The mystery of the missing Navy journal
Thursday, 23 July 2026
A scholarly journal published by the Royal New Zealand Navy has vanished from the internet, leaving unanswered questions about why it was taken offline and prompting a series of carefully worded responses from Defence and Foreign Affairs.
The Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy, Volume 6, was published in June, but is now no longer available on the Defence Force website.
The 144-page issue offers analysis, policy discussions, and historical perspectives for Navy, Defence and security policy personnel.
Introduced by Deputy Chief of Navy Commodore Karl Woodhead, it included analysis of China’s regional ambitions, the AUKUS security partnership, Australia and New Zealand defence co-operation, electronic warfare, deterrence, and lessons from the war in Ukraine.
Read more:
The Australian warning: How close is NZ to triggering China's wrath?
NZSAS operating at half its traditional operational strength, sources say
Among its contributors was Rob Laurs - a Kiwi diplomat currently working on Antarctic strategic partnerships. Laurs previously served as First Secretary at the High Commission in Canberra and was posted to Mexico City.
His essay - which was awarded the Chief of Defence Force Essay Prize - examined whether AUKUS would enhance Australia’s security.
It examines China’s growing influence, the role of the United States in the Indo-Pacific, and the implications of shifting global power dynamics for regional security.
A later postscript updated the analysis to reflect developments after the original essay was written.
Some of the language is unusually forthright for a serving diplomat.
Laurs describes China as seeking regional dominance, characterises the Trump administration as leading a “newly irresponsible US”, says the United States is “actively dismantling the rules-based order”, and describes Washington as an “unapologetically revisionist great power”.
The essay was published with a disclaimer stating the views expressed were those of the author and did not represent the official position of the Defence Force or the Government.
Questions about the journal’s disappearance prompted unusually terse responses from both agencies.
NZDF’s initial explanation was that the publication had been taken offline because “media have lately been attempting to infer New Zealand Defence Force or Government policy from these essays”.
When asked to identify the media coverage it was referring to, explain what concerns had been raised, and why the entire journal had been removed rather than relying on the disclaimer, NZDF provided no further detail.
The Post could find only one news article referring to the journal. The Newsroom piece focused on an essay by Army Major Andrew Gifford, which argued New Zealand needed a clearer strategy for dealing with China’s growing influence.
It explicitly noted the journal’s disclaimer that the essays were “not necessarily representative of the Royal New Zealand Navy, the New Zealand Defence Force, or the Government of New Zealand”.
In response to further questions, a spokesperson for NZDF referred back to its earlier statement.
“We have explained in our earlier response why we have taken the Journal offline. The decision was made solely by the NZDF.”
MFAT’s response was similarly brief. “MFAT did not request that NZDF remove the article.”
The ministry was subsequently asked whether it had communicated with NZDF about the journal or the essay before it was taken offline, and whether the decision had been discussed between the agencies.
“NZDF advised MFAT of its intention to remove the journal and subsequently confirmed its decision to do so,” a spokesperson said. “NZDF’s rationale for its decision was noted.”
She said those discussions “did not touch on the essay written by an MFAT member of staff”.
MFAT did not answer whether it had raised any concerns about the journal, or whether it provided any advice before the decision was made.