Motions — Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I move, That, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024 and 11 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.

As my colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins KC advised the House yesterday, as Minister of Defence, she had authorised the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. The purpose of this motion is to advise the House of the period of time for which that authorisation will apply. On 5 November, the New Zealand Defence Force received an official notice from the New Zealand Public Service Association—the PSA—that strike action would occur from 6 November to 31 January. Among other things, this will impact security guard and firefighting services at various camps and bases across New Zealand. The Minister of Defence, in line with section 9(2) of the Defence Act, has authorised the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide security guard services at certain defence areas, and for appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide aircraft rescue firefighting service at base Auckland, in Whenuapai.

It is in the public interest that the security of defence areas and firefighting services can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure the safety, preservation of life, and the protection of critical infrastructure and assets. Simply put, the New Zealand Defence Force can only maintain our national security by ensuring these camps and bases are kept safe and secure. These actions, authorised by the Minister of Defence, are necessary to maintain public health and safety. Further, the defence force continues to bargain in good faith with the PSA. These are hard-speak questions, and they’re not made lightly. The New Zealand Defence Force effectively went into this financial year with less operating expenditure than the previous year due to cost pressures such as rising fuel and power costs. The defence force has, therefore, undergone a rapid reprioritisation of its budget to ensure that ships, aircraft, equipment, and personnel are ready to respond when needed.

I acknowledge the valuable contributions that civilian staff in the New Zealand Defence Force make in service of New Zealand’s national security. And, of course, I acknowledge that along with the contribution, likewise, that is made by our uniformed personnel. Unfortunately, we do not live in a benign strategic environment, and so it is a fact of life that the defence force must prioritise core military outputs in the current fiscal environment in order to support our international partners and ensure that New Zealand does its bit for the international rules-based order. While the current industrial action is an operational matter, I place on record that I have, and the Minister of Defence in this Government has, complete faith in the Chief of Defence Force to prioritise accordingly in the current fiscal environment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to this motion as moved by the Associate Minister of Defence on behalf of the Hon Judith Collins KC. I wanted to briefly touch on the circumstances surrounding these quite unusual notices and authorisations that the Associate Minister has made, and I also want to put forward an amendment to the motion which has been tabled by the Associate Minister today. I will speak to that motion and then I will be tabling that amendment as well, but I think it’s important for the House to note that a thousand defence force personnel have given notice to go on strike, and the dates that they have proposed to go on strike are from 6 November until 31 January.

Now, the circumstances of this particular strike, I dare say—and I dare say there’s probably agreement across the House—were not entered into lightly by the civilian members of the defence force who decided to take this strike action. It is important to note that the circumstances of that were that they received a zero percent offer from their employers in relation to their most recent pay negotiation. It won’t be news to this House that there’s been significant increases in terms of inflation in recent times, and for those members of the civilian staff to then receive a zero percent increase should not be—

Hon Chris Penk: It’s what you gave us for six years.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, actually, the previous Government did actually look at giving pay increases to civilian staff, I understand. Certainly, the zero percent offer—

Tim Costley: What about people in uniform? Do you care about them?

CAMILLA BELICH: Would the member like to take a call to ask some of these questions? I would welcome that. I don’t get to answer questions in this House. I’m not a Minister. I am simply making a suggestion to amend and noting the circumstances, and I’m sure that member has as much respect as I do for the civilians in the defence force who are on strike at the moment, and additionally for the members of the defence force who have been, as a result of this motion, asked to perform the work of the civilian defence force; showing, I think, proving, the essential nature of the work that the civilian staff do and the importance of the work not only to their day-to-day jobs but, in fact, as we’ve seen in many of these authorisations that have been made, to the workings of the defence force.

