Motions — Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just listening to Camilla Belich’s contribution there and it occurred to me that there are actually some quite pertinent questions asked. Yes, this is a debate on a motion—it’s not a committee of the whole House stage—but I do wonder whether it might be helpful to the House to provide clarity on the restrictions on the number of calls, because, whilst the Associate Minister of Defence is under no obligation whatsoever to answer questions, it might be useful for all members to hear from you that if, indeed, a Minister chose to answer those questions to assist the debate, no member would be under any restrictions on the number of calls they take as a result.

Thank you for that point of order. I will take more advice as I take the next call, but my understanding at the moment is that, when an amendment is put on the floor, as in the case of Camilla Belich, the Associate Minister of Defence is able to take a follow-up call on that, but I will confirm that with advice from the Clerk.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think, from a Green Party perspective, I do want to lay out our view as to why we are here debating this motion of notice No. 1 from the Government. While yesterday we heard a lot that some of these negotiations were an operational matter, they have to be contextualised around decisions that this Government has made to underfund our Public Service entities, which has actually resulted, and then operational matters around salary issues playing out. We cannot decouple those two things. This is the direct result of austerity politics. The stuff that we’re debating right now is actually deeply unusual.

Yesterday, we heard a lot about how the work that civilians do at the defence force is “life-preserving”. I think this cannot be understated, right? When there are extreme weather events or fires, we rely on our civilian defence force to preserve life. Now, we’re debating the extension of the authorisation for that civilian workforce to be replaced by armed forces. I take the point that the Minister of Defence was raising yesterday around how the civilian workforce performs tasks that do require a lot of skills and training, and cannot easily be replaced, but at the same time, I was quite shocked at, I guess, the dismissal from the Minister at the time around genuine questions on whether alternatives had been sought around this course of action. I have similar questions as well, regarding the dates in relationship to the extension of these authorisations, so far as we know them—they’re from 11 November to 14 February. That’s almost three months, and I cannot see why. For example, we could have come back in a two-week period or at least in the next sitting week, to then, once we’d allowed those two weeks to play out, discuss whether an extension would have been needed. It kind of felt pre-emptive. I guess my first question is in relationship to the dates. I’m curious to know as to what advice the Minister sought around those options.

I do think Camilla Belich’s amendment is really useful for us to take into account, because if we think about when we’re coming back after the summer break, I think there are opportunities for this House to debate whether a further extension would have been needed, right? Because of how unusual these extensions are, I think the Government should do scrutiny and debate around whether, actually, we need to wait way beyond the time we come back to the House, after the new year, to even know if these negotiations have been resolved or whether we need to end such authorisations. I actually think it would even better for the Government to enable scrutiny, say on the first week coming back. I think that would have been quite fair. There’s going to be a break for Waitangi—and all good; I do think that political attention should be in relationship to what is going on at Waitangi after the first sitting week—but there’s nothing that would have stopped the Government to enable these orders and these extensions to, basically, be debated on the first week coming back. I think that’s an incredibly fair request from Camilla Belich, and the Green Party backs that amendment.

I’m really curious, and the Green Party is curious, to understand why the Minister wouldn’t accept that. As has been canvassed, because of how unusual these extensions are and actually the consequences of having armed personnel replacing a civilian workforce, I think, again—and the nature of the job that they perform—it’s really important that we allow scrutiny of them. I’m also curious to know around arrangements that will be made over the summer, and for the Minister to actually expand, for the public’s benefit, the arrangements that these armed forces will be performing over the summer break, and then also the exceptional circumstances that require these. I guess, the budgetary decisions that create these circumstances in some ways I don’t think are that exceptional—they are of the Government’s own doing. It’s not like we had something outside of the Government’s control that created these conditions. In fact, some people could argue that they could have predicted this happening. In fact, that would have necessitated this extension.

I note the Speaker is receiving advice, so, at any point, feel free to interrupt me to give us an update, but for now, I think, I do want to invite the Minister to give a reflection as to Camilla Belich’s amendment.

