Estimates Debate — External Sector (continued)

Members, when we suspended last night, the committee was considering Vote Defence in the external sector.

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I begin my contribution by acknowledging, as I understand that others on this side of the Chamber and the Minister himself, the Hon Ron Mark, did last night, our women and men of the New Zealand Defence Force. We pay tribute to them for the service that they provide and, indeed, we thank them for it.

I’d like to ask a series of questions of the Minister who is currently available, the Hon Shane Jones. Perhaps a good place to start would be the situation in relation to various acquisitions that have been made over the last three years and, to the extent that’s within scope of the debate, any future plans that the Government might have in the works. Of course, it’s in the nature of defence, of large items of military hardware, and the strategic nature of such planning that we do need to be forward-focused. So perhaps I can start with the senior service, the Royal New Zealand Navy, and invite the Minister to provide an update on various upgrades, of course, to the frigates, but also the new ship that—or vessels in general, actually—he can provide on the horizon in terms of what we are expecting to take delivery of, commission, and so forth.

In a very confident but potentially lame vein, I shall channel the real Minister. Thank you for those questions. One particular point that the honourable member Chris Penk raises is the concept of what are the future investments. I will go straight to what has proved to be a challenging issue, which is the rundown of our defence estate in the sense of the need to commit up to $400 million more money in creating more robustness and fit for purpose actual defence estate. A sum of $156 million across three Budgets has been dedicated. The business cases—which would be discoverable through the Official Information Act process—of up to $400 million worth of infrastructure works at Ōhākea have been approved, and the overall capital funding for defence regeneration has increased from $1.7 billion under the previous Government to $2.1 billion out to 2030. Should the member desire to get more information about that, I shall share with him where the links are.

In relation to the management of the process with these huge multibillion-dollar acquisitions, I think it’s fair to say that of all the Government departments—and I don’t have a great deal to do with the administrators of the defence department, but they have gone through an incredibly rigorous process of upgrading their ability to secure assets, manage assets, over the life of that said asset, and, in fact, they’re a bit of a star in my view in terms of broader infrastructure. We need look no further than the delivery of the Manawanui or, more importantly, the purchase of the five new Super Hercules to replace our ageing Hercs. These are not trifling sums of money and we should, in the House, have confidence that they now have a very robust system for handling this type of acquisition and these sums of money. Sadly, we cannot say that about every other part of the estate.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to return to the subject of the real estate, the defence estate, in terms of bases. Obviously, we need to consider that question from the point of view of strategic location and, of course, as it relates to other trends and factors within the population of New Zealand and a number of things that interact with the requirements for our people to want to serve and to be able to serve. I give an example of the fact that, often, the spouse or partner of a serving defence person would have requirements in terms of their own work or life situation. Of course, a family may have children who have particular needs around schooling or other things that are appropriate to them being in a particular location and not the other.

So I do want to acknowledge the broader context that sits around the defence estate—and the location of bases, more particularly—but what I would like to know from the Minister, with that disclaimer, is the Government’s thinking around the RNZAF Base Auckland, which is at Whenuapai. I ask that partly because I’m interested as a patriotic New Zealander to know that our Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel will be able to remain in that excellent location but also, by way of disclosure and disclaimer, as the member of Parliament for the Helensville electorate, in which that base is located. So any assurances that the Minister can give about the Government’s commitment to the retention of that base on an ongoing basis would be appreciated.

Apparently, the new system is that whoever is in the chair actually has to make a credible attempt to answer the question. So I have been chided by one of your colleagues for, uncharacteristically, being vague.

I just want to talk first about the naval base. Yes, there have been some discussions as to the future location of the naval base. No, Cabinet has not signed off on a new location for the naval base. Similarly, the Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, has actually stood up to be counted in a bout of nimby litigation related to the operations of Whenuapai. That’s a matter of public record.

But if I can just carry on a little bit more about the naval base, whilst there have been attempts right back to the days of the Hon John Banks, when he was the member for Whangārei, to relocate so-said base to Northland, that question is being considered within a broader discussion and analysis as to what is the optimum shape and form of our defence estate in the future. I’m not trying to obfuscate; that work is happening as we speak. Naturally, hailing from the North, I see great virtues in a northern drift, but that is not the position of the advice at this stage from the civil servants, and neither is it Cabinet’s position.

