Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill, Defence Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The people who serve our defence forces are being recognised today, particularly those who serve as reservists, be that in the Army, the Navy, or a very small number in the Air Force. Because I believe that this legislation will pass unopposed, Parliament is today enhancing their role and recognising their service.

It does so essentially in three ways. It provides—and this is a critical point—the protection of their employment in an event where the Government has made a declaration of national interest. Something like East Timor would qualify.

Secondly, the legislation establishes—and this is very important in terms of building up our reservists—an employers’ support council and gives it a statutory basis. In the past such organisations have been voluntary. This time it will have a statutory basis.

Thirdly, it gives the Government power to pass regulations that will enable employers to be compensated when their employees are serving on deployments that are declared to be of national interest.

I acknowledge the hard work of the select committee, chaired by Mr Peter Dunne, who carefully steered this legislation through, heard the evidence, and sought to promote the bill. I acknowledge the Government’s part in that, and the numerous meetings that were held. I also acknowledge the defence forces, and in particular Brigadier Tim Brewer for whom this legislation has been a particular commitment. He will remain committed to building the reservists.

However, the most important thanks have to go to the men and women who choose—essentially in their spare time, outside their employment, often at big sacrifice to family life—to serve their country through the defence forces. That often goes quite unremarked, and a lot of people do not really appreciate how important it is until we need them. This country needed them in East Timor. Twenty percent of the six rotations of battalions to East Timor consisted of Territorial Force volunteers. That is quite a significant number.

Many told me that—and this was the motivating force behind the bill—they had had to give up their jobs as they could not negotiate an appropriate arrangement with their employer. But at that point they had spent maybe 10 years, or longer, in the New Zealand Defence Force. They wanted to put their practice to meaningful use, serving their country in a cause that everyone in this Parliament, and, indeed, everyone in this nation, saw as valuable—literally building a new nation in our region after the terrible circumstances of the preceding 20 years in East Timor. We owe them a debt.

One of the things that this House has to reflect upon—and more, the country has to reflect upon—is why so many of those young, and not so young, men and women have had to make that sacrifice of giving up their employment. I suggest that unlike perhaps the United States, and unlike Britain, our employers and our community have lost the knowledge of the value of people serving the country through the defence forces. It is not something that takes away, but something that adds. People learn leadership skills, self-reliance, and responsibility for self.

All of that, of course, is valuable through their Defence Force careers. It is valuable in a much wider way, as well. It helps them in their lives; it helps their employers and their communities. It builds the ethic of service—service to other people in the community. That is why the Territorial Force and the naval reservists have been so valuable. But it is a culture that is declining—today only 1,800 people are in the Territorial Force.

💬 Ron Mark: How many?

The figure is 1,800. When I was in the Defence Force in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, there were up to 7,000. There was a well-understood base of knowledge in the community of the value of that service. But things have changed. The reality is that at the very time when the numbers have been going down, we are asking reservists to do more than ever. What I am hoping from this bill, and particularly from the Employer Support Council, is an opportunity to rebuild the territorial and reservist forces—that voluntary action.

Frankly—and the Minister should take note of this—this is the cheapest way to rebuild the Defence Force. We often need to use it, particularly in the difficult and demanding jobs of peacekeeping. People who have had experience through their civilian world have an acute understanding of peacekeeping. They bring a broader and wider perspective, and that has been well understood throughout the years. Britain and the United States are learning the value of that experience in Iraq today. Those who have that broader experience have a clearer and more coherent understanding of how to interact with civilians who, frankly, are often doing much the same jobs, living much the same lives, as they would be in their own countries. It is a sensitivity to the people of the host country.

I want to acknowledge the debt that this country owes to our reservists. I want to tell the Government that it is time to rebuild them, because we will need them again. It is a pity that the bill has had to take 4 years. When I introduced this bill, it was only 10 months after the initial deployment to East Timor. I was hoping that it would be passed in time for at least one or two of the deployments to East Timor to have the benefit of it. It would have taken a year to pass the bill into legislation, which is not an unreasonable request.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: We would have to rewrite the whole bill.

That member had a whole year to do that. It is unfortunate that we could not do it in time. It is certainly an issue I raised at the time, but time has passed and that opportunity has been lost. It is a good thing we are at least doing it now for the future. I would like to see the legislation ultimately extended so that it covers people who go on individual deployments, such as UN observers in the Golan Heights and Lebanon. I think it would serve with value there. Maybe the Minister will take advice on that issue.

I conclude by saying that this is a great day for the men and women who serve our country through the armed forces on a part-time, voluntary basis. I know many of them have been waiting for this legislation. They value it not just for the particular protections it provides, but because it is an opportunity to kick-start the ethic and value of the reservists in our defence forces. I am certainly hopeful that it will achieve part of that goal. I will be focusing particularly on how the Government puts this legislation into action to build our defence forces, because they serve our country in such an important way.