I also want to understand why the Government would be against us debating this in the first week? Is it that perhaps they’ve got more controversial legislation in place that they’re hoping to get through in that first week, without being interrupted by a debate in the first week coming back? I think, to me, like, the way that this has happened, I don’t think the Government has engaged in the debate. Yesterday definitely didn’t give us the impression that the Government is operating in a good-faith way when it comes to just genuine questions around advice around the considerations that we’re giving. Again, these are quite extraordinary tools that the Government is tapping into.

With that, I will, I hope, allow the Minister to engage with the amendment on the advice that he would have received around the specific reasoning for 14 February, and I hope that we can move forward constructively, because, again, this is no minor issue.

Finally, I do want to move forward in the debate around some of the arguments that were said yesterday around the Green Party’s position on the funding of the New Zealand Defence Force. I want to make it really clear that we should separate our political arguments around the funding of the defence force for the purposes of waging war versus actually life-preserving services.

Tim Costley: That’s what we do. That’s all we ever did.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, no, I think this is important, because if we have Ministers yesterday making accusations around this, I think it’s an important point to be made.

Tim Costley: No one made accusations.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, you may have not been listening yesterday, but that was what’s been happening. The Green Party does have a longstanding position around what the defence force should be used for. I do think it’s important that the public has the means to know that the Public Service is there to back them—should, for example, a fire break in the vicinity of someone’s livelihood—and that they know they will have the resources to be supported. With that, I will allow more contributions from other members of the Opposition, and the Minister.

Thank you. Just to inform the House to the point of the Hon Kieran McAnulty: I was right, but in terms of—

Hon Members: Ha, ha! Good on you!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ve got to own something, guys. But, for further clarification, may I draw members’ attention to Standing Orders 124 through to 130. There’s a bit more detail in terms of the ability to speak to further amendments. The way that it works, if there is an amendment that has been tabled: if you have spoken before, you can then speak to that new amendment—and there are a couple of other things.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity just to respond very briefly to the amendment that is on the Table, which I think deserves consideration to the extent that I feel the need to point out that the Government regards it as prudent to provide a notice that will be long enough, at least until such time as the industrial action takes place, and a bit longer.

The reason for additional time could well be—well, number one, I suppose if in unforeseen circumstances the industrial action were somehow prolonged, but actually even if not, then as a matter of practicality to allow a couple of weeks for rosters to be put on so that people know, from one day to the next, when they are going to be required to turn up and do their shifts, including overnight, at all hours of the day. Of course, we require our personnel to be on standby for accidents—God forbid—in terms of aircraft crashing, for example, or on security gates and so on, so a little bit of lead time is prudent to allow.

Of course, I also just finally add the obvious point that the notice can be cancelled at any time, so we’re very hopeful that the matter will be able to be resolved not only before 14 February but also before 30 or 31 January, and, indeed, as soon as possible. As I said at the start, I’m very confident that the Chief of Defence Force and his team will work constructively in good faith. No doubt, the Public Service Association and their respective members will too, and we wish all parties the best to reach a satisfactory resolution as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, thank you, and thanks to the Associate Minister of Defence for that contribution. I really enjoy and value his plain-spoken presentations in the House. We’re here today debating this motion because 1,000 civilian defence force staff will go on strike because of their zero percent pay offer from the New Zealand Defence Force. This motion is to enable an extension to authorisations for orders made by the Minister of Defence to replace the striking uniformed civilian staff with uniformed staff. This includes for important roles to do with health and safety, such as aircraft rescue and firefighters and security staff at bases. No one is doubting the importance of that work.

We might cast wider when we think, “Well, why are we really here?” As my colleague Camilla Belich has noted, we are here because there was a zero percent pay offer to those civilian defence staff this year at a time when members of the Government have been declaring widely that there has been a cost of living crisis. Well, surely those hard-working people fulfilling these essential functions are also entitled to have their wages keep up with inflation. The Labour Party supports the rights of workers to be able to take a strike, to be able to work with their unions, and to have their employer—even if it is the New Zealand Defence Force—come to the table to negotiate with them and to constructively resolve this dispute.

