Motions — Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

I move, That the motion be amended by—

replacing “5 November 2024 and 11 November 2024” with “5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024”; and

replacing “bases.” with “bases;”; and

adding the following bullet points after the third bullet point of the motion:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authority for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an Intelligence Specialist trained in Electronic Warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Authority for the use of members of the Armed Forces comprising RNZAF Armament Technicians located at RNZAF Base Auckland and members of the NZ Army located at Waiouru Military Camp who are qualified weapons technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to HMNZS Te Kaha, and to perform any ancillary service or receive training necessary to facilitate this work.

The question now is that, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024 to use the armed forces to provide public services in connection with an industrial dispute be extended to 14 February 2025 be agreed to:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at RNZAF Base Auckland to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authority for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an Intelligence Specialist trained in Electronic Warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Authority for the use of members of the Armed Forces comprising RNZAF Armament Technicians located at RNZAF Base Auckland and members of the NZ Army located at Waiouru Military Camp who are qualified weapons technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to HMNZS Te Kaha, and to perform any ancillary service or receive training necessary to facilitate this work.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the extension of authorisations debate, Government motion No. 1, that was a continued debate from the last sitting day, we were in a situation where many members of this House had taken their speaking slot and spoken to relevant amendments. This amendment fundamentally changes the original motion, and so it would be useful for all members of the House, including Government members, if we can get clarity from you that this amendment that has been moved by the Government essentially clears the slate and this is, in essence, a new debate on a new motion.

A member who has already spoken to a new amendment—after an amendment has been moved, a member who has spoken prior to it—yes, OK?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Further to the point of order, please—oh, I’ll let you confer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right. You can speak to the new amendment but you can’t move further amendments to extend the debate. Yes, it is, effectively, a clean slate. We’re now debating the amended motion.

If I may—point of order—just so that everybody’s aware: what happens to those amendments that have already been moved on the original motion? Where do they stand? And if they are cleared by virtue of this new amendment by the Government, does that preclude other members from putting forward additional amendments?

I’ll take advice on that. A bit of clarity around the situation, which I’m pleased that you’ve sought: firstly, members who have spoken in the debate can speak to the amended motion. If a member wanted to further amend the motion, it would need to be a speaker who has not spoken in the debate. All of the amendments will come up for vote in sequence as they were introduced. Does that help?

Point of order. Thank you, sir. Yes, it is helpful, and it is where I thought you would go, but I do have something I wish to raise with you, which is that amendments were put forward by members up to the new amendment from the Government—they were put forward in good faith and it was actually quite a good exchange; the Minister was answering questions even though there was no requirement, and it was good and it was reasonable.

If members are prevented from putting forward additional amendments to this one, if the previous amendments no longer stand, then, actually, we’re, as a House, disadvantaged in this debate, because the Government’s amendment fundamentally changes things, and in some instances it means that those amendments that were put forward are now irrelevant. But, if they’re not cleared, and members are prevented from putting forward further amendments to make the same point in good faith, we are restricted as a House in our ability to debate this.

When it comes to the voting on the bill, at some point, all the amendments that have been put up so far will be dealt with in sequential order. Your question, I think, is: if someone has moved an amendment, can they re-speak to that amendment, or to the amended motion? Is that the question? I just want to be clear about what you’re asking.

Essentially, sir, we have an amendment here that starts from different dates and includes fundamentally different things. Now, it is highly likely—I’m thinking I’ve got two in mind where it is no longer relevant to this motion that is being proposed to amend. So, if a member is prevented from putting forward a further amendment that is relevant to this one, because they put one previously—

No, no, you’re definitely not. A member can put amendments to a new motion that’s in front of the House, and that might be something that is slightly out of step with what’s been said at the moment, but it would be fundamentally unfair if that were not the case, and it would simply mean that a debate could be curtailed by successive amendments being moved by the Government, and that is not a reasonable position either.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: OK, thank you. That’s all I wanted to—

SPEAKER: So has the Hon Penny Simmonds concluded—

Sorry, potentially the Minister has further clarification, but just to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that we are still able to put forward amendments from the original motion from last week as well as the new amendment that have been put forward by the Hon Penny Simmonds today.

How it’s been put to me is that this is an addition to the motion that was put forward. It’s hard to imagine how an addition is not an amendment. If you would be so good as to give me a couple of minutes just to get this totally sorted out, then I’d be very grateful. In the meantime, if the member wants to take a call?

Thank you, sir. I’m happy to take a call, really by way of context, and I’m grateful to members for their patience working through the procedural elements.

Clearly, as we have heard prior to question time today, the real-world situation has been updated such that it’s been necessary for the Minister of Defence—or she’s deemed it necessary—to provide further authorisations. As a result, the motion that is necessary to extend the time frames must in turn be amended. Of course, it seems to me that, in the way that the House, or the committee of the House in the context of committee of the whole House stage, can put forward amendments, the will of the House will determine which are accepted and which are not. It’s to be hoped that the House will be smart enough not to contradict itself in terms of those which it accepts, but it seems to me we’ll find out that soon enough, particularly having already discussed and debated this question at its heart, albeit now amended and extended, for some hour and a half already.

Just by way of history and background, it was on 5 November that the New Zealand Defence Force first received a notice from the Public Service Association ( PSA) of strike action that would take place the following day until 31 January. It was well canvassed last week that this would impact security guard operations at the respective bases and camps throughout the country and also those providing firefighting services, which one can appreciate is an important safety element for our service personnel and those who support them landing aircraft and so on.

The extension that I alluded to a moment ago was in relation to the Kauri Point arms and munitions depot. That’s a place at which HMNZS Te Kaha, among other naval vessels over the years have made necessary preparations for overseas deployments. That will be the case in early next year, and so it’s necessary that suitable security and safety arrangements are made in that. Similarly, in relation to the aircraft firefighting services at Auckland, as already canvassed, extending those in relation to the SH-2G helicopter that will be deployed on HMNZS Te Mana as necessary, for the reasons that I set out before question time, in that notice that these be the subject of armed forces supplementing of what would otherwise be civilian employment but for the strike action notice as given by the PSA already.