I am very happy to join the third reading debate and to see this good piece of legislation through its final stage in this Parliament. I acknowledge that Dr Wayne Mapp did sponsor the original bill to protect the employment of volunteers and provide support for their employers. It was a worthy bill, and that is why the Government and, I acknowledge, every party in the House have provided active support to progress it now that we are at this point. This is not a time for playing politics, and I hope we do not hear any more of that. The process, in terms of the time that this bill has taken, has largely been to do with the work required to be done by our Defence Force personnel in order to get it right. In saying that, I acknowledge, as Dr Mapp quite rightly did, the sterling work of Brigadier Tim Brewer and the leadership that he, in particular, showed, and I also acknowledge the work of the many other men and women in the Defence Force who have contributed to getting this legislation through to this point.

I also acknowledge that we had quite a unique select committee process on this bill. Members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee met, as Dr Mapp indicated, on many occasions—many of those meetings in my office. We worked together alongside Defence Force personnel and other interested parties, to try to get this bill as good and as effective as it could be, in terms of achieving the aims that are set out. I want to acknowledge all the members who took part in that process, from all but one of the parties in Parliament. It was very satisfying to work with parliamentary colleagues in that collaborative manner.

This bill was introduced back in 2000. It was referred to the select committee, which heard submissions, and then needed to go through a substantial rewrite and extension in order to achieve the things that I think were consistent with the original intention, and the needs that Parliament and parliamentarians felt should be addressed. Significantly, the scope of the bill was expanded in terms of the protection available for volunteers in all three services of the Territorial Force. As Dr Mapp has touched on, that is dealt with by the proclamation for continuous service, whether in New Zealand or overseas—that is a particularly important component of the bill—or when serving voluntarily for fixed periods when that service is declared to be a situation of national interest.

The bill will ensure that through the principal Act we have relevant and up to date legislation, in terms of the current employment environment. That was one of the important factors that required a lot of technical work on the part of officials. They had to ensure that this bill did dovetail in, in an appropriate way, with the vast amount of employment legislation and workplace legislation that has been enacted over the last 20 years. Out of that comes, perhaps, the single most important feature in this bill: the creation of the employer support council, which will provide a framework to enable the negotiation of solutions between territorial and reservist force personnel and their employers on a flexible, and, where necessary, on an individual, basis.

Territorial force personnel receive on-the-job training in leadership, management, teamwork, and problem solving. It is of benefit to them, I think. But, equally, I would suggest, it is of great benefit to their employers and to their workplaces. It is my hope, then, that this bill will encourage more young people to join the Territorial Force and assist more employers to support their staff to participate in the Territorial Force. As I think Dr Mapp indicated, we have to address both sides of that equation if we are serious about building the Territorial Force.

Let us be clear about this: the present environment is one in which every volunteer organisation in the country is struggling to maintain the sorts of numbers it had in the past. In the last generation there have been huge changes in the fundamentals of our society, in work habits, in the workplace, and in occupational arrangements. Volunteerism, which is such a fundamentally important part of New Zealand society, is challenged. There is no doubt about that. It is challenged here, as it is in every voluntary organisation I know of. Most members in this House who regularly get back into the electorates around New Zealand and who are in touch with their electorates know that voluntary organisations, by and large, do struggle in the same way that the Territorial Force does. So we do have to take quite strong action to facilitate, support, and to recognise that when men and women give their time and talent, and are prepared to be available to do the training, there is a cost and a challenge to their employers, as well. Out of this process we will see a balanced response and a way forward that will encourage, support, and facilitate both those who are willing to volunteer and the employers whose goodwill and generosity we also rely on, and when necessary, when those situations of national interest prevail, ensure that there is fair recognition and recompense for those employers.

I conclude by saying I, too, want to recognise the extraordinary contribution the Defence Force men and women, both full-time professionals and volunteers—territorials and reservists—make to our country. I think over recent years one of the things we can all be very satisfied about in this House is that New Zealand does recognise that contribution, and does celebrate and acknowledge it openly in ways that we have not always done in our past. I certainly applaud that, and I think it is something that the men and women whom I meet week after week, all around the country, in our Defence Force appreciate. It is good that tonight this House is united in support of a bill that is in the best interests of those men and women. Let me thank all the parties in this House for their cooperation in advancing this legislation. In particular, I extend my thanks to all members of the select committee, both past and present. There are one or two former members, like Graham Kelly and Doug Kidd, who have played an active part in this legislation, have been really keen, and have continued to show that interest—in Graham Kelly’s case from the other side of the world, and in Doug Kidd’s case regularly, in terms of contacts and conversations with many of us. Their contribution is indeed appreciated. Thank you all, and finally I welcome the passage of this legislation tonight.

I rise to speak with a bit of a glad heart, but also a warning. I feel a warning is absolutely essential at this point in time, because of the 4 years that the legislation has taken to get to this point.

I have to acknowledge the very good work that has been done. I myself wanted to mention Graham Kelly personally, but I note the Minister of Defence mentioned him. Graham did a very good job in facilitating much of the work that happened behind the scenes, both with the Minister’s office and through membership on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I hope that if Graham is listening to the radio in Canada, he is taking a tipple and celebrating this moment, because it has indeed been long in coming but is very welcome. I want to mention Tim Brewer, of course, and I do not think Air Marshall Carey Adamson can go without a mention, because this all started off in his time.

I want to say a couple of things. Firstly, this legislation is welcome. New Zealand First has had both myself and Peter Brown working on it: Peter Brown because of his expertise in labour law and the employers’ perspective; and myself because of my 20-odd years of military service.

I have to say that time that the Regular Force and the Territorial Force spend together is not always pleasant. Many times, the Regular Force very much acts like the big brother with a kid brother hanging around whom it does not want to know. The “weekend warriors” who come to soldier, who take up a lot of time and are a pain in the backside, are often looked down upon by Regular Force officers and NCOs as second-class soldiers. I want to put it on record that when I and a number of my mates in the New Zealand Army were Regular Force soldiers, we went out of our way to volunteer to exercise every year in the South Island with a Territorial Force unit there that unfortunately has been disbanded. [Interruption] The answer is a very solid “No”—3rd Infantry Workshops of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The fact that it was a field force deployable unit that was entirely staffed by Territorial Force personnel was interesting. I acknowledge the sterling work of those “weekend warriors”, as they were often referred to by Regular Force guys, because those people still today celebrate their time in the New Zealand armed forces. I just regret that that unit has fallen by the wayside. I think something happened under a National Government. actually, but we will not go into the details of the politics right now.

I also want to say that the pay issue is still with us. The words here today are good, but we ignore what we have done. When Territorial Force soldiers were recruited to go to East Timor, and were taken into camp to spend weeks and weeks training in build-up for deployment, they were paid Territorial Force wages. They were paid Regular Force wages only on the day they deployed, and their families bore the cost. Some young men serving in the prison service who busted their gut to get into that deployment had to suffer fiscal hardship. For what? For wanting to serve their country on operational service overseas. When I raised that issue in this House I was ignored. We did not leap to the fore and immediately—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It’s been fixed.

Well, it took time, and people told me I was grandstanding. There was another issue. Territorial Force soldiers were told, on their overnight becoming Regular Force soldiers in order to go to East Timor, that they were eligible for a grant to assist with their mortgage payments. What happened when they came home? They all got a letter from Defence Force headquarters saying they were not eligible for it and had to pay it back. We fixed that because Ron Mark raised it and embarrassed the hell out of the Government in a newspaper article, and my compliments to Jerry Mateparae, who moved swiftly to put his foot on the throat of the senior officers who had been so stupid—and it was fixed. But those signals and failures do one thing: they denigrate Territorial Force service, which is precisely what we should not be doing.

I have a personal friend who is a band 5 grunt soldier in the Canterbury Infantry Regiment. Until recently his average daily wage—and this is the reward he gets for serving his country—was $65 a day. Do members know what his private wage is in the company he works for? It is $200 to $250 a day. This young man, whose talents have been recognised by the army, has recently been commissioned. But this House needs to deal with Territorial Force soldiers’ pay. It is totally inadequate. It needs to reflect reality, and the Government needs to take into account the hardship that the families take on when suddenly dad or mum gets it into his or her head that it is a good idea to take a pay cut and go and help the Government, and has to say to the kids: “Sorry, kids, there is no going to the movies this weekend.”, or: “Sorry, bank manager. We are struggling to meet the mortgage.”

This Government has to follow up with this matter and go one step further. If it can throw money around like a one-armed octopus to hip-hoppers all over the planet, then it can do better on the pay scales. Three pay rises is not enough, I tell the Minister.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Every year there has been a pay rise.

The Minister should get out that report he is hiding that shows the pay was 26 percent below market rates in some areas, and tell members that he has closed those gaps.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Every year a pay rise.

The Minister should not sit there and have the House believe that he has closed the gaps, because they are still too wide. It is a pittance. If that Minister wants to go to the next election on that pittance, I say he must beware because the truth will out.

💬 Opposition Member: Bring it on.

“Bring it on!”, I say to the Minister. I acknowledge the promotions brought about through my campaigning, but he has not gone far enough. I want it to go on the record that what is being done today is good, but it should not hide the fact that the pay rates still need to be addressed. I want the Minister to answer a question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is it appropriate for me—without losing my spot—to ask the Minister to answer one question, and get him to answer it?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

The Minister knows he has a report that states that the pay gap with the market rate was, in some trades, up to 26 percent, yet the Minister sat here and told me that he closed that gap right up. I say to the Minister that there is a porky pig flying through the House, and that he should close the 26 percent gap. I ask the Minister to take a call after my speech and answer that.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot take a second call in a third reading debate.

