Ministerial Statements — Defence Act 1990—Authorisations Made Under Section 9(2)

I wish to make a ministerial statement regarding authorisations made under section 9(2) of the Defence Act 1990. I rise to make another statement under Standing Order 356 in relation to the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. Today, I am advising the House why three new authorisations have been given by the Minister of Defence, in line with section 9 of the Defence Act 1990. The first two of these new authorisations relates to work undertaken at Kauri Point, the armament depot in Auckland.

First, the Minister of Defence has again agreed for uniformed personnel to provide security guard services at Kauri Point. It is in the public interest that security of defence areas can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure public safety and national security. This is especially pertinent noting the munitions and weapons held at Kauri Point.

Second, weapons and munitions at Kauri Point need to be prepared before they can be loaded on to HMNZS Te Kaha, one of the navy’s Anzac class frigates, for an upcoming deployment. Preparation work must be completed once it is started, for health and safety reasons, often taking longer than 10 hours. Strike action cannot be allowed to get in the way of this. As such, the Minister of Defence has given authority for Air Force armament technicians and qualified weapons technicians from the New Zealand Army to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to Te Kaha while civilians in the Public Service Association—or PSA—involved in the strike action refuse to work overtime.

The last authorisation relates to the PSA’s strike notice, including a refusal to wear ear protection. Striking PSA members located at Base Auckland therefore cannot perform the required systems testing before the upcoming deployment of an SH-2G(I) helicopter as this testing generates excessive noise. The Minister of Defence has therefore authorised an electronic warfare intelligence specialist from the Royal New Zealand Air Force to undertake this work while strike action is occurring.

These three authorisations have a mandate until 2 December, and it is intended that this House extends this date until 14 February 2025 to cover the entire strike action period. Contrary to what some may wish to believe, we do not live in a benign strategic environment. The New Zealand Defence Force must, therefore, continue to prioritise military outputs in the current fiscal environment, to ensure that New Zealand plays its part in maintaining the international rules-based order. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, I made some introductory comments which I think suffice for my introduction here—there’s no need to take the House’s time by repeating those comments. If I could ask the Minister a couple of questions. Last week I asked the Minister of Defence whether there had been a prior instance of section 9(2) of the Defence Act having been utilised after a zero percent wage offer was made, leading to strike action—the then Minister couldn’t answer. I was wondering if the Minister is able to enlighten the House on that issue today.

It’s my understanding that in 2001, the Department of Corrections workers, who were at that time undertaking industrial action, were effectively—or, their duties were authorised to be carried out in the manner equivalent to that which we are discussing in today’s motion by New Zealand Defence Force personnel. I don’t know the detail in terms of a zero increase pay offer having been made, but I would point out that it’s as recently as the period of the last Government in which New Zealand Defence Force personnel, both uniform and civilian, were offered zero percent pay increases for a much longer period of time than is contemplated in this motion. I think those members would be surprised to understand that members of political parties that now form the Opposition have discovered an intense interest in their pay and conditions in this way.

I must express surprise to the Government that, having asked that question last week, the Minister’s not in a position to answer it today. Perhaps he could answer the other question that the Minister was unable to help the House with last week when I asked what was the effect of inflation on the real terms and conditions of those workers since they last had a wage increase.

Suffice to say that inflationary pressures have affected many workers throughout New Zealand, again both civilian and uniform, within the Defence Act.

Hon Simeon Brown: Thanks to your Government, Mr Parker.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, I mean, members opposite might well know that, having caused this situation in the first place. That has not uniquely affected Defence, but they have been affected by it, of course, along with others. I would simply make the point in addressing that question that has been posed, that the effect of inflation and those cost of living pressures on our defence force is much less than it would have been had the previous Government continued its spendthrift ways to continue to drive up inflation and the cost of living. We are pleased as a Government as a whole to be doing something about that situation.

The Minister is asking the House to take note of this proposal to bring in military personnel to perform civilian roles, but is still not in a position to advise the House in respect of the issues that were raised both this week and last week?

I consider that I have responded. If the member doesn’t like the responses, that is his problem, not mine, and it’s not the problem of the Government. Our focus has been to ameliorate the situation as best we can, both in terms of our international security situation—and I’m pleased to note as recently as days just gone by, the level of international engagement from the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Trade at APEC. But in terms of the security situation, we are very minded of the need to prioritise the preservation of the international rules-based order—that’s one of the key priorities of our defence force.