That’s, I think, enough background from me. Thank you for the opportunity to set that out. Obviously, I look forward to any further comments that members may make, noting, of course, that, it seemed to me that we had a very helpful, robust, and somewhat lengthy but nevertheless useful discussion on Thursday of last week. So, obviously I’d welcome any comments additional to that.

Just so everyone’s clear, a member speaking now may speak for a second time in the debate to the amendment, but if they’ve previously made an amendment themselves, they can’t move a further amendment. It just doesn’t sit overly comfortably with me, so we’re just getting a little bit of clarification on that. I hope it doesn’t impinge on—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It doesn’t impinge on me at all, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a matter of debate, and I don’t think it’s a good thing for me to get into debate if you want that. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry. I apologise to my friend and colleague for interrupting, but I agree with you, sir. It doesn’t sit very comfortably with me, but as was alluded to previously in this House, some rules might be worthy of review. I wonder if you would be, therefore, willing to allow a member to withdraw an amendment that they made to the original motion to allow them to put forward another one. That way we don’t have to rely on interpretations of the rules as they currently stand. We may need leave to be able to do that, but it would certainly make it a lot more straightforward.

Yeah, and I think it may complicate things a little bit more than is absolutely necessary, so let me just work our way through this somewhat unique situation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I haven’t actually spoken on this motion or amendment.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, you get to speak about it four times now, don’t you?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes, I’m sure I’ve got a bit to say. I was just previously looking at the Defence Act, though, particularly in respect of this amendment. I was a little perplexed because this is fundamentally the use of military personnel to fulfil civilian responsibilities. If we look at the Defence Act—and I do think it’s really important to put it in context—the ability to have defence staff, or raise an army, to use old language, and all of the powers that go with that, including the bearing of arms and the use of force, is actually a really significant constitutional matter.

If you look at section 9 of the Defence Act, it seeks to encapsulate a very strong constitutional provision, and it’s one that the United States of America has in their constitution. It is that army personnel, military personnel, are never to use their powers of force in a civilian sphere except in cases of utmost emergency. We saw that in the Christchurch earthquakes, where the military personnel were used to secure damaged buildings, and some of us are very well aware of that.

What we’ve got here is an irritant to the Government, because civilian personnel have exercised an equally important constitutional right to withdraw their labour because they’ve been offered nothing in terms of keeping up with inflation. This should be a last resort, not a first resort, and it appears to me that this Government has—because times are a bit tight and we know the defence budget is tight as well. They haven’t got money to throw around and they’ve got a few other things, including a sunken vessel, to spend their money on at the moment.

I’m looking at Kauri Point, and we have got military personnel offering security guard services. This is not something which needs any kind of specialist expertise. If it’s a security guard, there are plenty of trained and competent security guards out there. This is a Government that likes using the private sector. The first resort should be to go out and use contractors, because this is, essentially, standing at the front gate to make sure people who come in have ID, and yet they’re going to use military personnel to do this role.

I have a real concern that this is actually stepping over a line and saying that we’re going to use military personnel for civilian roles, and this Government is pushing the boundaries on a lot of these. We’ll come to the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill later today, but this is another example where there hasn’t really been a respect for the constitutional line—the rights line that says we do not have military personnel doing civilian jobs, because military personnel have a particular constitutional place for defence and security, and not for wandering our streets or doing jobs that civilian staff could do.

The Acting Minister of Defence may want to make some explanation about the other part of this amendment, which is the use of a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH2G(I) systems. I’ve got to be honest that that’s not very meaningful, and it’s simply—

Tim Costley: Well, do your research. Of course it’s meaningful.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you know, I’m not sure what an SH2G(I) system is and why we can’t use a contractor for that. The fact of the matter is we’ve come here, we’re looking to use military personnel for civilian tasks, and it behoves the Government, if they’re going to do that, to be very clear about it.

SPEAKER: I wonder if I might—I don’t want to interrupt the member, but I don’t want to see him disadvantaged by what I’m about to say, so—

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh no, no.

SPEAKER: I recognise he’s got more time, I just thought I perhaps would ask the House to indulge me at the moment.

Firstly, the matters that were raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty are somewhat unique, a little bit different, and haven’t been struck before, and I think that’s why I was also somewhat uncomfortable about where the most strict interpretation of the Standing Orders could have taken us—and the consequences of that would mean that the Standing Orders provided an option for a Government to curtail a debate by simply constantly amending it, and that’s not at all parliamentary.

I want to make it clear that this is not a ruling—I’m going to suggest that we progress today, and the Chair, whoever is sitting here, will follow these procedures—but the matter does need to be sent to the Standing Orders Committee as suggested so that it is more clearly set out. Standing Order 129 prevents a member who’s already spoken from moving an amendment. Ordinarily, that would prevent a member who’s already spoken from moving an amendment to an amendment, and that’s the quandary that we’ve got today because the Government has amended their original motion. This is sounding like some kind of Monty Python skit, but, as I’ve said, this doesn’t sit well or comfortably with me at all. This context that I’m now going to suggest is for this particular debate only, while the matter is referred to the Standing Orders Committee. In that context, it means that the Chair will be prepared to accept amendments to amendments from members who’ve already spoken or moved amendments.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, I appreciate your acknowledgment there and your willingness to allow this debate to be full. Presumably, when you indicate that something should be reviewed by the Standing Orders Committee, there is a team within the Clerk’s Office, or wherever, that indicate that and bring that to the next meeting. So, in the spirit of trying to be helpful to that, I wonder if that team may also be able to identify and differentiate between an amendment made by the Opposition or an amendment made by the Government, because it is a Government amendment that has caused this. If it were amendments from Opposition members, we wouldn’t be in this situation, and perhaps that might be useful for our discussion.

SPEAKER: Yep. Look, I’ll take that up with the chairman of the Standing Orders Committee—myself.

Tim Costley: Point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He’s a good guy, so he’ll be right.

SPEAKER: Right—I’m sure he’s going to find something grand for you. Point of order, the honourable—sorry, Tim Costley.

Tim Costley: Long way off. Just for clarity, sir, when you say members can make amendments to amendments, is that specifically just to the amendment moved by the Government, or are you opening the door for anyone to move amendments on the ones we received last—

SPEAKER: The motion that we’re now debating is the amended motion from the Government, so it’s amendments to that amendment. I was using the plural simply to indicate how the situation could exist if we were in a situation like this again—and I hope we aren’t, because good Government organisation is something that’s pretty important in a democracy. I call on the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Speaker..

