Tim Hurdle is a former National Party senior adviser and is a director of several companies, including Museum Street Strategies, a public affairs firm.
OPINION: When your friendly neighbour puts razor wire on the fence and heads down to the gun store, take notice.
Our Australian cobbers have released their 2026 National Defence Strategy (NDS). They talk about a "strategy of denial" to deter regional aggression and a "whole of nation" approach to security.
Their focus is on the development of top line combat capabilities, including nuclear-powered submarines through their AUKUS agreement. This approach has survived changes of government and has become the new orthodoxy in Australian politics.
They aim to strengthen their alliance with the United States to secure the Indo-Pacific. This requires significantly increasing defence spending. They are aiming for 3% of GDP and their projected A$425 billion spend would be equivalent to approximately 125% of New Zealand's annual GDP. While this comparison highlights the vast difference in scale between the two economies, it also shows Australia views the threats seriously.
In the document, perhaps unsurprisingly, New Zealand warrants a single and vague paragraph. On this side of the ditch, however, we must pay more attention than that alone.
The threats perceived by Australia also impact on us. And as our only formal ally, we are bound to support them. We need to understand why our nearest neighbour is so concerned.
New Zealand is no longer shielded by distance. We face a complex array of modern, hybrid threats, ranging from state-sponsored cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, to the sabotage of underwater communication cables and theft of intellectual property.
As the Iranian crisis has highlighted, our export-dependent economy is vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions and the protectionist impulses of major powers. We can no longer assume that the US security umbrella will ensure that our Pacific neighbourhood will remain free from external coercion.
The cold hard dawn of this new era requires us to move past the sentimental, outmoded positions from the 1970s and 1980s. Nostalgia for a better world, ignores the reshaped global environment.
We are in danger of developing our own "strategy of denial", unwilling to change. The "independent foreign policy" many still champion, is becoming irrelevant. The international institutions set up after the Second World War are ignored or bypassed.
Those advocating that the government must be stronger in standing up for human rights and international law, ignore that there is no mechanism to enforce them. Pleas to the United Nations Security Council, the International Courts of Justice or the WTO, do not result in significant change. To believe otherwise is denial.
Instead, a mature and modern foreign policy must be anchored in contemporary analysis and a sober assessment of our national interests.
We need to transition toward a more confident, realistic, and adaptive stance. And we need to be credible. We can’t retreat into isolationism or pacifism.
In the wider world, the architecture of global diplomacy is changing as major powers jockey for leverage. Increasingly foreign and trade policy is conducted through groups of like-minded countries working in their mutual interests.
We must act as a proactive, influential player in the Pacific, working with partners like Australia to strengthen regional resilience, promote democratic governance, and counter coercive influence.
We cannot become the world’s policeman, but we must be able to play our part with fellow defenders of democracy and freedom. Concepts like the freedom of navigation can require demonstrations of strength.
Remaining relevant in the global debate requires us to acknowledge that New Zealand must pull its share of the weight, not acting as a loud commentator alone. And if we want our voice to be credible in the rooms that decide the future, we must make a meaningful contribution.
Our place in the global debate must be earned and maintained. That means having the ability to look after our interests and provide real capabilities to coalitions of the good guys. Providing more than words and good intentions when they turn to us.
This requires a stronger capability in defence and security. But we don’t have the wealth of our neighbours to buy from the top shelf. What we do have is our nimbleness and innovative creativity. We have people who can develop rockets, drones and the software that are the new tools of warfare.
However, the bureaucratic processes delay our adoption of technology. Everything requires a “business case”. Observation of the current conflicts suggest that either the Ukrainians have world- class business case writers, or they value innovation and continuous improvement, over 400-page documents.
Our future foreign policy will still hold true to New Zealanders’ desire to assert what is right and fair. As we contemplate the “strategy of denial”, we have a clear choice: remain anchored to a past that no longer exists or adapt to the reality of the 21st century.
We don’t need to ape the Australian strategy, but we probably do need to start locking the front door.
What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.
When a coalition starts giving way to competition
The ‘selective’ approach to human rights sits with the Government, not activists
For tech exporters to the US, many things change, a few stay the same
Cold or flu? How to tell the difference this winter
Luxon’s response woefully inadequate for this fractured moment