The only other thing I would say is that there probably would be some military or naval usefulness in the event where, at some point in time, we are able to upgrade the dry dock facility which is currently located in Devonport as a part of the broader naval estate there. The member would be aware that one of the areas that has been focused on for that level of investment is Whangārei, but it is a huge amount of capital—well over a quarter of a billion dollars—so it is not a decision that can be entered lightly into.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. The emphasis for me in this morning’s Estimates debate—and I know the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, will be able to answer this question—is actually the emphasis from the Minister of Defence about attrition rates for the New Zealand Defence Force. There have been rates such as those in armed combat specialty of 26.8 percent, those who are part of the infantry at 33.7 percent, and for gunners it’s 20.8 percent, and this is coupled with some research that’s come out of Otago University about one in three members of our Defence Force suffering PTSD—post-traumatic stress disorder.

I guess my question to the Minister in the chair is: what does he think about that revelation? It’s shame that because of his service, Minister Mark, in his reference to PTSD being a phenomenon that a lot of men aren’t happy to talk about—but what does he see as the responsibility of the New Zealand Defence Force to make sure that those members of the Defence Force who are experiencing these symptoms have the support that they need to stay within the Defence Force, because it seems on average now people are exiting within two years in those particular vocations?

Yes, thank you for that remark from the honourable member Louisa Wall. Can I direct your attention to page 3 of the actual report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where the Minister of Defence clearly states that not only does he share the concern, in particular, about the strength of the infantry units, but, if you look further down, the actual day-to-day leader, the Chief of Defence Force, also says that whilst a host of these issues have not been addressed, they have every confidence, with the huge amount of money that has been allocated via last several Budgets, that that money is not only to attract new trades—and it’s got the upstanding issue of dealing with gender issues within the military force, which is, obviously, a matter of topicality in the media as we stand and sit here today. But on the question of is there enough resources to address those personnel concerns, especially those who may not have received the right type of attention or resources to retain people in the military, given that prior to COVID there was lots of poaching, I am advised that, in fact, certain displaced pilots from Air New Zealand are now lining up to see if they can actually transfer into the Air Force and be a part of the military. So I think, post-COVID, we’re going to see a drift of people with skills in highly sought-after positions in the defence community.

Thank you. I previously asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, about Royal New Zealand Navy ships and got an answer about the defence estate. I’ve then asked a question about the defence estate and had an answer about the naval base more particularly. So I feel I’m engaged somewhat in a game of verbal whack-a-mole with the Minister. I feel as though, to get the answer to my next question, I perhaps should ask something entirely unrelated.

But, nevertheless, I did want to follow up on the comments that the Minister made, and I thank him for his honesty, perhaps coming from a personal northern perspective, in relation to the naval base. Just to be clear then, Minister, please: is the Government considering moving the naval base from Devonport to Whangārei or some other northern clime?

Please listen very carefully: the Government acts when Cabinet arrives at a conclusion. Our Cabinet has not concluded, because the defence estate review has not been finished, as to what and where and in what proportion personnel currently located at Devonport would be moved anywhere. Until such time Cabinet decides to do that—and Cabinet has not decided to do that—then Auckland will enjoy the ongoing presence of all the ratings, the officers, and their wives.

Thank you. I enjoyed the Minister’s use of the word “enjoy” in that answer.

My further question to the Minister around the defence estate is if he can give some assurance—and I acknowledge previous statements made by the Minister, and, indeed, he alluded to them, in passing, himself a few minutes ago—about the relationship between housing pressure in the vicinity of bases and the operation of the bases themselves. Is there some assurance that he can give this committee that the strategic needs of the military establishments that are already in place will not be undermined by the threat of housing encroachment?

OK, the honourable member Chris Penk raises, really, the point as to is there a long-term future for the current Whenuapai air force base. I say again: our Cabinet has no agenda to relocate that base to Kaikohe or anywhere else—perish the thought. There is a long strip, I am told, that was developed in the days of the Hon Peeni Henare’s grandfather by the Americans—I’m hoping the Minister of Finance is listening. It’s an incredibly long, robust strip of land which is capable of landing very big, dangerous, loud—and I’m not talking about the people—aircraft. But I can assure the member there’s no Cabinet position in that regard.

