|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Major General (Rtd) John Howard | Senior Fellow | john.howard@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Buying new kit often takes longer than a government lasts. The chain of sign-offs required often takes years. A single big purchase can outlast the government that started it. The system still thinks in terms of ships and aircraft. In fact, how well a force fights now comes down to how well it can gather and sift information and then act on what it knows. The Defence Capability Plan does say as much. It stresses the information domain, intelligence, digital overhaul and space. The strategy papers grasp the shift but the machinery that must deliver has not kept up. Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review found the same thing. The Australian Defence Force was not set up or kitted out for the threats it faced, despite decades of heavy spending. The review did not call for more money alone. It also called for faster procurement, including off-the-shelf technology. It signalled a shift of emphasis from hardware to joined-up fighting power. Australia had the money. It found a gap in the system rather than the chequebook. New Zealand does not lack plans. We have a National Security Strategy, a Defence Policy and Strategy Statement, a government data strategy, a space strategy and a defence industry strategy. Five strategies, each sound on its own terms. What we lack is the ability to turn any of them into real fighting strength before the world moves on. For a small country, the highest payoff lies where nimbleness matters most: intelligence, digital links, open-source intelligence and space awareness. A well-run small state can punch above its weight in these fields. But these things are worth little if we cannot procure what we need in a timely way. The chequebook is open. Whether New Zealand buys readiness or merely buys time hinges on whether we overhaul the system that spends the money. Explore John's research through our new research note and watch the webinar to hear why getting the system right matters more than the $12 billion itself. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Eric Crampton | Chief Economist | eric.crampton@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Six years ago, Kiwis volunteered to be part of a large international study testing whether vaccinating pregnant women for RSV would protect their newborns. The trial was successful. America’s FDA and Europe’s EMA approved Abrysvo in August 2023. It is now available in about forty countries. Abrysvo has been funded for pregnant women in Australia since 2025. Earlier this week, a large British trial showed the vaccine’s effectiveness. Pregnant women in England have been offered the vaccine since 2024. The study followed almost three hundred thousand infants. Those born to vaccinated mothers were far less likely to wind up hospitalised. Unfortunately, Medsafe’s processes do not protect Kiwis from the virus, only from the vaccine. It has not yet been approved by Medsafe, so it is not available. At least hundreds of infants will wind up in hospital annually as a consequence. The coalition agreements that formed the government promised that drugs approved by at least two trusted overseas regulators would automatically be approved – the ‘Rule of Two’. The legislation passed last year instead proposed a ‘fast-track’ approval process for medicines fully approved overseas. That process, currently being developed, still requires someone to put a new medicine up for a tiny, remote country’s approval. My select committee submission noted Abrysvo. Despite the vaccine’s approval in dozens of countries, Medsafe’s database showed no application in progress then, and still doesn’t now. If New Zealand automatically approved medicines that had been approved by at least two trusted regulators, Abrysvo would have been NZ-approved in 2023. Whether it should be funded would be a separate decision. It may be tempting to blame Pfizer, the vaccine’s manufacturer, for not having put through application paperwork. But that would be both lazy and wrong. New Zealand’s market is not that large. About 58,000 babies are born here per year. Prior to its being funded, Abrysvo cost $300 in Australia. Uptake here could be low. And whether funding here would be warranted would be a separate decision. Hopefully, Pfizer is just waiting for the new ‘fast-track’ approvals process to be available mid-year. But it could be that our market is just not worth the hassle. Making it hard for international companies to roll out their latest and greatest innovations in small remote countries only hurts those countries’ residents. Parliament should reconsider its approach. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Contradiction is the art of the deal. So it is no wonder that the entire war has been conducted this way. On 28 February, the United States and Israel struck Iran. At first, the President said the operation would take four weeks or less. Then four to five weeks. Then “whatever it takes.” A week into the operation, Trump demanded unconditional surrender. By mid-March, he told NPR that did not actually require Iran to say it had surrendered. Trump also called for regime change, citing Venezuela as his model. He demanded a say in choosing Iran’s next leader. Then he said regime change was “up to the Iranian people.” Finally, he claimed regime change had already happened because the old leaders were dead and the new ones were “very reasonable.” Analysts called the new leadership more radical, not less. Similarly, the Commander-in-Chief demanded NATO allies send warships to open the Strait of Hormuz, claiming “numerous countries” were on their way. A day later, most allies had refused. Yet the day after that, he said he did not need their help anyway. The President then claimed Iran wanted to make a deal. But Iran said no such talks were taking place. Despite this, Trump postponed his ultimatum on the Strait, citing “very good and productive conversations,” which Iran’s state media said had not occurred. On 1 April, the White House published a document titled “President Trump’s Clear and Unchanging Objectives Drive Decisive Success Against Iranian Regime.” Despite the date, it was not an April Fool’s Day joke. Still, it was almost funny. A ceasefire was eventually agreed on 8 April, but it did not include Lebanon. And so, Israel then launched its heaviest attacks on Lebanon since the war began. Iran closed the Strait again in response. A US naval blockade of Iran followed, which, by any ordinary reckoning, is an act of war. But the US administration maintains it is not a ceasefire violation. Meanwhile, back in Wellington, officials are trying to form a position on all this. But to have a position, you first need to know what is happening. And to know what is happening, you need Washington’s statements to last longer than the time it takes to read them. At the pump, New Zealanders are paying over $3.40 a litre. That, at least, is consistent. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
To listen to our latest podcasts, please subscribe to The New Zealand Initiative podcast on iTunes, Spotify or The Podcast App. |
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |