NZ sends plane to keep close eye on North Korea
A Poseidon surveillance plane.
Photo:
CPL Rachel Pugh / Supplied
The air force has sent one of its new Poseidon surveillance planes to monitor United Nations sanctions against North Korea.
A multinational force of planes and ships has been monitoring the rogue state out of a Japanese naval base since 2018.
The New Zealand plane and crew will spend a month looking for evidence of ship-to-ship transfers North Korea might use for its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) said, as an important contribution to upholding the rules-based international system and encouraging denuclearisation.
"There will be further deployments of our assets to support the operation later this year."
NZDF
said last December
all key missions were still going ahead, but were becoming more difficult due to shortages of personnel and resources.
Earlier this month
the government announced $9 billion of new spending on defence in the next four years.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Tuesday said defence was one of the few "most important priorities" that would get new spending in the Budget next month.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Tactics from the 'Scrutiny Week' bear pit
Photo: VNP/Louis Collins This week, Parliament hosted a twice-yearly event called 'Scrutiny Week'. It was a sitting week and MPs were expected to be in Wellington, but the House didn't sit, no legislation was debated and there were no question times. Instead, the ministers were all expected to spend time fronting hearings in the 12 subject select committees defending their budget plans - hence 'scrutiny'. On the Sunday edition of The House (above) you can hear an interview with Lawrence Xu-Nan about Scrutiny Week and the intense preparation necessary. You can also listen to a quick description of a few of the more political tactics observed in hearings. Politics muddies everything in Parliament, including Parliament's role in providing governance over governments. In Scrutiny Week, some politics is inevitable in both MPs' questions and ministers' answers. Our focus on the tactics is more about the answers than the questions, because those answering tend to employ a wider range of techniques. Either the ministers have more tactical options available or they are more creative in finding them. No matter who is in government, some ministers genuinely engage in the spirit of the event, freely answering questions and providing information. Others tend to be grudging with details. Some face aggressive political questions evincing fiercely political answers and a few appear to just really enjoy the stoush. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Listen above for examples of political questions and answers tactics, including rejection of questions, answering alternative questions, redefining the terms, insult and humour as a defence, and various ways to eat up time. Oddly, sometimes ministers get so involved in the tussle that they ignore options to their own benefit. Typically, sitting beside a minister under scrutiny are senior ministerial officials - whose answers are less politically suspect. Sometimes, if an official can get a word in, the detail given is positive and the minister had no reason to be obfuscating - other than for the fun of the stoush. The audio above might give the appearance that Scrutiny Week is an endless and frustrating bear pit, and it can be, but we also saw hearings where ministers from all the governing parties gave good answers and had constructive interchanges with the committees, sometimes even in contentious areas. That is especially true in hearings where officials from ministries or agencies are providing information, but examples of good in-depth discussions are, almost by definition, far too lengthy to include in a short programme. Good politics is seldom quick politics. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?
By Ian Lovering* of International relations academic Ian Lovering delves into some of the history and social structures at play behind decisions about the national budget. Photo: RNZ Analysis : Recent controversies over New Zealand's Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch programme have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals , scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines. But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of "fiscal responsibility" and austerity politics . As part of the mission to "cut waste" in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised programme run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered "saving for taxpayers" of $130 million - in line with the government's overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting. While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term "austerity", her May budget cut the government's operating allowance in half , to $1.3 billion. This came on top of Budget cuts last year of around $4 billion. Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings. What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing. New Zealand's public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9 percent in 1972 to 35.9 percent in 2022. And this wasn't unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9 percent in 1972 to 29.9 percent in 2022. How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever? In a recent paper , I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used. Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that. In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - "Rogernomics" being the New Zealand variant - to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business. Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity's growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform. But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity's managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget. Godfather of 'rational' budgeting: US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara (right), with US president Lyndon B Johnson (centre), in a Cabinet meeting, in 1968. Photo: Yoichi Okamoto - Public Domain Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years - such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture - have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defence. In the early 1960s, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles. In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defence Department's budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan. The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System . Its goal was to create a "rational" budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed. This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing - or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out. What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy . These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the " New Public Management " framework that transformed state sectors all over the world. Dramatic moments of spending cuts - such as the 1991 " Mother of all Budgets " in New Zealand or Elon Musk's recent DOGE crusade in the US - stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking. Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about. Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, "automatic stabilisers" inject public money into the economy to pick it back up. For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society's future commitments. But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function - managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives. From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used. To return to New Zealand's school lunch programme, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches - and public spending more broadly. Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches? * Ian Lovering is a lecturer in international relations, at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. This story was originally published on The Conversation .