Secondly, I say to the member on the other side of the House that Whenuapai has been there for a long time. You know that there was a group who availed themselves of their rights through the Resource Management Act to, I guess, litigate against the operations. Minister Ron Mark represented the Crown through his various officials. So, subject to operating within the confines of the law, Cabinet has no agenda to relocate or frustrate the operations of the base at Whenuapai.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Are we now moving on to foreign affairs?

That’s right. We just slide into it. It’s still within the same Vote.

I want to ask the Minister some questions on China - New Zealand relations and, in particular, the situation in Hong Kong to start with. Can I start by just making some introductory preface remarks, really. I think, at this incredibly important time in international affairs—I know people can always say that, but it seems to me that this year, with COVID and with what is happening internationally between the US and China, we’re at a level of seriousness, uncertainty, and danger, frankly, and we haven’t been for some time. People talk about a second Cold War. That may or may not be overdoing it, but it does give you a sense of where things are at.

So I want to start, as I say, with Hong Kong, with the national security law—[Minister Robertson takes the chair] Oh, good golly—it’s sort of bad to worse. Well, I want some real answers, Madam Chair—I want some real answers. Let me get on here—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, try some real questions, Mr Bridges.

I’m going to—I’m going to. I want to say, firstly, thank you for what has happened with the suspension of the extradition treaty, but why did it take so long, when the Five Eyes partners, literally almost every one of them—many, many weeks ago, actually—were in this position and were condemning what happened in Hong Kong? We were at the level of concern, and so is Five Eyes. Now, some have said “Four Eyes and a Blink”—is that where we’re at?

Why don’t I wrap up all of these questions, so the Minister can have a good go at it? That is a question about why it took so long.

Is the Government considering a safe haven visa for Hong Kong; if not, why not? Does he accept that it is the right thing to do as a democracy who believes in the rule of law and human rights? Does he also accept that it is very good indeed in terms of bringing valuable skills from Hong Kong to New Zealand, as we need them? I think all parties in this Parliament try and have more of an innovation nation that does well in tech and the like, or is it the case that the Government’s position on immigration, and certainly parties within the Government and their position on immigration, is getting in the way of doing the right thing and the smart thing when it comes to a safe haven visa?

I thank the member the Hon Simon Bridges for his questions, although I do wonder exactly how they relate to the Estimates in Vote Foreign Affairs, but I’m happy to answer them to the extent that I can. In question of the timing—in fact, overall in response to the first two questions—I think it’s very important that New Zealand maintains its independent foreign policy. Yes, we work closely with our Five Eyes partners on a number of areas, but we are not necessarily all going to put the same statement out about any given issue. New Zealand will take its position on the basis of our interests and the interests of the people of New Zealand. So we took the time that was required to develop a position that we were comfortable with across Government, and we articulated that.

The member can take a look—they had a number of other foreign policy areas both in this Government and in the last Government, and indeed in Governments before that, where New Zealand has taken its time to articulate a position. We were very clear in the position that was articulated yesterday that the extradition treaty is suspended and that New Zealand is not prepared to go along with that, given the current regime in Hong Kong and the laws that they have passed. That is a strong position. It is a clear position. It has, as the member will have noticed, garnered the same reaction as the other four Five Eyes partners’ announcements, so it doesn’t distinguish us from them in that way.

In terms of the member’s questions around safe haven visas, I am not aware of any plan to do that from the New Zealand Government. We do have, as the member is well aware, a number of visa categories and skills categories that are available for people to apply for. We welcome people with the kinds of skills that New Zealand needs to make sure that our economy is as productive and as sustainable as it can be, and that’s my suggestion there—that where there is a possibility for people to do that and they want to come here, those visa categories are available for them.