I want to reflect on the comments made by the Minister in relation to the earlier motion yesterday. At that stage, the Minister—I appreciate it was Minister Collins—made comments which I’ll paraphrase as not letting these important functions go unstaffed, such as fire crews and security. Well, that is actually not the choice that is before the Government. The choice before the Government was how much to fund the defence force in the first place. The choices that this Government made were made in Budget 2024-25 when they set the funding envelope for the defence force in the context of a Budget that had marked cuts to public services across all votes, but defence was not exempt. The defence budget—total Vote Defence—was $4.949 billion for this financial year, which was a $308 million reduction on the budget for the preceding year. That is why the defence force is in the situation it is in. That is why the staff have been offered a zero percent pay increase in the context of recent inflationary pressure. That is why the defence force is also undergoing 200 voluntary redundancies.

It is the choices this Government has made when it promised tax cuts to landlords, tax cuts to tobacco companies, and set commitments about their Budget prior to the election that did not add up. As a result, public servants of all sorts, including those civilian members of our defence force, are unable to get the pay they deserve. It is easy to get into the weeds of how on earth this piece of rarely used legislation is being invoked in this particular instance. I am lucky to have skilled employment lawyers in my caucus who can take the Government to task on that, but I am not one of those. I just want to reflect on the fact that it is the overall funding environment that has created such a limited set of choices for the defence force and they cannot treat their staff as well as I am sure defence leadership aspires to.

It has been a tough time for public servants across the Public Service, defence, and elsewhere. They have often heard their service—their essential service to our country—reflected as being mere bureaucrats. That is not OK. It is not OK to malign these people who serve our public. In this debate, we’re not talking about the uniformed members of the armed forces; we’re talking about the civilians who help them do their job every day, but they are just as important. They are just as important to the efforts to recover the Manawanui. They are just as important to the pilots being able to fly the planes safely, to know that they can have a safe landing with fire crew at the other end, but this Government has demonised public servants. They have just used that demonisation to justify large-scale cuts of the Public Service. Defence is only one of many agencies having 6 percent cuts across the board. This has caused multiple impacts for the services themselves. We see that this type of trajectory for our public services is one that happens across the board.

I’ve looked at the Budget documents while preparing for this debate, and you see annual increases to the combined operational expenditure and capital expenditure defence budget under the last Government, and then they all step down, going down from here. That is the impact of the Budget that this Government sitting across from me passed. These consequences—strikes from people running our essential services—are the consequences of that Government’s decisions. This will happen over and over and over again. It is unusual that we have to debate it in the House because of the legislation that is being invoked, but it is just one of many examples about how our public services are being taken backwards by this Government. We hear about it in health, where we know that voluntary redundancies are removing vital support staff from across services. We hear about it in education, where many of the back-office staff are being removed there. The idea that these sorts of cuts—6 percent cuts—cannot impact the front line is absolutely wrong.

What’s happening to the front line under this motion? Well, the defence force was probably where the very definition of the idea of a front line came from. The front line is being pulled into doing other jobs. They’re being pulled into doing jobs that non-uniformed staff usually do. We are reducing and hampering the front line, when there are many demands on their time, because of this Government’s cost-cutting agenda.

Tim Costley: Like isolation hotels, for example?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, I just welcome the member who has so much to say about this to come over here and run a response to a national emergency, and then can lecture me about what to do in that situation. When you’ve saved 20,000 lives in a health emergency, come and tell me how to run a Government.

This Government will want to take cheap shots again and again, because fundamentally they are unwilling to face up to the consequences of the Budget that they passed—the Budget that never added up before the election and the Budget that now will have multiple consequences as years go on. We see it regularly in this city. We see it in the number of our young people leaving. We see it in the fact that many people have lost their jobs. And we see it in the fact that even those who do have their jobs feel so insecure precisely because of events like this—voluntary redundancies, zero pay offers—that they don’t have any money to spend. The knock-on effects are that other businesses are going out of business. The Wellington hospitality sector is struggling, retail is struggling; all of this because of the decisions that Government has made in its Budget. It does mean that over time we are facing an erosion of public services. Bit by bit, things are being nibbled away—whereas we made progress. We managed to invest in new aircraft for our defence.