Now, these circumstances, I would offer, are entirely of the Government’s making. They have chosen to cut parts of the defence budget, which has resulted in this quite astonishing zero percent offer to staff. This is the cause of this strike. The Minister has then taken quite an extraordinary act, which has only been—and I asked the Parliamentary Library to research this—used on a few occasions in our recent history; once in 1996 and in 2001, as has been recently covered in the media, and again, I understand, in 2018 by Ron Mark. This is a very, very rare power. One of the things that I’m interested in, which I would hope that the Minister is able to provide to the House, is advice on why this quite extraordinary step needed to be taken.

There are provisions in the Employment Relations Act when there are concerns around the health and safety of striking workers to actually replace those staff. What advice has been taken—it would be very helpful to find that out—on why that particular provision couldn’t be used? That is a provision which is used in all other industrial disputes when—I think it’s section 97—there is a need, for safety reasons, as you can imagine, when some of these roles are firefighters at airports and they need to be filled in this particular instance. Why has the Minister decided to take this extraordinary step when there was a much better—actually, two clear options available to her? The first is—

Tim Costley: Like pay more money.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, exactly; paying more money—

Tim Costley: That’s always the answer, isn’t it?

CAMILLA BELICH: —and recognising the service of defence staff. Members opposite laugh but they clearly have an important role. A zero percent pay increase for defence staff is absolutely shocking, and it is undoubtedly the cause of us using Parliament’s time now—because of that offer. It’s why these people had to take this extraordinary action. That is a very important thing that needs to be addressed.

The Minister of Defence could solve this problem if she wanted to. She obviously does want to interfere in this dispute because she’s taken this extraordinary step of providing these authorisations. My question—and I leave it hanging in the House, in lieu of an answer—is: why was her decision to involve herself in this particular dispute the one that was less likely to solve the problem? Why didn’t she decide to say to the parties, “Get back to the table. Negotiate in good faith. We respect both parties. We respect you as an employer, New Zealand Defence Force, and we respect the work that your civilian staff do.” Why did she not decide to do that if she decided to involve herself in it? That is, I think, a very important question that is begging to be answered. Instead, we have a few notes that have been made on 5 November and on 11 November that authorise the use of defence staff to fill these civilian roles during the strike action.

Now, I don’t know why—and I’m also looking for an answer to this—a notice was put forward on 5 November but was not reported to the House until yesterday. It is very clearly the intention of section 9 of the Defence Act that this is raised at the earliest possible opportunity in the House. Why has that not taken place? I think that’s a very important issue in terms of the application and the correct use of section 9 of the Defence Act.

I do have an amendment to make to this, and I think it’s one that the Minister should consider accepting. That amendment is to look at the wording of this particular motion, which has been tabled in the House. This motion allows striking workers to be replaced by defence staff until 14 February 2025. This is inconsistent with the times of the strike dates. The strike notice is until 31 January 2025, so that leaves, effectively, a two-week period where there is no strike notice, yet there is an authorisation from the Minister in this House for that work to be filled. Why is there this inconsistency? I cannot see any logic to it. If another Minister on the other side of the House would seek to take a call on that, I’d be interested to hear it.

I would like to move, That the words “14 February 2025” be replaced with the words “31 January 2025”. The reason I’m suggesting that is because I cannot see any logical reason why these authorisations need to go on for two weeks longer than the strike notices.

There may be other amendments to make in relation to the reviews and the amount of information that is provided to the House and whether in fact this extension should go ahead, but, at minimum, I cannot see any right reason why the Minister would not accept this amendment, which would allow consistency between the authorisation and the dates where the authorisation applies. I will be shortly tabling that amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept that to at least provide some consistency in the record keeping in relation to this very unusual move that has taken place in this House.

I again urge the Minister and the parties to try and get around the table and solve this issue so that we’re not wasting House time talking about bargaining when we could be doing other things to address concerns that New Zealanders have, like the cost of living, the environment, and all of the other concerns that are present in people’s minds, and not this particular issue which is involving a Minister of the Crown in an industrial dispute, very unusually and not with the efficiency it would take in order to solve this particular dispute through actually providing additional funding to Defence to allow them to offer a pay increase that was respectful and along the lines of the inflationary period we have just endured.

Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

Debate interrupted.