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Monitoring Iran And Promoting Peaceful Nuclear Use – The IAEA's Role Explained
19 June 2025 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dates back to 1957 and was set up in response to global fears following the first use of nuclear and atomic weapons and alarm over the advent and spread of nuclear technology. An autonomous part of the United Nations system, it works on issues as varied as food safety, cancer control and sustainable development – and also on promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Another principal responsibility, perhaps less well understood, is the agency's framework of nuclear 'safeguards' agreements. These agreements are voluntarily entered into by countries and are key to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons by independently verifying whether countries are meeting their non-proliferation commitments. As of 2024, some 182 countries have safeguards agreements with the IAEA. In a June 9 address to the agency's board, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi laid out troubling findings, raising fresh concerns about Iran's compliance with global nuclear agreements. 'Iran has repeatedly either not answered' IAEA requests 'or not provided technically credible answers,' Mr. Grossi told the 35-nation board on Monday. Additionally, he said, Iran has sought to 'sanitise the locations,' which the agency has now concluded were part of a 'structured' nuclear programme in the early 2000s. 'Unless and until Iran assists the agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful,' he said. Mr. Grossi expressed alarm at the rapid accumulation of over 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium, which has serious implications (highly enriched uranium is one of the necessary components for the creation of a nuclear bomb). The statement to the board underlined the significant role the IAEA plays in Iran, which can be broken down into four main areas. 1. Monitoring The agency uses safeguard agreements under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a key international accord designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of safeguards agreements are those that have been concluded by the IAEA with non-nuclear-weapon States. However, safeguards are implemented in three States that are not party to the NPT – India, Pakistan and Israel – on the basis of item-specific agreements they have concluded with the IAEA. As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked. The agency regularly inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use. On 9 June, Mr. Grossi noted that man-made uranium particles had been found at three more, undeclared sites (Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad). Iran, he said, had failed to provide 'technically credible explanations' for the presence of the particles, despite years of consultations. 2. Reporting The agency regularly reports to its Board of Governors on the nuclear activities of Iran (and other countries), using methods such as inspections, monitoring equipment, environmental sampling, and satellite imagery to gather data and prepare technical reports. In the case of countries under special scrutiny – such as Iran – these reports are typically issued every quarter. If Iran – or any non-nuclear weapon country party to the NPT – fails to comply with the IAEA's requirements (for example, by limiting access or not explaining the presence of uranium particles), the agency can report Iran to the UN Security Council, which may lead to diplomatic pressure, sanctions or calls for further negotiations. 3. Diplomatic engagement The IAEA frequently calls for diplomatic solutions and emphasises the importance of dialogue to resolve concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions. Director General Grossi has engaged directly with Iranian authorities and international stakeholders to maintain communication and transparency. Addressing the Security Council on June 13, Mr. Grossi said that his agency was in constant contact with the Iranian Nuclear Regulatory Authority to assess the status of affected facilities and determine broader impacts on nuclear safety and security. 4. Safety and security oversight This is a critical part of the IAEA's broader mission to prevent nuclear accidents, ensure that nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, and protect people and the environment. The IAEA works with the Iranian authorities to ensure that nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan operate safely, by assessing the design and operation of the facilities, monitoring radiation protection measures, and evaluating emergency preparedness. After the June 2025 Israeli strikes, the IAEA confirmed that Natanz had been impacted but reported no elevated radiation levels. However, it emphasised that any military attack on nuclear facilities is a violation of international law and poses serious risks to safety and the environment.