We see under this Government again and again the rug is pulled out from public services that New Zealanders need and depend on. Overall, both the capital expenditure and the operational expenditure goes backwards. We end up in a situation where we have industrial action like this. These are the consequences of that Government’s poor choice.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, I was motivated to make a contribution and draft an amendment to this after the Associate Minister of Defence’s response. I find the Associate Minister to be a reasonable man and indeed it was a reasonable response, but it did make me wonder: what is the purpose of this extension? This is a very rare thing for Parliament to consider, and not only is it rare to consider an extension, I’m not aware of an example where an extension is sought that goes for so long. The provisions available to the Minister of Defence in the Defence Act allow her to make a decision to authorise properly trained defence personnel to do a particular task for 14 days—two weeks—and anything beyond that, the Minister is required to come to the House and that’s why we are here today.

Now, there’s a reason that 14 days was the original number, because this is an extraordinary measure for a Minister to move and so it was deliberately restricted to a fortnight. What we are being asked to do is to support an extension motion for the exact same reasons that were given yesterday by the Minister, but all the way out to 14 February. Nothing given today is any different to the reasons given yesterday. Those reasons were to justify 14 days; we would have expected something more compelling to justify all the way up to 14 February.

If Parliament has risen for the Christmas period and an emergency arises, the Minister has a provision to go through the Governor-General to seek these powers, but whilst Parliament is sitting, the Minister requires the support of Parliament to be able to do this. But why all the way out to 14 February? The Associate Minister, in response to the amendment moved by Camilla Belich, says that, for practical reasons, the Government would like these extraordinary powers to be available until the industrial action is concluded, with a little bit of wriggle room at the end to allow for logistics and shift changes, etc.—fine—but at the heart of this is an industrial disagreement and there’s industrial action in play. There are negotiations under way between the civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence. Both parties are required to act in good faith. How is it good faith for this Parliament to send a message to those workers that they shouldn’t expect a resolution until at least 14 February?

Now, that’s not good faith. If the Government is determined to negotiate in this industrial action in good faith, it certainly shouldn’t be asking for extraordinary powers all the way through to halfway through February next year—beyond new year’s, beyond Rātana, and beyond Waitangi Day. There are a lot of things that are going to happen in people’s lives between now and 14 February—Christmas being one. These workers who are entering into industrial action in good faith, in the hope of being able to settle this before Christmas, are being sent a message today by this motion. It is saying, “You should expect to go through Christmas and New Year’s with uncertainty hanging over the wages and conditions that you are working under.”, and I think that’s wrong.

The other reason that I wish to propose an amendment is that in passing this, Parliament would be accepting the implication that the Government is giving—that there is no need for further debate. If the Defence Act only gives the Minister the power for 14 days, there’s a good reason for that. It is because any extension beyond that needs to be justified at every step. I think this is an overreach. I think that for the purposes of potentially undermining the bargaining but also definitely restricting the opportunity of Parliament to have a debate on this matter, the Minister is pushing it out to 14 February. Why couldn’t we apply the same rationale and approve an extension of 14 days, exactly the same amount that the Minister has available to her under the Defence Act, and then come back to Parliament and justify it?

Hon Chris Penk: We’re not sitting that week or the one after that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The answer is that we’re not sitting that week, which is exactly why I’m not proposing that. What I am proposing is, in a practical way, a month. A month would be a Saturday. I’ll get in front of the Minister and say that I’m not proposing that either, but I am proposing the following Tuesday—the first opportunity that Parliament will have after a month from this date, assuming that it gets passed, and, to be honest, the quality of the contributions suggests that there is a lot that people want to have a say about on this, so it might not. A month from today, until the next Tuesday—that happens to be the last sitting week of this sitting calendar year.

Now, the Government hasn’t confirmed this, but chances are Parliament’s going to knock off on Wednesday, 18 December of that week. They’ve pretty much confirmed it at the Business Committee, or at least we figured it out and Simeon Brown didn’t deny it and that’s good enough for me. The 18th December is likely to be the last sitting day, so what I’m proposing is, That we amend this extension motion to replace “14 February 2025” with “17 December 2024”. I’ll be tabling that at the conclusion of my contribution. That’s twice the amount of time that the Minister has available to her in the Act. It’s allowing the extension that the Government is proposing, but it doesn’t go all the way—almost two months later. This motion proposes 14 February; I’m proposing 17 December.