I will give leave. We will all give leave.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot give leave.

If the Minister seeks leave, I will not object to his taking a second call. I am sure that one of his members is going to take only a 2-second call, anyway. He has plenty of time. I want to talk about what these Territorial Force soldiers do.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Can’t you be gracious for once in your life?

Gracious? This is the Minister who said that we should all value Territorial Force soldiers for what they do. This is the Minister who interfered in Exercise Tasman Reserve, and stopped local Canterbury MPs from going there as invited guests. I ask the Minister who went. Yes, the Minister did. I know that Canterbury MPs like Brian Connell and me were wanted by the Territorial Force unit. The Minister intervened, and guess who went?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What’s he got to hide?

What does he have to hide? The Minister did not want us to talk to the Territorial Force soldiers. It was a sales pitch. He sent Damien O’Connor as the Government representative, and he deliberately stopped every South Island MP who was not a Government member from attending. I ask the Minister to say that it is not so, that he did not issue that instruction, and to tell us why. The employers group that went along had a great day. Ngāi Tahu had a great day. Everybody said that it was what people should have been seeing for years. Where were the local MPs? Who stopped them? Who interfered? Whose political manipulation stopped that from happening? The Minister sits there so red-faced because he just got snapped. It is exactly the sort of manipulation that this Government is heavily involved in, and we as MPs have a right to see our South Island Territorial Force soldiers at work, under training, and on exercise. If that Minister thinks he will get goodwill from me for carrying on like that, he has another think coming.

This is good legislation. New Zealand First supports it. We welcome it, but there is a lot more yet to be done. A very red-faced Mark Burton, who just got snapped, has a lot of work to do before New Zealand First will be happy with what the Territorial Force soldiers and servicewomen receive. The Minister is looking red over there.

I seek leave to take a second, short call in this third reading debate.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

To answer the member’s specific question about pay rises, I point out that in each of the last three Budget rounds the Defence Force has had a stepped contribution to pay increases to base pay for all Defence Force personnel, and to targeted pay at the discretion of the Chief of Defence Force in consultation with his service chiefs in order to target trades where they have determined that there is a need to target for recruitment and retention. In each of those 3 years the Government has stepped up the service allowance—which the member understands—which is all about ensuring that the relativities go up for the lowest paid. That member would understand better than most in the House the importance of the allowance. Perhaps most important, each of those pay rises has been at the level requested by the Defence Force, as long as it is done over each step of the way.

I say to Mr Mark that the test will be what is in this year’s Budget. We will all have to wait and see. This is the fourth year, and the member is right that we still have a step to go. We will see what is in the Budget. [Interruption] No, I have not. I have said that we will have to see what is in the Budget. I wait to be judged.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The cat’s out of the bag.

Nothing is out of the bag. As I said, we have gone through three steps. We will have to see what we can do in the Budget. It remains to be seen. [Interruption] There is a step to go yet. I agree. We will see where we are up to.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I am proud to stand as the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to participate in the debate on the third readings of the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to express our appreciation and thanks to the officials, the Minister of Defence, the Ministry of Defence, and the New Zealand Defence Force for their hard work and intelligent advice. I also acknowledge the input of Brigadier Tim Brewer, who appeared before the select committee and advised us in a personal capacity. The committee enjoyed good, robust, and informed debate under the very able chairmanship of the Hon Peter Dunne. We received submissions from groups such as Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Council of Trade Unions. We received and considered 13 submissions from individuals and groups, and heard five submissions. The legislation enabled input from all the key stakeholders, and arrived at a positive outcome for all. We support the legislation.

Dr Wayne Mapp introduced the original bill on 17 August 2000, and we thank him. The Minister of Defence, the Hon Mark Burton, released Supplementary Order Paper 66 on 18 March 2003. That was referred to the select committee for consideration with the bill.

The main purpose of the legislation is to protect the employment of volunteers in the Territorial Force and to support employers. The Volunteers Employment Protection Act of 1973 has become increasingly out of date. It does not provide protection of employment to operations that do not occur at a time of war or emergency. An example is the Territorial Force personnel who were deployed in significant numbers to Timor-Leste—formerly East Timor—and whose contribution was vital to the operation. They were not protected by the Act.