Following on—thank you, Madam Chair—in relation to China and New Zealand, I want to understand the Government’s position when it comes to managing the relationship with China, which is so critical. We all know in this House that it is our number one trading partner by far—it’s certainly number one. Actually, now it’s a situation where we, in fact, have a trade imbalance, if you want to put it that way. We sell more in goods and services to China than the other way, yet the world is becoming increasingly concerned with a more assertive China, whether it’s the issues of Hong Kong, which we’ve addressed, or others besides.

The latest Economist magazine has a heading this week of “Trade without trust”, and is that the Government’s position now going forward? What are we doing about Huawei, when Britain has just—as I read the headlines—banned Huawei coming in and doing the work that it was once welcomed in to do? In the South China Sea, is it our position that the activity of China there is sometime unlawful, as is the United States’ position—

💬 Michael Wood: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think I can anticipate your point of order, and I was just—

Well, I can do it one by one, or I can do it like this, and I thought this was better.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It’s better if you don’t interrupt me—could you please sit down. I gave the member a lot of leeway in his first contribution because he’s a very senior member. He hasn’t participated in this new process of debate in recent times, but that isn’t the primary point of my interruption. It is that the member is required to speak to the appropriations, rather than to very interesting and very important foreign affairs topics. That’s for a different debate. So if the member could move to the appropriations, and it doesn’t matter if the member wants to bundle two or three questions—that’s entirely appropriate. They should be questions. The Minister is expected to respond, but they should be questions about the appropriations, not about foreign affairs policy.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Appropriations are in relation to the future projections and activities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’d make the point that what I’m asking is precisely within the ambit of what is allowable within this committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s not a point of order. That’s arguing with the Chair.

So in terms of those appropriations, after the very fair questions, I’m asking the Minister in the chair, the Hon Grant Robertson, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what’s his position on these things in this appropriations debate and committee stage, where does he see the relationship, and how will he be instructing MFAT to act?

In terms of the appropriations, obviously, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is funded and resourced to manage all of our bilateral relationships, and obviously the bilateral relationship with China is a critically important one. The point that I would make to the member is that there appears to be somewhat of a contradiction in his two lines of questioning, with the first seemingly asking us to go harder and quicker around the issue of Hong Kong, but then expressing a degree of concern about the impact on the relationship with China.

But in that regard, the Government’s position, I believe, is probably fairly similar to that of the member’s party and the previous Government. We recognise the importance of the relationship with China. What we want is a relationship of maturity and mutual respect, and that means that there will be issues from time to time where we disagree. That is the same with every country that we have—it includes the kind of relationship we have with Australia. We don’t always agree, but we will take the opportunity from time to time to air that. But, for the most part, those relationships remain strong. The trading relationships remain particularly strong.

With regard to the position of Huawei, I just reiterate to the member that New Zealand has taken the position, again, across Governments that we have a legislative authority—the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act—when it comes to how we manage what happens when it comes to our communications systems. With that, it is, in fact, blind to any particular country. It is merely a system where we take into account New Zealand’s national security needs, alongside our communications needs.

There have been—and it’s in the public arena—various conversations with partners such as Spark, who were working with Huawei. They decided not to continue with that. That is entirely their right and a commercial decision, but that is bound by legislation and it is not about any particular country.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the appropriations and the investment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade into the future, of course, we know—

💬 Michael Wood: Just add that on the front.

Yeah, that’s right, and then I’ll move on to whatever I want—you’re right. We know, of course, that we cannot at this time travel and that in fact our foreign affairs ministry is severely constrained, as is the Minister. How many Zoom calls is the Minister doing? Has he been meeting virtually with his counterparts in the likes of Japan, India, South Korea, and Indonesia? I note Scott Morrison and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been incredibly proactive in this regard, with some 39 Zooms alone from the Prime Minister. Is it important at this time that we do that, rather than, dare I say it, have a sleepier approach, where we sort of sit back and gradually announce things, like we did yesterday on an extradition treaty?

Well, I am aware that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is an inveterate user of Zoom and a person who is regularly aware of the ability to take himself off mute—you know, that’s never an issue. So, yes, I am aware that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, throughout the period of both the lockdown and since then, has been in very regular contact with partner countries all around the world. I’m also aware that the Prime Minister is, similarly, in very regular contact with her colleagues around the world, and I also know that the Minister of Finance has been part of calls around the economic aspects of the recovery of COVID19 with the finance Ministers or Treasurers of the Five Eyes countries. We’ve had two of those calls, and I know that there are more planned, so, yes, there is a great deal of use of technology in this era.