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what: we’ll start you back to five minutes so you’ve got a reasonable go.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. Now, I was asking the Minister to clarify the second bullet point on the amendment that was tabled today.

The other question I would have, and it relates to the wider issue, is whether the Government has taken advice from Crown Law, and whether they’d be happy to share it with the House—I think it’s quite important. I’m not familiar with the detail, but there is a very strong convention that armed forces are not used in domestic situations. The Act as it stands essentially gives a procedure for that to occur but not a threshold, but there clearly is a conventional threshold, if not a legal threshold. I would hope that the Government went and took advice about where that threshold was and whether it was met here. It would give some comfort to this House, I think, if we could say that the Crown’s legal adviser, the Attorney-General, through the Solicitor-General, has actually examined this question and said, “In all of the circumstances, this is an appropriate case to use the extraordinary power to have military personnel discharging civilian tasks.”

One of my concerns is the speed at which this appears to have occurred. Without wanting to point the finger too much, the fact that there’s an amendment to the motion suggests that they had an “Aha!” moment over the weekend and thought, “Oops, that doesn’t go quite far enough.” I’m asking whether there is legal advice about the use of this power, not only in respect of the original motion but also the amendment to the motion. I think that’s quite important. The Minister could say, “Well, we did get legal advice but it’s privileged.”, but privilege belongs to the Government, and it’s entirely in their hands to waive it. I do think it would be really useful. Even if the advice was “We don’t think it quite meets the threshold.”, the Government can let us know that and justify why, in the face of that, it has still chosen to go down this road.

The real concern is that the Ministry of Defence and defence forces are in a financial spot—they haven’t got a budget allocation, they haven’t got an estimate for pay rises, they haven’t got an estimate to fix what’s going on on the north coast of Samoa. They’ve got to do what some departments would do as a matter of course, which is rejig and allocate resources within the department, but they face this significant burden.

It is really concerning to me that there are roles here which don’t actually—I’m not saying they don’t need to be done; I accept that you’ve got to have a secure military base. But they could be done by non-military personnel. Now, we don’t like strike breakers, but the fact of the matter is it’s probably the lesser of two evils to go and get a private security guard company to sit on the gates of the Devonport Naval Base than to get military personnel to do civilian tasks.

I don’t think people quite understand the significance of having military doing civilian tasks. If it was interchangeable, if military could do anything, if they could be out the front gate of Parliament today, we would have a military State. We would have a State where the power of the State was expressed against its own citizens through the military. We don’t have a military State; we have a democratic State which has a police force which has a quite different mandate and a quite different set of principles and a quite different values system. I think it’s important that we hear why we are using military personnel for those tasks, whether there was legal advice that was taken, and also I would be interested in a little more explanation around some of the technical language that’s used in this amendment motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have the opportunity to speak on the Government’s amendment. I’d like to thank the Speaker currently in the Chair, and the one that was in the Chair previously for being so clear about the bounds of this debate. I will try and attempt to make sure that my comments are confined to what has been agreed, but I’m sure Madam Speaker will tell me if I stray outside what has been agreed, because it’s not my intention to do so.

The key aspect of the amendment that has been moved today is really the addition of a third date of notices. Previously when we were debating this extension motion, we were looking at 5 November and 11 November, and now we have 18 November also added into that as something that needs to be extended, and reading it with the original motion that would be until 14 February 2025. We did traverse that date at some length in the previous debate on this motion before it was amended, and there was an explanation as to why that date was picked by the Minister—and we value the Minister’s feedback and engagement on this particular topic—but what I’m concerned about is the fact that, when we had originally spoken about this process of using the defence force, of using our people who are trained and meant to be deployed defending our country to cover our civilian workforce, we mentioned a number of times how unusual the situation was.

I just want to reflect on how even more unusual the situation has become with the tabling of this extensive additional amendment today. The reason that that’s unusual is because of not only the use of defence force staff in civilian roles but because of the terms of the Defence Act and because of the terms of section 9. Section 9 makes it very, very clear that this should be something which only happens in rare circumstances. The reason that that is so clear within that section is the emphasis put on reporting not only the use of defence force staff to cover civilian workers taking industrial action but the fact it, firstly, must be reported to the House, and secondly, that any extension to that must also be notified to the House within 14 days. That is a very, very high bar that the drafters of that previous legislation under a previous Parliament put towards allowing what the Government is intending to do to be put forward.

Now, last week when we debated the original motion, we said that we had some concerns around the length of the extension. Now that has been amended, and it has covered a totally different strike notice on 18 November, that concern remains. An additional concern I have, and a question that I would put forward if the Minister did choose to take a call and answer—and he’s been very good at engaging in this debate so far—is: was this the original intent of the Government, to amend the motion—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d just say to the member that the Minister has actually spoken on this debate. To clarify what Mr Speaker said before, unless there’s an amendment, people cannot speak further. If there are further amendments, people can speak further. It’s my understanding that the Minister has already spoken.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. In the previous session where we had debated the original motion, I sought—I believe it was yours actually, I believe you were in the Chair; if it wasn’t you, another presiding officer none the less—clarity that if there was a pertinent question posed for the understanding of the House that the Minister would be able to respond to that, and we did, and it was a really good engagement. It was back and forth. We acknowledged at the time that it wasn’t the usual approach, but we recognised during the committee of the whole House stage that that worked, and it was allowed. Now it seems that that’s no longer the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard the point of order, and if the member did in fact seek that clarity—given that we’re in a situation, as previously spoken of this afternoon, that’s a bit unusual—it would be helpful, in my view, in this one-off situation, for the Minister to be able to answer questions. I’ll take the member’s word that we did have a point of order, and if the Minister does wish to answer those, we’ll just seek leave for that to be able to happen. I’m comfortable—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, given it was already the practice in place in the original motion, I don’t believe that the Government amendment changes that. I will make a couple of points for clarity. We recognised at the time that the Minister was under no obligation at all to answer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —only if he, or any Minister on his behalf—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wished to.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —wished to. And it wasn’t carte blanche permission for members to treat it like a committee of the whole House stage and just fire questions at the Minister. But there are amendments on the Table that were put there in good faith. This is an extraordinary and rare motion and debate, and we felt that that would be a useful approach.