I want to refer to two provisions of the legislation that address this issue, which include the setting up of a council known as the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council. Before I speak specifically to those parts of the legislation, I would like to contextualise and support the wonderful work of our volunteers—our Kiwis, our taonga, and our territorial forces who have made a tremendous contribution to and impact on peacekeeping. We will all recall the pictures we saw on television in New Zealand of the children from Timor-Leste, who always greeted our Kiwi territorials with warmth and a smile, by saying: “Kia ora Kiwi”. Our volunteers and territorial forces were instrumental in rebuilding trust and healing those families and communities. The East Timorese people did not trust people in uniforms because of their horrific past experience. Our wonderful Kiwis and New Zealanders were ordinary Kiwis who sang waiata, participated in rebuilding projects, and worked very hard at all levels in the lives of those children, those families, and those communities in East Timor. They came grounded from their own communities in New Zealand, with a tremendous motivation to help, serve, and work with the Timor-Leste peoples and communities.

Our people were received with much warmth and affection by the people of Timor-Leste. Those volunteers and territorial forces are our heroes. They are our Kiwis who, through their wonderful work and commitment, facilitated hope and contributed to the economic, social, and cultural lives of the people. They healed those communities—and if a community feels good, it walks tall and continues to make a major contribution to nation-building.

This legislation aims to protect the employment of our Territorial Force soldiers in the future while they are deployed in situations of national interest, like in Timor-Leste. It provides for protection of employment when a situation of national interest is declared. It applies to every employee who is a member of the Territorial Force or reserve forces, and to other persons. This legislation protects them. It also requires the appointment of a Territorial Forces Employer Support Council to promote service in the Territorial Force and to advise the Minister of Defence on matters related to those forces.

Our select committee was very impressed by a similar, very successful entity in Australia. Mr Mark McGowan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Reserves Support Council in Australia, shared with us, in an open and frank discussion, the establishment and experience of the Australian council. He emphasised the important role the council plays, not only in promoting service in the Territorial Force but also in establishing and facilitating an ongoing, flexible partnership and lines of communication between the Defence Force, the community, and business. Mr McGowan informed us that in Australia, that process of collaboration has been very successful. The legislation also provides for the Minister to appoint a council, to be called the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council. That council would have the role to promote service in the Territorial Force and to advise the Minister on matters related to the Territorial Force and its functions. Regional committees will also be established, and they will complement our Government’s regional economic development programme. They will provide the day-to-day interface between Territorial Force personnel and employers in the region.

Our volunteers protect New Zealand’s interests overseas. We should protect their interests at home. I commend this legislation to the House and ask all parties to support its third reading.

Green MP Keith Locke was on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered this bill, and was pleased at the cooperative, cross-party way in which the bill was developed to its present point. Unfortunately he cannot be here this evening, and I am giving this speech on his behalf.

The Greens support this bill, which enables territorials to take part in such useful operations as our peacekeeping operation in East Timor, which, of course, the Green Party has been very supportive of. A large part of our East Timor contingent consisted of territorials, and Keith Locke had talked to a large number of people who took part in that operation. These were people who knew they would probably not have a job waiting for them when they returned to New Zealand. Of course, that is not a good situation. It is perhaps analogous to the right of women to take time off to have children, with a guaranteed return to employment afterwards. So it should be the same for New Zealanders who go on the extremely important business of protecting peace in places like East Timor.

We are very pleased that the provisions of this bill are aligned to those in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. It is good to see that the National Party, in promoting this bill, is not letting the market rule on this occasion, and that it supports the justifiable obligations being placed on employers in this regard. The structures to be established to educate employers and obtain their commitment to this, such as the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council, are also important to ensure that the purpose of this bill is met.

The provision of appropriate compensation to employers for demonstrable loss through cooperation with the scheme is also very important. Self-employed people are in some difficulty, however, in terms of whether they are covered for compensation, although if they have a company of some sort in their name, they would be eligible for compensation. It is important, however, that our small businesses are not unduly burdened compared with larger employers. There is discretion by the Government as to which service qualifies for the provisions of this bill, and we would expect that important, large operations like that in East Timor would qualify.

The Council of Trade Unions sought in the select committee that the period for which a person must have been employed, in order to be eligible for protection, be reduced from 12 months to 6 months. Given the fluidity and, frankly, insecurity of the job market, 12 months is too long to expect people to be employed before they are eligible, and we are concerned that too many people will be left out of this scheme. We were advised by the Government, however, not to accept the amendment put forward by the Council of Trade Unions.

Since the report back to Parliament, the Government has announced that it is reviewing the provisions of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act, and intends to reduce the qualifying period in that Act to 6 months previous employment. In light of this newly announced Government intention, Keith Locke had intended to move an amendment in the Committee stage of this bill to reduce the qualifying period to 6 months also, so that it was consistent with the planned parental leave provisions. However, we are now assured by the Government that when legislation is brought in to reduce the qualifying period for parental leave to 6 months, that legislation will have a consequential amendment reducing the qualifying period in the Volunteers Employment Protection Act to 6 months also. We accept that assurance. The Green Party supports the third reading of this bill.