What that will mean is if the Minister does wish for a further extension, she can come to Parliament and explain why and can justify it, and, in doing so, potentially give an update as to the negotiations and the industrial action where appropriate, because the House deserves to know. At the heart of this are workers who are facing a zero percent pay rise. Now, I don’t intend to go into those reasons—others may wish to and others already have, and I’m sure there’s many reasons they haven’t been touched on—but the fact is that is why they are striking, and the Labour Party will always support their right to do so.

There’s an expectation that both parties act in good faith. I don’t believe that the Ministry of Defence can act in good faith if this Parliament sends them a message that they actually don’t need to engage with the union or engage with the workers until next year: “Well, it’s a busy time of year. We’re coming up to December. Everyone’s got a lot on. We’ve got a lot on our plate. We’re thinking about other things.” I’m sure the Ministry of Defence, given the current circumstances around the world, has a lot to think about at the moment, and it would be very convenient for them to just leave this until next year when everyone has a break and comes back. This actually suggests to them that they can do that.

Where does that leave the workers? They’re already facing zero percent—facing the cost of living, dealing with zero percent pay increases, with rates, with insurance, with rent all going up at record levels. That is not a pleasant prospect to face heading into Christmas and New Year’s. As a message to the Ministry of Defence and a message to those workers, if we amend this today to 17 December, it’ll say, “You keep negotiating; we will revisit this. Ideally, by 17 December, before Christmas, you would have resolved this and there’ll be no need for an extension.” I think it sends the wrong message and, frankly, I think the Minister deserves to justify any extension.

It’s a pretty simple proposal; a pretty simple amendment. I’m not wanting to fiddle around with the justifications as outlined—the three bullet points in the motion—it’s simply to change “14 February 2025” to “17 December 2024”. I’d be very interested to hear why the Government wouldn’t support that. What could possibly be wrong with coming back to Parliament on the last sitting week of the year for, say, an hour, an hour-and-a-half , or two-hour debate to justify why they need to extend it further?

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following that contribution from my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty, which differs slightly from the amendment that I had put up, I think it is incumbent on me to make some comments about his amendment that he has made, which does make a lot of sense to me.

I think that it’s really important to remember, when we talk about the fact that there are uniformed personnel from the defence force being seconded into work to cover striking workers, how fundamental the right to take industrial action is and where that comes from. When—

Hon Chris Penk: Uniformed personnel don’t have it.

CAMILLA BELICH: When there is a—well, we’re talking about civilian staff having the right to take industrial action. And that right to strike comes from the right of freedom of association.

The International Labour Organization, which New Zealand participates in, has ratified many, many different conventions on this; and a lot of our domestic legislation, including the Employment Relations Act, recognises the right of freedom of association and sees the right to strike as a corollary to the right of the freedom of association. Because of this, when using these extreme powers—which does impact on the industrial action of the civilian defence force who are permitted to take industrial action—there are significant limitations on it, and that is why I support the amendment put forward by my colleague Kieran McAnulty. I think that it is fair enough that, when we have a piece of legislation decided on by this Parliament which puts such restrictions on the utilisation of uniformed officers to take over the work of striking workers, we need to respect that.

I mean, if you read the piece of legislation; if you read the Defence Act 1990, if you look at section 9, you will see how seriously the Parliament who passed this Act took this exceptional power. The reason that they put in the 14 days is, I think, reflective of how serious they thought utilisation of this power is. I do support the amendment of my colleague Kieran McAnulty, but I also have a slightly different amendment which I think could go alongside his amendment and would assist with making sure that there was accountability to this House. The amendment that I want to move, Mr Speaker, is that after on the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for clarity, Standing Order 130: “A member who has moved … amendment may not move a further amendment”. A member who has moved an amendment may not move a further amendment to the same question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s OK; Glen will do it.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, that is OK. Glen will do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was not my understanding of the procedures, but I’m happy to take your guidance from it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’m here to help.

CAMILLA BELICH: I think the point stands that I would encourage my colleagues to put forward this amendment. If it can’t be in my name, then hopefully another honourable member will put it forward.

