New Zealand Labour Withdraws Support for AUKUS Alliance

The CCP responded aggressively, warning New Zealand to “think twice” before aligning itself more closely with its Five Eyes partners.

When asked by The Epoch Times about Beijing’s warning, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) referred to the original statement from the two governments following the joint meeting, which characterizes AUKUS as making “a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.”

Attitude Turns Cold

The Labour party had previously adopted a similar perspective. When it was in power, then-Defence Minister Andrew Little expressed interest in exploring greater interoperability with Australia, particularly as both countries embarked on reviewing the state of their equipment.

The government also said it was “willing to explore” participating in Pillar Two of AUKUS, which focuses on developing and sharing military technology.

But the Labour Party has since given the clearest indication yet that its previous lukewarm support for AUKUS has gone decidedly cold.

Labour’s associate foreign affairs spokesperson Phil Twyford called the agreement an “offensive warfighting alliance against China,” questioning the government’s intention to be involved in a war with China on the side of the U.S.

Labour foreign affairs spokesman David Parker said Australian officials “will probably be trying to sell [AUKUS],” but that both the benefits and disadvantages must be looked at.

Don’t Want Beijing as a Foe: Parker

“We don’t want to position China as a foe. We’ve got a good relationship with them. We don’t agree with them on everything and there are some things that we have quite different values on, including the rights of minorities, for example,” Mr. Parker said.

However, he did not explicitly commit Labour to a position of calling on the government to cease exploring the idea.

He said they were “questioning its utility and whether it is wise” because Labour “remain unconvinced that pillar two offers us anything new that we don’t already have” and an interoperable military could, and was, being achieved outside of it.

Because the government had not made a final decision, “we’re [also] not in a position that we need to take a final decision yet, but you can see that we’re expressing our concerns that it’s not necessarily in New Zealand’s national interest,” he said.

Ships Can’t Sail, Planes Can’t Fly

Despite Ms. Collins’ rhetoric, New Zealand is likely to become increasingly reliant on its allies—particularly Australia—because the government has told public agencies to cut spending by 6 to 7 percent at a time when much of its military equipment is at end-of-life and needs either replacing or expensive upgrades.

A case in point is the naval helicopter fleet, which will cost over $1 billion (US$613 million) to replace.

Meanwhile, in 21 months to April 2023, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) lost almost a third of its uniformed service personnel, meaning New Zealand’s military can’t adequately staff ships and planes.

The most commonly cited reason for people leaving was poor pay with just 18 percent of those in the Army saying they were paid fairly and 70 percent of those leaving the Air Force saying low pay was a trigger to quit.

An NZDF “interim workforce plan,” issued in May 2023, said it tried to pay within five percent of market rates for jobs, but it had “not been achievable since 2018 due to insufficient funding.”