In speaking to the third reading of the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill, I would like to recognise the excellent work done by Captain Dr Wayne Mapp. He was the promoter of the initial bill as a member’s bill. He rose to the rank of captain in the Territorial Force, and the bill is a reflection of his commitment to his country. That is what this bill is all about—recognising those who volunteer to serve alongside our full-time professional armed forces in defence of the realm and in protecting our national security. What greater service can one provide? Captain Mapp has certainly made that commitment over time, and he should be commended, not only for his service in the Territorial Force but also for bringing this bill to Parliament. After he left the Territorial Force, he did not forget his mates. He knew the hardship he had endured, and he brought this bill here to ensure that others did not suffer that same hardship.

The shame of it all—it is a shame, and I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not here—is that the bill was introduced way back on 20 September 2000. We know that the volunteers of our armed services have been haemorrhaging—absolutely. I have all the graphs. Year after year the number of volunteers has been falling off, to the point where we are way below critical mass. Everybody knows we need a critical mass in the armed forces to remain effective with capacity. We were given the figures. Not so long ago 8,000 territorial volunteers were serving in our armed forces; we are now down to 1,800 only, and not all of those are active, I understand. Perhaps about half of those are active, so we are probably down to less than 1,000 New Zealanders who are actively volunteering to serve alongside our professional armed forces. That is very bad indeed.

But the terrible thing is that after Captain Mapp brought this bill to the House, it languished on the Order Paper because this Government had no commitment whatsoever. The only time it got moving was when we had some television exposure of the predicament people were in—and all of a sudden the Government wanted to rush it through. The Government actually wrote to me and said it wanted to put the bill through as a Statutes Amendment bill. Of course it needed the consent of all the parties to do that. I said no, and I will tell members why I said no. Although Captain Mapp had done a sterling job in the drafting, he is not a law draftsman. He may be a law professor, but he is not a law draftsman, and the bill was deficient.

💬 Rodney Hide: What about Admiral Worth? Did he help?

Admiral Worth had his hand in there, too, I am told. Captain Mapp and Admiral Worth worked on this together. That is not the point though. The point is that it was a deficient bill, and it needed to be sent to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Every speaker in this debate has acknowledged the tremendous work the select committee did, and the tremendous assistance the brigadier gave to the committee to bring back a workable bill. Yet this Government, having ignored it for all those years and allowed it to languish on the bottom of the Order Paper, panicked, as it does. It does these U-turns and panics. Everything is done according to public perception. The public were screaming out and asking why the Government was not making a greater commitment. So the Government wanted to rush it through, but we stopped them. We stopped them because the bill was deficient. But now we have a bill that can proceed, and that is good.

In the mechanisms of the bill we have the protections of employment. That is important, because—I think we were given the figures—20 percent of the six rotations that went to East Timor were Territorial Force soldiers. Twenty percent of six rotations were volunteers. I know because I was a UN observer at the ballot in East Timor in 1999, with Phil Goff and a few other colleagues. We were there when things turned to custard, and it was a very ugly scene. We were on the last commercial flight out, and the situation certainly needed the involvement of the armed forces.

We are delighted that New Zealand has played its part in our region. We do not live in a benign region as our Prime Minister has claimed. The Pacific is becoming an increasingly dangerous place; there are some real, serious, potential security risks in our region and we should be taking defence and security a lot more seriously than this Government is. There is no commitment from this Government, but here we have a bill that will hopefully provide some encouragement for those volunteers.

It is regrettable that when we have debates on defence, too much of it is hardware debate—how big the guns are and what sort of tanks and planes we are buying. What really matters in defence is personnel. What we want are highly trained, competent, multi-skilled personnel, and that is the best investment we can make. We then must have a clear strategy, and it is only once a clear strategy and competent personnel are in place that we should look at what equipment is needed. Unfortunately, so many defence debates hinge on buying tanks, or buying light armoured vehicles—all 109 of them. This Government has no idea, because its members are all “peaceniks” from the 1960s and 1970s and they now find that by an accident of history they are in Government with no commitment or understanding of what defence of the realm means. That is regrettable and we are suffering as a country.

Again, I congratulate Captain Mapp on bringing this bill here and embarrassing the Minister into getting it through Parliament. We saw the Minister blushing in response to that incredible attack from Major Mark. Major Mark made the Minister of Defence blush, here in Parliament, this evening.

💬 Rodney Hide: It’s the lack of red meat.

My colleague suggests it is the lack of red meat. Surely we would not have a Minister of Defence who is a vegetarian, would we? Perhaps we have, but never mind. Be that as it may.

💬 Ron Mark: Why can’t we see the Territorial Force soldiers at work?