I do consider that this amendment that I would speak to—that I think would complement Mr McAnulty’s amendment, which I am speaking to—would assist the House in that it requires the Minister to report to the House every two weeks on the status of the resolution of the industrial action. Now, I actually think that is a very minor requirement in line with the spirit of section 9, and so I would encourage other colleagues to recognise that that is an important power.

In terms of Mr McAnulty’s contribution and amendment, though, I do think that we haven’t been provided with—as he’s said—the additional reasons as to why such a significant extension would be given without the requirement on the Minister of Defence to come back and report to the House. The Minister provided an explanation to Parliament, as she was required to do, yesterday in the House, and she talked about the important work that the New Zealand Defence Force does and she talked about why it was important to have people covering important work for safety reasons, like the firefighters at airbases. She made a good point that you wouldn’t ever expect to be in a civilian aeroplane and not have those emergency firefighting rescue services available, even at a domestic airport, and you certainly shouldn’t expect that either at a defence airport or, in fact, at any place where aeroplanes are landing because this is one of the health and safety requirements.

I do a lot of work on health and safety and a lot of consideration, as I know you do, Mr Assistant Speaker Tuiono—but I’m not wanting to bring you into this debate—and health and safety is incredibly important. We’re not arguing about that here, and I hope that the Minister and those opposite will reflect on the fact that that is not the basis and the thrust of our amendments and our contributions today.

We do not begrudge the Minister taking responsible decisions in terms of health and safety—that is, of course, important—but the Minister must also recognise the reason that we are in this particular situation, which is to do with the fact that the defence force and the Ministry of Defence are not in a position to pay their civilian workforce an adequate amount to account for their work and to account for the fact that they have had a number of significant costs in terms of the cost of living in recent times. That is the true reason for this. We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be adequate health and safety measures in place to ensure the safety of individuals—that is, of course, essential—but let’s try and resolve this matter, and the way to resolve this matter is through resolving the industrial action that is being undertaken by these members.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, we must recognise the spirit and the intent of the legislation which we’re working under: the Defence Act 1990. I know that the Associate Minister of Defence will be very keen to refresh his memory around how important and how particular this piece of legislation is, and it doesn’t take the right of undermining the industrial action, which I think it’s fair to say that utilising additional labour to mitigate the impact of a strike is. It means that there has to be a review within 14 days. I think that is an effective period of time because you can get a lot of negotiating done  in 14 days, and that is an appropriate time for there to be an update to the House and for the Minister to come back to the House and extend, if needed.

Of course we all want this industrial action to be resolved amicably to the satisfaction of both parties as soon as we possibly can. However, we’re in a situation now where the Associate Minister has put on the table an extension until 14 February. We have put forward two reasonable, sensible, practical amendments which allow for the health and safety of the personnel involved, and also to recognise the fact that there must be accountability to the House.

I do support my colleague Kieran McAnulty’s amendment. I also do think that if the Minister is not minded to support Mr McAnulty’s amendment, there should be some accountability to this House. I would be interested to know, if the Minister’s view is not to accept the amendment and the Government’s view is not to vote for it—and, obviously, they have a majority in this House and they can determine that. Why, within the spirit of this Act—which was so carefully pored over by a Parliament in the past that required accountability—would he not agree to additional reporting by the Minister to make sure that there is a spotlight on the parties to actually resolve this dispute and get everyone back to work, which is what I think we all want.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take this call. I’d like to elaborate a little bit on the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Camilla Belich. In her comments, she talked a little bit about some of the reasons why the defence force was facing quite significant pressure and why they were perhaps having trouble settling. She mentioned the cost of living crisis, which is no doubt an important factor, but she neglected to mention two key Government initiatives that have been passed recently, which I believe are quite significant contributors to, I guess, the reason why we’re having this debate in the first place. Those two things are the baseline savings target exercise which all Government departments were required to meet—all Government departments made cuts between, I believe, 5 to 7.5 percent, and that included the Ministry of Defence—and the Government Workforce Policy Statement.

I’ll go through why the baseline savings targets led to these cuts. Obviously, we heard the Minister of Defence speak yesterday about how the funding for the Ministry of Defence had been increased by $571 million, and, look, we have to recognise that that is a significant increase in the context of this. We have to wonder, why is it, in the context of such large budget increases, that the Ministry of Defence is having such trouble actually negotiating for this pay? It seems like, if your department has just gotten a nearly $600 million increase, you shouldn’t be offering zero-dollar pay increases to your civilian staff.

Let’s actually break down what that announcement was for—the $571 million—because I think it’s important to illuminate. I did wonder how it is the case that a Government department that just got nearly $600 million can have such trouble actually paying workers what they’re worth. We’ve heard, and I recognise the contributions of the Associate Minister of Defence and members across the House, about how important these striking civilian workers are and what valuable roles they play across the defence industry, and the fact that we are debating this motion in the first place and the fact that they’re even being replaced by the military in the first place speaks to quite literally how—well, I was going to say irreplaceable, but they’re being replaced—critical the roles are.

Of this $571 million increase, $163 million would go to improving remuneration for the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and $408 million to upgrading equipment and infrastructure. All important things—all things that are important for meeting the capability of the defence force—but the issue is that the $163 million increase for remuneration was for uniformed personnel only; I guess that’s the key distinction here. The reason why the defence force is actually having trouble meeting the needs of the civilian workers who are striking is because the funding increase which was tagged to remuneration was for uniformed personnel in the first place. Nobody on this side of the House is saying that they shouldn’t have gotten those pay increases, that they shouldn’t have gotten $163 million to boost remuneration for them, but the issue is that this was not the case for the civilian workers.

In fact, if we’ve looked at what the civilian workers have had to go through—and I’m referring to I know (a) that was proactively released was they had to make cuts under the baseline savings targets, the non-uniform personnel. That was cuts of $7.5 million, so that affected the civilian personnel.

Another facet of that is that while the baseline savings target was imposed on the defence force, that meant that the people running your defence force had to come under pressure to actually find how to meet that savings target. I think because they’re incentivised to be a little bit more aggressive on how they perhaps conduct these negotiations, they might have gotten a little bit overzealous. I think we would agree that literally a zero percent increase in your wages, particularly at a time when there’s been such cost of living pressures, is actually being quite aggressive.

This is why us in the Greens will be supporting the amendments that our colleagues and comrades in the Labour Party have put forward. We do need to make sure that we’re actually putting a little bit of pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually settle these claims and settle them in a fair way. The issue with the current time line is that they are quite far into the future, so it doesn’t create any incentives. In fact, all the incentives are for them not to settle.

I alluded to one of the things that I wanted to speak to earlier was the Government Workforce Policy Statement. Now, the Government Workforce Policy Statement that the public services Minister, the Hon Nicola Willis, published earlier this year—I think it was in August—said that remuneration had to be met within baseline. Because remuneration has to be met within baseline—there’s no additional funding—that means that in the context of the baseline, which was already reduced by the baseline savings targets, that the people running defence have to choose between paying workers what they’re worth and also upgrading the other operational aspects of defence and the other things that defence needs.

That’s not a context that’s isolated in defence only—the Government Workforce Policy Statement does apply across the wider public sector and we have to acknowledge that context—but acknowledging and actually knowing the wider context doesn’t actually mean that we actually need to support this action, even though the same level of cuts being imposed on defence are being imposed across the wider public sector, that doesn’t mean that they’re right or good.

The Government Workforce Policy Statement means that because they’re having to compete between different funding priorities that this is putting great, great pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually have to pick and choose. I think that is something that we, as a House, should be very careful about because when you allow the military to replace striking workers for any reason—and, you know, as my colleague Camilla Belich spoke of earlier, we take no issue with the valid health and safety reasons why striking workers might need to be replaced.

If the Government is doing it in order to alleviate pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually negotiate a fair settlement for the workers, because of the funding freeze that they’ve essentially created, then that’s something that is not a good justification for this Government notice of motion. This is why we in the Greens will be supporting the motion to cut the length of time, and this is why we in the Greens will also be advocating for wider policy solutions so that the actual cause of this motion—which is the fact that the wider Public Service and, well, more specifically, defence and, more specifically, I guess, the civilian component of the Ministry of Defence has been gutted of funding—then we need to actually overcome these barriers.

