Risky Business
What do we consider the main threats facing New Zealand?
A recent independently commissioned survey by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) found some surprising answers.
New Zealanders are more concerned than citizens of other countries about threats.
Eighty-seven per cent of respondents thought the risks were real for a major national disaster in the next 12 months, and 91% in the next 10 years. The same percentages were seen for misinformation (84/81), hacking into information systems (81/77), and health epidemics (81/87). Other concerns were still in the high 70s, including violent conflict in New Zealand, and a nuclear, biological or chemical attack somewhere in the world. The lowest threat, war between New Zealand and another state, was still a reasonably high 29% in the next 12 months; 42% in the next 10 years.
It’s possible we may be oversensitised to threat. We don’t know enough about the nature of risks to assign probability to them. We fear almost everything.
There are few uncertainties we would gamble on without some knowledge of what we were getting into. It would be like knowing you wanted to buy a house in the foreseeable future (not the best analogy, I realise), but not having considered where, what size, or what you could afford. Prioritising threat requires some investigation and debate. It also requires some idea of the resources needed, and how things might change.
Fortunately, the government is keen to include Kiwis in its planning. The DPMC’s Tony Lynch argues that “by increasing public conversations on national security, we can prepare and grow our resilience to meet these challenges together with a shared understanding of possible ways forward”.
The DPMC has made public a draft of its Long-term Insights Briefing (LTIB). Every ministry is now required to prepare such a report, which is written free of political input and is a “best guess” of where such sectors as the economy, communications and health are heading. The national security LTIB was put together with public feedback, in-house knowledge from nine national-security agencies, international research and Statistics NZ data. It is a look into the future, some 10-15 years from now, thinking about global trends, risks and matters of concern, and opportunities that might help make us safer.
A caveat is necessary. Before 2010, the risk of a major quake in Christchurch was hardly considered. The terrorist attack nine years later in the same city was a shock to most people. Black-swan events happen, and in the realm of national-security risk, it is deemed better to be able to think on your feet (and be trained and prepared to act quickly) than plan meticulously for every minor possibility. Who knows what new threats, for example, artificial intelligence will create?
The LTIB shares three possible scenarios. The first is a continued decline, with geopolitical competition, nationalism and the further undermining of the rules-based order, leading to a weakened response to threats such as climate change, transnational crime, cyber activity and extremist violence. The second, a dramatic decline featuring war not only in Ukraine but also in Taiwan and a militarised Pacific, attacks on our critical infrastructure and a polarised domestic political and social environment. And the third, an optimistic and improving outlook that sees some of the international collaboration addressing the Ukraine war spreading to such things as climate-change management, and a more transparent and open society at home.
Scenarios, says Victoria University of Wellington’s Malcolm Menzies, promote conversation and provide hypotheses that unfolding evidence can prove or disprove.
We need this kind of evidence at our fingertips if we are going to contribute to the country’s long-term safety. Someone who makes plans without gathering the necessary information is a dreamer. Worrying about national security threats without reviewing and debating the evidence is the stuff of nightmares.
This article first appeared in NZ Listener, December 3, 2022
