence
ASIS accredited certifications can help you reach your career goals.
Validates your ability to conduct security investigations through the effective use of surveillance, interviews, and interrogations. Designed for those with 5 years of related experience.
WH Y EARN THE PCI DESIGNATION?
• Provides independent confirmation of your specialized skills in security investigations
• Gain global recognition by your peers and industry
• Get a competitive edge in the marketplace
• Enhance your career and earnings potential
• Enjoy personal satisfaction and professional achievement
Be one of the many ASIS board certified practitioners who are leaders, mentors, and trusted strategic partners, serving both their organizations and the profession.
“PCI is an important element in the ASIS C ertification programme, dovetailing into both CPP a nd PSP for a comprehensive understanding of broader security industry objectives. An effective and reliable investigation depends on objectivity, thoroughness, relevance, accuracy and timeliness. PCI helps identify critical investigative outcomes, including evidence collection, case management, and the process of offender detection, identification, interview and prosecution. Good physical security designs, together with robust policies and procedures are key elements in a successful investigation. The PCI certification p rovides an insight into how these pieces interrelate."
-
D avid Horsburgh, MSc CPP PSP PCI
WHY SHOULD AN EMPLOYER HIRE ASIS CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS?
• Build a strong, dedicated team committed to high standards and continuing professional development
• Promote ongoing education of critical job knowledge and skills
• Feel confident that your staff are using best practices
• Recruit the most qualified professionals
• Reinforce or elevate your organization’s reputation and credibility
Increase the competency level of your staff by supporting your security professionals in their certification journey.