Hon Chris Penk: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. In the spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if I can suggest to the House that if I were to take one call in reply to all the questions that may be posed in the meantime, including in relation to today’s amendment, then that might maximise the helpfulness and clarity as to the substance without engaging unnecessarily in debates beyond that which would be expected for what is a reasonably narrow question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? No, there’s not. Thank you. Camilla Belich, please carry on.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question to the Minister, really, was: if the motion that was on the Table had passed last sitting day, would he have put forward an amendment motion as another primary motion for debate in this House, rather than making that an amendment to the existing motion?

I just think that would help in terms of how we are to move forward with this, because it is very much my view, on reading the legislation, that the purpose of it is really to make sure that—this is obviously an extraordinary debate, but the situation that the Government is engaging in through the use of these staff is also extraordinary, and the legislation puts a high standard on that through its very regular reporting requirements under section 9. My question—and I did see a few nods, and I think it’d be good to have on the record a response to that question—is: would it have been another primary motion? And if it was another primary motion, is it indeed the intention if other further extensions or amendments are required for them to be put as primary motions rather than amendments? I think that would be helpful in terms of having a clearer understanding of how the Government intends to go forward.

However, even if it was the intention of the Minister to put forward another primary motion, which would make the debate slightly less complex than it already is, I still feel that the spirit of the Defence Act and its reporting requirements under section 9 are not really being adhered to with these very long extensions of motions. We’re seeing the orders on 5 November, 11 November, and now 18 November, with this amendment extended through until 14 February, which does include the Christmas period but does include a number of sitting weeks where the Minister could decide to report to the House on what was going on, making sure that, in fact, the eyes of the House were focused on the good-faith negotiations, which the Minister said in his motion today is being undertaken, and we would have a debate more in line with the spirit of section 9 of the Defence Act.

With that in mind, and bearing in mind the discussions that we had previously, I did have a motion on the Table which I had spoken to, and, now, being allowed to amend that motion, I do feel that it would be better rather than to align the end of these notices with the end of the strike, which I thought was appropriate, because I didn’t think it was appropriate and I still don’t think it’s appropriate for the extension to go beyond the dates of the strike notice. The Minister did respond to that. It was a reasonable response. However, I remain unconvinced that that is appropriate given the circumstances and the narrowness of the scope of section 9 of the Defence Act to allow this type of motion by the Government.

I feel that I would be minded to amend my amendment, following the amendment by the Government, to change what I originally had, That 31 January 2025—which aligned with the end of the strike notice—be amended to 3 December 2025. That is to allow two weeks to go past before the Government would then have to come back to the House in line with the legislation and report on either needing a new motion to extend the particular motions or a primary motion. And it would have the scrutiny of this House again. I think that that is appropriate, given that we’ve seen a motion, an amendment motion, and that they’re covering all sorts of different people doing all sorts of different work, requiring our defence force to go and cover that civilian work and allowing a very, very long period of time before there is accountability back to the House.

That is why I think it is very reasonable to align this amendment with the two-week period, which was not my original intention, but I think, having seen what’s occurred here, that that is important. This is important for a number of reasons in terms of—and I know that we’ve spoken, on this side, of the belief that the Labour Party has always had in the right for people to take industrial action. Obviously, there are sectors of society which are excluded from that when they do essential services, and this isn’t one of those particular circumstances, because we are talking about a civilian workforce. However, I don’t disagree with the fact that there are health and safety concerns and serious security concerns, and I think it’s prudent that the Government is mindful of that and that they that they are looking at that in relation to the strike action.

There is another concern which is weighing on my mind, and that is the ability of our defence force, now they’re engaged in this work, to be able to undertake the primary purpose of their work and to be able to do that work when they are doing this activity. My second substantive question to the Minister, really, is the assurances that he can give that the defence force, in terms of its role, being required to—

Tim Costley: Oh, you guys have no idea.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I think it is a valid question, and I think it should be—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we let the member ask the question, please?

CAMILLA BELICH: Please, if the Minister is minded to, give the House a reassurance that the capability of our defence forces, who do have very important jobs to do, will not be undermined by having to fulfil civilian roles. I think that is a reasonable question, and I think it is reasonable for the Minister to turn his mind to it and for the Government to turn their mind to it and to be able to reassure the House that the actions that they’re taking today do not undermine the security interests of New Zealand.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, those that have been following this debate will know that there were many amendments put forward to the Government to consider that were done in good faith. My friend and colleague Camilla Belich has spoken to hers, and I know Tangi Utikere had a very well-worded and considered one, but all that’s changed now, not just because the rulings that the presiding officer has provided identified that this is actually an unusual situation, almost unique in that an amendment made by the Government has changed the game and, essentially, cleared the slate on a debate which was almost done.

I don’t think for a second that the Government intended to do this on Thursday last week. I reckon they entered into that in good faith. In fact, if I think back, the Minister was getting quite frustrated and prickly at the length of time that the debate was taking, so that suggests to me that he wanted it done, and that he had no genuine intention, albeit acting on the Minister’s behalf, to put forward this amendment today. I believe that, but the fact that it’s happened demonstrates that this is an unusual situation. Even if the House had voted in favour or in support of the motion on Thursday, we’d be here again, probably tomorrow, debating another extension, because there was another ministerial statement today. If the debate had finished on Thursday, then we would have to go through that again.

I say to the Minister that surely this demonstrates that this is an evolving situation—that the impact of this industrial action isn’t actually fully understood by all—and yet the Minister is asking us to support a motion that not only extends the original motion but now adds to it, amends it, and still wants us to support it to go all the way out to 14 February. Now, the Minister has available to them, in the Defence Act, a period of 14 days, and that’s quite ironic because 14 days from the original motion is today. The period of time that the Minister had available to her in legislation, without the requirement of coming to the House for support for an extension, is today. Here we are not only debating an extension motion but an amendment to the original motion. Now, why do I say all this—is the question I get from that look. It’s because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, just listening.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s just you resting? Fair enough. I’ve got one of those as well—I’ve got one of those as well—don’t you worry about that! But, Madam Speaker, the point of this is that we could avoid all this simply by amending the end date of this extension to a period that is practical—there or thereabouts—around what the Defence Act already gives the Minister.