Indeed, but another point is that the professional soldiers have not given the encouragement they could towards the Territorial Force. It is a bit like the volunteer firemen. The professional firemen actually resent the volunteers and do all sorts of tricks to make their lives uncomfortable and minimise their input. I say that firefighting or defence needs a core of professional, multi-skilled, well-equipped people, but the volunteers are also relied upon. That is certainly the case in firefighting and it is even more the case in defence forces.

We should look at the way the United States runs its reservist regimes, or countries like Switzerland, Britain, or any country where there is a recognition of the need to retain the skills of people who have an affinity for, and have made that commitment to, the defence forces. That pool is there to call upon if it is needed, because people cannot be trained overnight. There needs to be a continual ethic of training people and having that reserve force, and that is what this bill is all about.

It is regrettable that it has taken so long to get this bill to its third reading. ACT will certainly support it. We say we needed it 5 years ago and it is a shame that this Government let it languish for so long on the Order Paper.

I join with other members who have spoken in this debate to express support for the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill that is shortly to become an Act. I will also express some appreciation to three individuals who have contributed so much to its passage. I acknowledge the contribution of Dr Mapp, who was the sponsor of the bill and who has been a tireless advocate of it throughout its time before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. He has worked with officials and others to bring the bill to the position in which it is today.

I also acknowledge the work of Brigadier Tim Brewer, who has taken a long interest in this measure and has been a very effective and conscientious adviser to the select committee. He has worked with the Minister and with Dr Mapp and I am sure he can be forgiven a real sense of pride and achievement as we pass this bill into law this evening.

The third person I want to acknowledge is my immediate predecessor as chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Graham Kelly. Other members have made reference already to his commitment and I know of his sterling interest in this measure. In fact, the last conversation that I had with him prior to his departure for Canada was effectively a harangue from him to me to make sure that this bill was progressed swiftly and passed into law. I do not think that he will be listening in this evening. If he was able to pick up New Zealand on radio I think he would be tuned into the cricket, but be that as it may, Graham Kelly will certainly be very pleased to know that this measure is passing this evening.

Other members have made reference to the relevance of this measure given the East Timor deployment and the circumstances that arose out of that, but more particularly to the likely ongoing range of deployments by New Zealand defence forces that will always include a significant territorial component in the future.

There is an argument about the numbers and effectiveness of the Territorial Force. I believe that the passage of this legislation will provide some of the incentive that is needed to help reinvigorate the Territorial Force to inspire greater numbers to become involved. As members have mentioned, the financial penalty involved in serving one’s country is a very high one. The rewards, even at the higher rate of salary that the Minister indicated in the House this evening, are not great. We rely immensely on the dedication and commitment of people in hugely difficult circumstances. We think nothing of deploying people to inhospitable environments, for many months at a time, where their safety is at great risk. We reward them in the sense of some modest financial reimbursement and occasional medals and other honorifics when they return, but frankly we do not do enough to recognise that their contribution and hardship are making an effective contribution to our security and freedom. There is an overwhelming case for strengthening the capacity of our Territorial Force and for encouraging more people to become involved.

An important part of providing that encouragement will be the passage of this legislation this evening. I am delighted that in a rare moment this House will pass this bill without dissent. That seldom happens, and, in fact, what is common these days is for the ACT party to oppose things simply to make sure that they do not pass without dissent. The fact that even ACT supports this measure this evening is a tribute to how serious it is, how important it is, and how necessary it is. Without further ado I indicate support for the bill and I intend to—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Tell us about Y2K. We haven’t heard a Y2K speech for a long time.

That is very interesting. The member wants me to tell him about Y2K and laments the fact that he has not heard a speech from me on that subject for a very long time. He may not have noticed that Y2K occurred 4 and a bit years ago, which is why I have not spoken on the issue. The member’s bill was alive at that time. All I can say to him is that in the time that I have been the chair of that committee he will know the interest that I have had in progressing the matter. I am pleased that we are at the stage tonight when the bill will be passed, and I think our service people will be all the more grateful for it.

I rise to support the bill. I compliment the previous speaker on his contribution. Unlike the speaker before him, Mr Dunne did not descend to some partisan political debate when, in reality, this bill has the support of the whole House, although one or two members may want to make some very cheap shots. I particularly acknowledge—if I can use the title in tonight’s context—Captain Mapp. It has a good ring to it, and I say that with absolute respect, as I do when I refer to Major Mark, because it illustrates that people have had a life, a contribution, and a passion for service to their country well before they came to Parliament. I acknowledge the hard work of the original author of the bill.

I know that Captain Mapp will support me when I acknowledge the passion that Graham Kelly, the former chair of the select committee, had in getting this bill through, and the work he did. Although he may not be listening on short wave, hopefully with Internet radio, if he is up at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, or whatever time it is in Ottawa, he may very well be listening. Also, I commend the very constructive leadership of Peter Dunne, the current chair. The select committee, I believe, did a good job on this bill, and in keeping with this positive spirit, I strongly acknowledge Ron Mark’s contribution, along with Mr Mapp’s. I acknowledge that Mr Mark has had a very solid and clear background with the Army and with the armed forces, and that is interesting for someone like myself, who has not had that life experience. I did not see Ken Shirley on those Vietnam marches in the 1970s, but we will be checking out his history. [Interruption] He may want to disavow some sort of participation, but we will look back through library records and check that out, just to make sure about what he was doing when he was in his teens and twenties. I seem to recall he did have certain affiliations before he joined ACT.

In acknowledging people such as Ron Mark and Wayne Mapp for their participation in the armed forces, I acknowledge the many, many New Zealanders who have served this country both in the professional armed forces and as territorial soldiers. Those men and women have served this country well. The one thing that brings, if one likes, a tug to my heart is when I attend, as we all do, the Anzac Day commemoration services and see the young primary and secondary school students in some form of services, be it scouts or guides—and in the case of my electorate, we have an excellent army cadet unit with Hamilton Fraser High School.

We also have an excellent young air force group, navy group, etc. As part of a useful contribution to tonight’s third reading debate on this bill, perhaps we can talk about and reflect a little on the encouragement and the signals that we send to those students in terms of the services they may contemplate—firstly, possibly going into the professional armed forces, but, secondly, looking at ongoing service, and marrying another career, another role, with service in the Territorial Force.

This bill, in my view, is also about sending them positive signals about thinking outside the narrow and rather selfish lives we sometimes lead and about how we can serve our community. What is one of the things we can do to serve our community? Obviously, joining and participating in the Territorial Force of this country is a wonderful example of service to our country. It is a wonderful example of patriotism in the broadest sense of the word. We see and think of those young secondary school kids, and then, suddenly, they are a bit older, and we are seeing those fresh faces in places like Timor and other parts of the world. When see people who are taking significant personal risks because they have some sense of service and a sense of pride in their country, then anything we can do as parliamentarians to help in that service is to be strongly commended. No one will see me getting into any political tit for tat. The reality is that a bill came to a select committee—and in an ideal world things would move faster. We do not live in an ideal world. In spite of the, in my view, less than charitable contributions by an ACT speaker, a member has promoted a bill, and I think it is a very good example of a member being able to look back and say: “Yes, we achieved this.” and having support from the Minister, having support from the ministry, and having support from the select committee because we said the existing legislation is not good enough.

Let us take the time tonight to reflect on the legislation that this bill is replacing, which is, of course, the Volunteers Employment Protection Act 1973—possibly when Mr Shirley was on some marches on main streets around the country; I do not know. That legislation was enacted at the time that national service was abolished, and it protected the civil employment of the volunteer members of all three services. It was extended under the Defence Act 1990 to cover the deployment of members of the Territorial Force, but it had not been systematically reviewed, and that legislation that is currently in place—which will be replaced by the new legislation—is out of step with modern employment legislation. As I understand it, it does not cover Territorial Force members who serve overseas voluntarily, as many have in Timor-Leste, and there was clearly a need—and I am stating the obvious—to update the legislation, to refine it, and bring it in to meet the needs of today’s situation. The select committee heard a wide range of public submissions to that effect, and in fact the bill as introduced needed to perhaps go further than its original scope.

As I said, substantial work was done by committee members and the Minister of Defence, and then, of course, we had the Supplementary Order Paper, which expanded the scope of the protection available to volunteers in the territorial forces of all three services both when called up by proclamation to continuous service within New Zealand or overseas, and when serving voluntarily for fixed periods when that service is declared to be in a situation of national interest. It also provides a workable mechanism for volunteers in the Territorial Force to serve voluntarily for various fixed periods. Aligning as far as possible the procedures and practices for volunteers’ leave with those established under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act also brings the Act up to date with present employment law and empowers the Governor-General in Council to make regulations to compensate employers who have Territorial Force volunteer employees who serve in a situation of national interest.

In the time I have left, let me be gracious, as most other speakers, bar one or two, have been in this debate tonight. Firstly, let me praise and compliment Captain Mapp on his efforts. Let me compliment the Minister of Defence on his strong support for this bill. Let me compliment Major Mark on bringing an expertise and a background that I, as a member who has not personally served in the armed forces of this country, found to be very, very useful. I thank Ron Mark for that. I talked earlier on about Anzac Day and seeing those young kids who go into the army cadets, the air force cadets, and the navy cadets. I am so delighted that this bill is sending those young New Zealanders—the kids who get on with life and do not cause us problems; the ones that the newspapers never write about; the 95 percent of good kids in this country—a clear message. We are saying to them: “Volunteer, believe in service, serve your country, and we as a society will take care of you and honour your service to this nation.”

Bills read a third time.