In turn, we know that Defence need to be valued; they need to be looked after in terms of being provided with the resources. Within that, Defence has made the decision—and we support the decision—to prioritise uniform personnel who are delivering those outputs in the very direct way that they are, albeit that of course we recognise the important role played by Defence civilians. No doubt the good-faith negotiations that are taking place now will be resolved as soon as possible. We hope and expect that this will take place by late January or, if not by then, then mid-February. That is the basis for these authorisations having been made, including with the extensions of time, as already discussed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the three new authorisations that the Minister has spoken about, and I echo the sentiments of the Hon David Parker around the sense of frustration about getting clear answers from the Minister when it comes to the history of using these powers to bring in military personnel to cover for civilian personnel. I want to pick up on one of the last bits of the ministerial statement, particularly the bit that says—and I quote—“the New Zealand Defence Force must continue to deliver military outputs in this strained fiscal environment.” I want to ask: what level of advocacy, if any, has the Minister done in the past to prevent this fiscal environment from happening, because we acknowledge that this fiscal environment did not just happen organically. It was due to political decisions by successive Governments, including this one that led to the strike action. Can I ask: what level of advocacy has the Minister done to alleviate the so-called strained fiscal environment?

I’m not a research assistant for either of the members of Parliament opposite who have asked me a question that is not directly relevant to the motion today. If they wish to know the history and the background of industrial relations, they are welcome to research that themselves.

In terms of the advocacy that this side of the House—and I acknowledge the three parties that make up with the Government, including my own party. I was pleased to be able to have a role as an Opposition spokesperson for defence at a time that the previous Government was devaluing their contribution by giving an indefinite deployment in relation to COVID-19 that was very far removed from the intention that most of them had when they signed up. Of course, they did that without complaint while they were in uniform, but many left—a huge attrition rate. We were consistent in advocating for those personnel to be given pay and conditions and, more importantly, deployment that actually reflected their intention and their desire to serve our country in that way.

I also note the advocacy that this side of the House made in relation to members of the defence force who were being paid below the minimum wage at a certain period of time during the last Government. And, you know, we’re surprised—

Hon David Parker: That can’t be right—below the minimum wage. It would have been illegal.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, actually, I didn’t wish to take the House’s time too much, but, for the benefit of the Hon David Parker, who clearly missed that point at the time, and colleagues of his who clearly didn’t, the situation arose where minimum pay was set for members of the army who were doing certain work for the Government. It included a military factor—or “mil factor”, as it’s known—component within that minimum wage. For reservists who did not receive that mil factor, their hourly pay rate fell below that of the minimum wage. Now, technically—technically—that’s not a breach of the law because that’s the arrangements in relation to employment law. I was surprised, as he was, at the time, but we did something about it—that was our advocacy among other things. Again, I’m just impressed—

SPEAKER: Right—that’s enough. This is a ministerial statement and not a debate.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, he’s interrupted.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Given that we’ve had both questions, interjections, and answers that have been well wide of the motion, I’d ask the member to bring it back to the matters that are before the House at the moment.

Absolutely. I’ll just quote another bit of the motion, particularly the bit that talks about how “it is intended that the House extend this date until 14 February” next year. Earlier, the motion talked about how the three authorisations have a mandate until 2 December. May I ask the Minister: why 14 February? To me, it actually seems like we could have put the date as the first week back to Parliament to then assess where things were at. This seems like rather than enabling for us to come back after the summer break to assess where things were at, it’s just kind of going way above and beyond that. I want to know: why did he not decide to pull the date sooner?

My understanding is that the strike notice, or the industrial action, generally has a specified date at the end of January to which it can take place. A further two weeks from that seems prudent for the purpose then of resetting normal arrangements, whereby rosters can be made, people can be given notice for duties that they might undertake, including out of ordinary 9 to 5, Monday to Friday work times. The date of mid-February seems to us prudent.

That doesn’t necessarily acknowledge that strike action can also be called off should there be movement in negotiations, and, if so, why did he not consider that when it came to setting those dates?

That may be true, but it’s also true that an authorisation need not be exercised for the full period of its duration.