When we debated this on Thursday, we said to the Minister, “Look, things change, and the context in which this extension motion would be considered may well develop, and the way that we, as a House, might approach the motion in two weeks’ time might be different to how we do it today.” Well, gee whiz, it’s only been a matter of days and things have changed. If the House approves this, what is to stop the Minister having to come back? Genuine question. “Nothing”, actually, is the answer, because it’s already been proven by virtue of this amendment. Wouldn’t it be better for the House—because we’ve already identified this bizarre anomaly that the Standing Orders Committee is going to have to have a look at. If we go about it the way we’ve gone about it today—that it’s unusual and we’ve had to find a workaround around the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—more to the point is that the Government has identified that their original motion was not sufficient, that it did not cover enough ground.

Leaving aside the debating points—I haven’t even touched on the stuff that we touched on last week; this is all new stuff and relevant to the amendment—

Tim Costley: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The Minister may cackle, although that’s all he’s done. [Interruption] Oh, it wasn’t the Minister? I do apologise. It was his very loud and irritating friend next to him. That’s all that member has done throughout this entire debate. He hasn’t actually made a call, hasn’t actually tried to contribute to the motion and the debate on the motion and the understanding of the House, and this is a man with a military background instead sitting there arrogantly and criticising those who are trying to get it right. Here is another reason why we need to get it right: this is not a minor amendment. There are three bullet points to the original motion—the original motion was three bullet points—so it’s twice as long, it’s twice as inclusive, it actually covers areas that they hadn’t envisaged, and yet they want us to agree to an extension all the way to 14 February.

Now, my original amendment was that “14 February 2025” be replaced by “17 December 2024”. That’s the last sitting week of this year. I tried to be practical and think, “Right, that makes sense. We can reassess. The Government can put forward an alternative justification for an extension. And we would consider that as a House with the summer break in mind.” I think this changes this situation, and I would like to amend that amendment. I’m not going to put a new one in, but I’ll just amend it and bring it forward a week—to the 10th. Why do I propose the 10th? Well, for practical reasons. If we said, “Why don’t we just leave it for the 14 days that are available to the Minister?”, that would fall within scrutiny week. We wouldn’t actually be sitting as a House. If the Minister wanted to debate an extension motion, we couldn’t and we’d have to wait a week, and there would be a gap and something might happen in that period where the defence force doesn’t have the appropriate permission.

As I understand it, the provisions that would be available to the Minister to act when the House is risen—i.e., go to the Governor-General—wouldn’t actually be available to them, because the House was able to sit, just not sitting that week. It would be counterproductive, and I would really encourage the Minister to see this for what it is, as a genuine, good-faith proposal. Let’s do this extension motion to 10 December. It is possible, while I can’t speak with authority—I’m not the appropriate spokesperson—that we would consider supporting this. It’s possible. We’d know, then, that at least the Government will come back to the House and explain why a further extension would be needed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So is the member planning to table that as—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes—yes, I am.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that with all members. If there are amendments, and I will note that Camilla Belich has also tabled her amendment to her amendment. If members could just be really clear, it helps the clerk.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, that’s right, and I do appreciate that, Madam Speaker, because this isn’t straightforward. It’s got every possibility that things might fall over and there’d be further complications, and that wouldn’t be the fault of the Clerk’s team.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’ve got a copy of my amendment here. I’m going to cross out “17” and put “10”. That’s all I’m going to do, and I’ll bring it down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Great. Thank you. If other members, at any point during their speeches, wish to move an amendment to their amendment, can you, please, just let us know at the start so the clerks can be working it through. It’s not a criticism of this member, because this is a moving debate, right?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to take that personally, so thank you for that clarification!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s not intended personally.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, I will be crossing out “17” and putting “10”, and I really hope they consider that, because it is, essentially, three weeks from today. It goes beyond scrutiny week. It means that there are another two sitting weeks left in this calendar year. It doesn’t interfere with the final week, which is actually filled up with a lot of ceremonial debates and all those sorts of things.

We know, as I mentioned last week, that because of an error of the Deputy Leader of the House at the Business Committee, Parliament is going to knock off on the 18th, so actually it’s only two days that week. In reality, it’s actually better if it’s the 10th anyway, because we’ve got all week. They can look at getting it done. I don’t believe that the original motion would expire as long as it was done by the end of the day. If just like today it was the first item after question time, we would have plenty of time to ask the questions and deal with the matters. There’s no possibility in reality that, if it was done after question time on the 10th, it was going to drag out until the end of the sitting day. That’s just not possible. We know that we would have a conclusion—yes or no, or whatever—on that day.

That is my amendment to the Government’s amendment, and it takes into consideration a pretty fundamental change to the original motion and the fact that it includes new material that wasn’t envisaged in the original debate, and it acknowledges that the Government themselves didn’t even envisage this. How can they realistically expect the House to give them carte blanche until the 14th, with what has proven to be a realistic prospect that we’re going to have to come back regardless?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will—

Hon Member: I was going to take a call.

Hon Member: He tried.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’m sure that member is eager to take a call, which the member can do after this.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Per Madam Speaker’s instruction before, I would first like to move, That the motion be amended to delete the words “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington”. That particular amendment has been with the Clerk already, but I have an extra copy should Madam Speaker require it.

Now, the reason I have this particular amendment was briefly touched upon by one of the previous speakers, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Although I don’t 100 percent agree with the member on other elements that the member has raised, in this particular case, when we are looking at this motion—including today’s amendment—there are now essentially six parts to it and it’s very much, in some ways, playing spot the difference.

One of the things that really stood out to me in the amendment that I am moving to be deleted is the fact that the other parts of this particular motion all potentially have a level of security clearance that is required that may not be appropriate for a contractor. This is, I guess, where the point of difference that I have with the Hon Duncan Webb is, but looking at the motion that was moved today by the Hon Chris Penk, I believe that the upgrading of the software package with SH-2G(I) system potentially does require a level of security clearance that a contractor may not have.

