New Zealand Defence Force troops helped detonate two armed ground drones during a military exercise near Adelaide, according to an information request. But here's the issue: the Defence Force still has no formal rules or directives about how these weapons should be used.

The drones used in the exercise were small robotic ground vehicles, each carrying 50 kilograms of explosives. They were set off as part of a joint training exercise with Australian forces to simulate an attack. The Australian Defence Force called it a powerful demonstration of drone capability.

But the Defence Force hasn't finished setting the guardrails. An information request shows NZDF is still working out how drones should operate, how soldiers should train with them, and what the staffing needs are. The overall rules and guidance document won't be ready until December. There are some rules for aerial drones (the kind that fly), but nothing settled yet for ground drones or weaponised versions like these.

Why does this matter? When a military introduces a new weapons system, a clear directive is meant to spell out exactly what it can be used for, who can authorise it, and what limits apply. A former Major General said having no directive puts risk on both the troops using it and the senior leaders signing off on it. It means commanders have to make decisions in a grey area instead of following clear policy.

This problem has been brewing for years. A former Chief of Defence was discussing armed drones with colleagues over a decade ago. He says New Zealand needs to sort out the rules, choose the right capability, organise the people, and set up training all at once — rather than one piece at a time. A former military drone consultant put it bluntly: the institution is still catching up to the technology.

Right now, the uncertainty affects money and planning. Units don't know if drones are a real, lasting requirement or a one-off extra. That makes a difference to budgets and to making the case for long-term investment. Without clear directives, drone spending can get cut in the next round of budget decisions in a way that formally approved capabilities don't.

What makes this stranger is that New Zealand and Australia are already testing weaponised drones together — even though each country has different rules. That suggests Australia, at least, sees these drones as a serious operational tool, not just something to experiment with.

In December, the Defence Force will release its formal guidance document. The question then is whether it actually solves the problem — or whether it just restates it in policy language. This has already been sitting unresolved for over ten years, through several defence reviews. That December paper will tell us whether the institution finally catches up.