Given the time for this debate will soon expire, I just want to put on record the Government’s thanks to the diplomats and staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who, under very stressful circumstances, have continued to represent New Zealand admirably, both in-country and also here in New Zealand.

At a time when resources are critical and you’ll be considering where to put those, is the Government considering what relationships it prioritises, and, if so, what are those relationships? Where is the work in the United States that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been so keen on when it comes to free trade as part of a wider geopolitical strategy? Are we moving into doing more work with the likes of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—that is, Australia, Japan, India, and the United States—as we now, more than ever, need closer relationships to navigate pretty choppy and difficult waters?

I think the member makes the point himself—given the number of countries he covered in that intervention—that the most important thing is that New Zealand retains a wide range of relationships. Actually, diversity in our export markets is one of the challenges that this Government took on when we came into office. We can’t afford to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to both trade relationships and, indeed, diplomatic relationships. So, yes, I’m certainly aware that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has continued to have a dialogue and relationships with those in the American administration to try and advance our interests there.

Obviously, off the back of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, there have been significant advances in the number of other countries—particularly Japan, which the member mentions—and so we have to continue to maintain those relationships right around the world. I’d also make the point that New Zealanders are not only well served by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but also particularly well served by our New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) staff in country. One of the pieces of feedback the Minister of Finance has had over the past few months is the fact that exporters who now can’t visit the markets that they are trading into are delighted by the support that they’re receiving from NZTE staff in country. So all of the relationships that the member has highlighted are important.

When it comes to India, I think every country in the world would like to be able to form some kind of free-trade agreement with India—their Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. We have tried our best, along with many other countries, to do that. For now, India chooses not to be a part of that agreement, but we continue to try to develop that relationship.

As we continue on the theme of investment in this appropriations debate, I’d be interested in the investment into Britain and, in particular, what we are doing in relation to the expiration of visas there. I note they will expire on 31 July, putting, I think, some Kiwis in that country in a very invidious position, particularly given it’s very difficult to come back here and we do not realistically have the resources—if I listened to other Ministers in the Government—to do all of the quarantining that could possibly be required. Is the Government working on that, and will we see an answer before 31 July on that critical issue of visas for Kiwis in the United Kingdom?

I think that issue around visas is probably a little outside of this debate. What I would say to the member is that, obviously, we are very conscious of the fact that many New Zealanders in many different countries around the world have been facing issues to do with the visas in the countries that they’re currently in. They have a right to return to New Zealand—there is no question about that. The member will just have to wait a little bit longer to hear how the Government wants to manage some of those movements, but in terms of the visas themselves and the country, individuals will have been dealing with that. If they are unable to stay in the UK, they are entitled to return to New Zealand.

I know there’s also investment going into the relationship with South Korea. I note the Prime Minister—having mentioned Zoom—has a call with the President of South Korea, and I know that is something that in the appropriations is being worked through and thought about very closely. Does the Government have a position—and will the Prime Minister be raising the issue of a Korean diplomat and an alleged sexual assault, so that there is pressure brought to bear on that issue and justice will be seen to be done and done here in New Zealand?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Matters raised in this question and every other question from the member relate to foreign policy and security policy matters and are not remotely related to the Estimates of the appropriations. The member simply putting the word “appropriations” in at the beginning of the question doesn’t change that fact, and I argue that the questions are not relevant to this debate and actually are getting to the point of creating disorder in the House because they make a mockery of this debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the specific case, the member will be aware that this Government—as, indeed, his Government and any other party in this House—would be appalled by the allegations that we have heard. We would not stand for those, and we will be pursuing those through every means possible.

In terms of the Prime Minister’s call, I think it will be clear that the Prime Minister would need to answer that question. But I am of course aware that the call has happened.

Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, Vote Official Development Assistance, Vote Defence, Vote Defence Force, Vote Veterans’ Affairs - Defence Force, and Vote Customs agreed to.

Finance and Government Administration Sector