When it’s around providing security guard services for Defence House and for Pipitea House, that is not something that I believe meets the threshold of why section 9(2) of the Defence Act 1990 should be triggered. For all intents and purposes, to provide security guard services for these two particular areas can very much be conducted by a contractor. However, if the Minister is able to clarify to say that the security guard services go beyond the level of security guard services that we see in other cases, where they’re simply standing in front of the building to provide additional support or to vet the personnel who go into it, then that does need to be specified.

That brings me to my second point, which is around the fact that section 9(2) of the Defence Act is very specific, where it does say that the authority should specify the part or parts of the armed forces that may be used and the public service or public services that may be provided. I think in the original motion, that was not made explicitly clear—whether the security guard services go beyond what is the standard understanding of security guard services.

What is also concerning in terms of the original three points that were mentioned as part of the original motion, compared to the amendment that was done today and amendments to the amendment that was done today, is the specificity of the personnel. In section 9(2) of the Defence Act, it does say that that the Minister or the authority “shall specify the part or parts of the Armed Forces”. In today’s amendment, we do see that that level of specificity is reached where it talks about a member of the RNZAF, it talks about members of the armed forces comprising of RNZAF armament technicians, and it talks about other—actually it doesn’t; one of them doesn’t. It does name specific teams or specific groups within that, but I don’t know if by just saying “appropriately trained members of the armed forces” without mentioning explicitly the teams or groups, as some of the sections we see today in the amendments, meets the requirement of specificity.

Now, the third part I would like to mention is around the differences in terms of some of the services that are going to be provided. For some of these services, we do see providing airport rescue and firefighter services, security guard services for camps, even providing qualified technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions—those kinds of aspects are things that are part of the day-to-day operations or day-to-day anticipation of what could have happened. But some of the things over here, particularly in terms of the software package update of the SH-2G(I) system—is that something that must be conducted reasonably immediately? The statement that the Minister said didn’t specify. It does specify upcoming deployment, but it doesn’t specify when we say “upcoming”, whether that is absolutely mandatory for this to be triggered as opposed to this can actually be deferred to when the strike action is lifted or after 14 February.

The second-to-last point that I will mention is around some of the statements that were done today. I think one of the previous speakers, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, has already touched on this as well. I want to specifically focus on the statement that was used by the Minister today and some of the tenses that were used, where the Minister of Defence has already given the authority. As we have heard from the previous speaker, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, there is a general concern that the extension of that authority beyond 14 days under section 9(8) of the Defence Act must first be passed by the House. Considering some of the original items in the original motion, part of it may have already lapsed as of today. Where does that put those sorts of motions or those sorts of authorities in this limbo period where they would be considered void unless it has been passed by the House?

My final point is also around the fact that it would be good to get the Minister or a delegate of the Minister—in this case, it looks like it’s the Hon Chris Penk—to sort of clarify. We’re seeing amendments today with some very specific new items or new elements have been brought to the House that were not anticipated or were not made aware to the House last week. What does that mean, going forward; that within the next period of time there would be more things coming up, and particularly during the Christmas and New Year period when the House isn’t sitting? It would be good to get the Minister’s clarification to know if this is an exhaustive list that we’re seeing now or if there will be more coming up, in which case: what approach or what consideration would be taken if that was during the Christmas and new year period?

Thank you for that, Madam Speaker. Just, again, a reminder to the House that I do have an amendment that I have on the Table here essentially to remove the part that talks about the security guard services for the Defence House and Pipitea House Wellington. For that particular one, it is different from the rest of the authority that has been provided, and I genuinely do believe—and I would be keen to hear from other speakers in this House as to whether that should be a service that can be provided by a contractor.

OK. At this point, we have three extra amendments and I’m just going to invite—I believe Minister Chris Penk is going to take a call.

Madam Speaker, my intention was to seek a call, but in the spirit of the discussion earlier, which is that I would take one that would wrap up all outstanding questions so that we then don’t sort of go back and forth and I keep popping up like a jack-in-the-box. If you’re minded to take on other calls, then I’ll resume my seat for now, but I’ll try and judge as best I can from your body language when you’ve had enough of other contributions such that I should then respond at the end.

Thank you. I think it might be helpful, if there are some things that you are of a mind to answer now, because otherwise I think the questions are probably going to get a little repetitive from here on in. It’s probably my judgment that maybe take a call now and then we’ll see if anybody’s got any new information. I know there’s one more call coming from over here, at least. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thanks to colleagues for a very full discussion of these issues. In the order that they’ve been presented to the House from colleagues, in response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, he rightly points out that with legal advice having been provided, it’s within the Government’s power to waive that privilege. We do not intend to do so.

Second, in relation to Camilla Belich’s points, it seems to me inevitable that a new motion would have been required if the motion that had previously been made or the original motion, as we now know it, had passed last week. Then it would have been necessary to pass a new motion. Her suggestion of an amended date, 3 December—in fact, she said 2025, but I think that perhaps it was misspoken, with 2024 probably being her intention. We wouldn’t support such an amendment in either case. We think that the calibration of the dates that we’ve provided so far is the right one, which is to say it’s the full length of the strike notice plus two weeks in order for transitional arrangements to be made as to personnel turning up for duty and so forth. One cannot have a gap in these critical staffing - type arrangements.

For that reason also, we don’t contemplate, or will not support, suggestions that are made for other dates within that period. For example, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, I think, is suggesting what he describes as a practical date of 10 December. That could be argued to be placing undue pressure on the negotiating process, which should be conducted in good faith, as required, up to as late as 31 January of next year. If we were to have a date of 10 December, then adding a couple of weeks in order for transitional arrangements to be made, we would reach Boxing, excuse me, Christmas Eve—I’m getting ahead of myself—and I don’t think that would be a very wise time to be trying to relitigate or make different arrangements for obvious reasons. I certainly don’t intend to be here at that time, Madam Speaker, and I presume you don’t, and I’m even more sure that the Hon Kieran McAnulty will be long gone.

As for the capability of the replacement personnel, if we can call them that, in fact, they routinely conduct these kinds of operations or this kind of work, in any case. In fact, reasonable minds can differ, and it’s not a subject for debate today, but it might be the case that uniformed personnel might be called upon to take back under their own steam these very functions that they used to carry out as a matter of course and more recently have been taken on by civilian colleagues, who I hasten to add, are valued and respected. But nevertheless, there is already a combination of civilian and uniformed personnel undertaking those tasks, not only historically but even into the present day.

As for the fact that we have an evolving situation, as Kieran McAnulty points out, yes, that’s correct, but we can’t know what the future will hold, and that’s not a reason not to make necessary arrangements in accordance with the law in the present day.

Then, finally, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan points out that security services are within the remit both of the original motion and confirmed today in our discussion. I think it would be necessary to have personnel who are appropriately qualified, skilled, and experienced. Obviously, there are others who provide security services within this country, but I would expect, in most cases, they wouldn’t have the appropriate security clearance, they wouldn’t know the protocol and the military whakapapa and tikanga in terms of allowing personnel on to base with all the bells and whistles—almost literally bells and whistles, in some cases, but very specific qualifications not only for those security roles to be carried out but also those who would carry out the very bespoke work on military helicopters, for example, with weapons systems that we hope civilian helicopters don’t have in this country.

Then, finally, I thought it was a very fair question and a good question as to whether the fact of an upcoming deployment would be required to reach a threshold to trigger this kind of measure. It seems to me that that wouldn’t be the case, necessarily. Air force and navy—and, actually, all of our defence forces, for that matter—undertake important work around the clock, whether on a recognised deployment as such, and that wouldn’t be necessary to reach that threshold. As it happens, that’s a hypothetical question in the context of what we face today, which is, of course, that among other things, there is an upcoming deployment of HMNZS Te Kaha with an embarked flight, I think we can infer, and for that reason, among others, it’s necessary to pass this motion.

Finally, in what I hope and expect will be my last contribution and perhaps one of the last contributions of the debate as a whole, I do want to re-emphasise the big picture here, which is that we have a defence force that performs valuable work in service of this nation. They will do it over the Christmas and new year period. They need to be supported to do that. They need to be allowed to conduct their work in a safe and secure way. That’s important for those workers. It’s important for our nation. The arrangements are having to be made in a less than an ideal world in which we live, whereby external factors have forced the hands of defence in order to provide this manning. The Minister of Defence has made the appropriate arrangements. This House should duly authorise that and support our personnel in that way. As for what the future may hold, we don’t know that, but in the meantime, we don’t undermine the good-faith bargaining efforts on both sides, and we expect and hope that the matter will be resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you. I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere, and I would just say at this point that, because this is not a committee stage of a bill but we do have differing circumstances here, I note that the Minister has spoken to all of the amendments that have been put forward up to this point.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s not my intention to take a full call. I want to just touch on some of the aspects that I had raised but we’ll see where we go. I do want to thank the Minister for his responses. He has provided a response to some of the issues that I was interested in around the dates, so I won’t delve too deeply into that. However, I would just place on record, I suppose, the disappointment that that’s the view that the Government have formed in terms of not effectively landing on a date that is much earlier than 14 February.

The reason that I say that is because, even if the Minister’s view is that there is not a desire to place any undue influence as part of any negotiation process, it would still be open to the House if it was, for example, 10 November—the date suggested by the Hon Kieran McAnulty—to simply reconnect and take a further decision at that point, bearing in mind that things are still ongoing. But, as I say, I won’t dwell on that, except to indicate the sense of rarity by which these particular orders have been taken. There is no suggestion on this side of the House that the Minister of Defence is not authorised to take the action that she has taken—that is, clearly, not in dispute—however, what is the requirement of how long those particular extensions would remain in place? The Act is very specific in that it is a responsibility of this House to provide an oversight lens over when things are taken, and so, even though the Acting Minister has made his views very clear on the dates, none the less it’s disappointing to hear that.

One of the things that I would invite the Minister, in what might be his final contribution, to respond to are some of the issues that I touched on when the House was considering this on Thursday evening. The Minister will know I took the last call before the House, effectively, rose for the week, and he did respond to some from his seat, so I know his views on some of those things. However, one of the things that has not yet been addressed is why it is that the notice that was issued by the defence Minister on 5 November was very specific as to the locations that were included in that notice; subsequent ones are not.

What we now see in the Government’s amendment this afternoon is that they have specified some locales or locations. I’m interested to hear from the Minister around why there is a change in tack on that particular score. To assist the House, though, I will seek to amend or move an amendment to the Government’s own amendment that would basically insert the amendment that I originally had. I know it’s a little bit of a strange situation that we find ourself in this afternoon, but I do want to do that because I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that if the Government’s amendment is successful—albeit a new one—it still captures the specific armed forces locations that are named in my earlier amendment.

I did reflect, though, on whether that was necessary or not. I’ve had a look at the amendment in the Hon Penny Simmonds’ name, and I think that the first bit there under (c), which is basically flagging the location Kauri Point for security guard services—actually, I will just point out that one of the interesting things for this amendment is we’ve heard about security services and we hear about firefighting services. The question that then kind of remains is, well, what is coming next? If we actually had dispensed with this matter on Thursday—not that it should have been dispensed with in a non-timely manner—we would be commencing a whole new process for the most recent decision that the defence Minister has taken. What is to say that there will be further decisions that are taken by the Minister of Defence that will warrant use of the House’s time, none the less?

However, if I can return back to the other bullet point about Kauri Point, I don’t actually think that is captured by my original amendment, which is why I think it’s important it still needs to stay—likewise for the second bullet point, which references the specific role of an individual in the defence force who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake the helicopter systems. I know Dr Webb had touched on that. My question to the Minister is: would the person that is undertaking that particular role have been captured by the amendment that was lodged in my name?

The intention of lodging the amendment was to basically specify all of the armed forces locations that are indicated there. What we have is a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF)—one assumes that they would be domestically captured by the locations that are contained in the specific amendment there. That’s a particular question for the Minister. As for the follow-on paragraph there that relates to those that are located at RNZAF Base Auckland and Waiouru Military Camp, I think that would have actually been captured by the original one. Really, I guess it’s just hinging on that second one, which is trying to ensure that there is no dichotomy or difference between the locations and the specific roles that are listed there.

On that basis, I will stick with moving the amendment to the amendment for the Government motion. I do so because I rely on the contribution that had been made last week, which talks about the constituents that I represent. I know that the particular original motion does actually refer to Linton Military Camp and others, but those are the questions that I’ll leave for the Minister to, hopefully, pick up and respond to in due course.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Before the Minister sits down, just for the clarity of the Chair, are you moving an amendment to your amendment, and if so, could you read it out, please, so that we are aware of the amendment. For any other members who are going to do this: if you are intending to speak, could you talk to the amendment, or if you intend to move an amendment could you actually please move that amendment at the beginning of your presentation, so we actually can work out what what’s being amended.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For clarity, I have moved an amendment to the Government’s amendment. My amendment simply inserts—I can read it out in its entirety if that would be helpful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Is this not your original amendment?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, it is, but Mr Speaker has determined that what is permissible is for amendments to be taken as part of this particular consideration to the Government’s amendment. What I am seeking to do, sir, is to basically incorporate my, I suppose, original amendment to be part of the Government’s amendment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Would you mind just reading that out, then?

TANGI UTIKERE: Certainly. I move, That the following be incorporated at the end of (c) in the Government’s amendment: “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Devonport Naval Base, RNZAF Base Auckland, Papakura Military Camp, RNZAF Base Ohakea, Linton Military Camp, Trentham Military Camp, Burnham Military Camp, RNZAF Base Woodbourne, Headquarters, Joint Forces New Zealand.”

All right, thank you for doing that.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise with the intention of having to make an amendment to my amendment from last Thursday, as well. This is because—

Tim Costley: Surely, it can’t get worse.

GLEN BENNETT: The member on the Government side just said, “Surely, this can’t get worse.” That’s what was just spoken from a Government member, and I think that is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): To that member, I’ve asked the members to be specific about their amendments, so I don’t appreciate those sort of comments while we’re working out what the amendment is—not useful. Carry on.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I have to rise to amend my amendment is because it doesn’t actually fit any more. Because of the new amendments that were dropped this afternoon, it basically flies in the face of what I had, and I’m going to have to move it around. I’ve been thinking carefully and frantically writing to get it in the right place, but it will probably go in at the end.

I don’t really talk about my high school and how badly I did, but when it comes to things like semicolons and full stops, there is a bit of a drafting issue here, which I want to just clarify. I will read my amendment just so that we’re very clear. On the 14th, my amendment in my name stated “after (camps and bases.)”, and I went on to put my amendment in. I now have to change that because the full stop no longer exists; it now is a semicolon. The new amendment I have is To amend the Government notice of motion No. 1, in my name, that after “(facilitate this work.)”—I want to insert next point—“as long as the above authorisations are in place, the Minister will update the House on the progress being made to settle this industrial dispute on a weekly basis or on the next sitting day.” be added. The reason to put it right at the end there—

Tim Costley: That’s the bit that took all the thought?

GLEN BENNETT: Yes, it is, because it was around where does it go—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

GLEN BENNETT: —and, again, I’m being laughed at from the other side. I don’t think they should really be laughing when it seems like it’s a bit of their own inability to get this right that we’re having to go through this process. When I get jeers and laughs, I think they should actually be looking at themselves first, because we shouldn’t need to be actually having to help.

What I want to talk about is the semicolon and the full stop, because in the original notice of motion there are no full stops; there are no semicolons. The inconsistency this will bring now, because we have three points, which end “(camps and bases.)”—with a full stop—and then the next three points added after that all have semicolons afterwards. It is a bit of a drafting challenge. I had to make sure of what the point of them is in there, because it was made quite clear in the amendment to this amendment from the Government, from the Hon Penny Simmonds, that she was going to replace “bases.” with “bases;”. I’m really just trying to understand that.

I think the challenge we have here, as the Hon Dr Webb did say earlier—the member for Christchurch Central—is that this should be a last resort, not a first resort. The challenge we have is that we’re rushing things through and mistakes are being made. That is what we really need to consider this afternoon, and just simple things like making sure that punctuation is correct so that it actually is in order, so that once it’s all—because I’m assuming, unless members across the floor choose to come and join us on this side, this will eventually pass. There will be inconsistencies once it’s actually merged together.

The reason I leave this amendment right to the end of the new amended amendment is, basically, to sum up the whole of the six points. The reason I do that is because I really feel and believe that democracy needs accountability and so, therefore, having the Minister having to report back to this House is something that must be considered. Nowhere within this motion and the amendment to the motion is there anywhere that says that the Minister needs to keep this House informed. I won’t relitigate the argument, but we’ve heard that the last time this was used was 23 years ago, so this is a rare occurrence and we need to make sure that the Minister is speaking to this, making sure that we’re tracking with this. I also hope that it puts good pressure on the Minister to ensure that the issues are solved and that we can actually remove this motion, so it is unnecessary for sworn officers to actually be doing this work.

My question is around just making sure that there is consistency—there’s consistency in terms of the motion and what’s added to it—where full stops should be, where semicolons should be, and what the final motion will finish with. Secondly, in terms of where I think it should be added, I’ve actually handwritten it here and I will table it at the end of this, in terms of the fact that right at the end there, after “facilitate this work.” to add—maybe it should be a semicolon, then, if we’re going to add them; I’m not sure.

That’s my piece. I will table this. I hope that we can come to some kind of conclusion. Democracy can take time, democracy can be messy, but none the less we’ve got to ensure that democracy is the pinnacle and the foundation of this House and of any kind of legislation, any kind of motion, any kind of mahi that is done here. We have to make sure that democracy prevails at all times, even when it’s uncomfortable and even when it’s a bit messy and even when it does involve a few semicolons and full stops, or whatever it is. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s amendment to replace the date in her amendment be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Camilla Belich be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment to replace the date in his amendment be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty be agreed to.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s amendment to his previous amendment be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Glen Bennett be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Tangi Utikere be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to the Hon Penny Simmonds’ amendment be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Penny Simmonds be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

The question now is that, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024 to use the armed forces to provide public services in connection with an industrial dispute be extended to 14 February 2025:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at RNZAF Base Auckland to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authorisation for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Authority for the use of members of the armed forces comprising RNZAF armament technicians located at RNZAF Base Auckland and members of the New Zealand Army located at Waiouru Military Camp who are qualified weapons technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to HMNZS Te Kaha, and to perform any ancillary services or receive training necessary to facilitate this work.