Otherwise, we’re just going to be sitting here in maybe—well, I think the original motion was meant to be 14—we’re going to be sitting here again on 14 February with the Ministry of Defence again asking for this motion to be extended. Because if we’re not dealing with the fundamental issues, then we’re just going to be going around in circles again. As to avoid going around in circles with my contribution, Mr Speaker, I’ll take a seat now. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Tim Costley: Point of order. I just wonder, for my clarity, if you could help me to understand. With respect to Standing Orders 124 through 130, I understand that each member can speak once, and if they have already spoken once, which some of these haven’t, they can speak again after an amendment is made. I just wonder, at what point, given the content of the contributions, is the same argument—and there appears to be, perhaps, a lot of repetition more targeted on the resolution of industrial disputes and funding, not the use of defence force personnel under section 9 of the Act, which is indeed the question. I just wonder if you could provide some guidance as to where that balance lies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, so, with the Standing Orders, members who haven’t spoken are able to participate in the debate. I do note that Glen Bennett has yet to speak in this debate and possibly he might be proposing a new amendment, but I guess I make the reflection that, if people that have spoken previously want to take further calls on new amendments, which they are entirely allowed to do under Standing Orders, it would assist the House if those further comments were focused specifically on those amendments, appreciating some of the general comments that members have made previously.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker, point of order. I’m concerned about what just played out there. It is very unruly for a member to move a closure motion to be ruled on and then do a point of order questioning the decision of the Chair. Now, it was very respectful and very calm, but that, in effect, is exactly what happened and you, as Chair, should not have to deal with that. If you look at what was proposed to you then, it was proposed immediately after you rose on a closure motion that in that member’s view, there was grounds for that, but that was dealt with by you deciding to seek another call, and I don’t believe you should have had to put up with that questioning of your ruling.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, thank you for that, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Tom Rutherford: Just speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I do want to move this debate on, so I do want this to be specific.

Tom Rutherford: I’m happy for you to move it on.

GLEN BENNETT: Mr Speaker, have I got a deal for you: I am bringing you content to this conversation as the member who tried to comment on this. I do actually want to focus specifically on the defence force and the fact that this is unprecedented in many ways in terms of this decision that’s being made today. I am in a bit of a dilemma as well, and I do want to briefly comment on some of the dates, which I will move quickly on from because I know it has already been traversed. I’m in a bit of a predicament, a bit of a quandary, because I have my friend and colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty proposing a date; I also have my good friend and colleague Camilla Belich proposing another date. I had considered a separate date yet again, but I think I will move on from that because it is important for us to prosecute the challenges we’re facing and the time line.

I will come back to that, but I really want to comment on the defence force and the use of the defence force in the history of New Zealand in terms of when they have actually engaged, in terms of stepping up because of industrial action. The piece of legislation that we are referring to in the motion is, obviously, the Defence Act 1990. Camilla Belich already spoke of two incidences, or situations, in 1996 and in 2001 where the defence force was brought in. I guess it’s extraordinary circumstances and that’s why we need to take time to consider it.

I was reflecting on the fact that this is a very rare occurrence—a very rare occurrence. The Great Strike was in 1913. Of course, it was huge for New Zealand in terms of the labour movement and, I guess, the trajectory to where we are today in terms workers’ rights. It was a very important time in New Zealand history; it was a very fraught time. Obviously, we were close to some geopolitical issues—we were on the cusp of World War I. Between 1913 and 1914, there was major strike action around Aotearoa New Zealand. That was the first time that I can recall—not that I was there, but the first time I can recall in terms of my history lessons—when the New Zealand Defence Force was actually brought in to actually deal with things like transportation, things even like waste, etc., and the movement of people and that type of thing. That was 1913. That was, as far as I know, the first time the defence force actually was used in this capacity.

Camilla Belich: Although they were volunteers.

GLEN BENNETT: As we said, although they were volunteers. Of course, there were also the special constables in that—just a fun fact for everyone—I think they were called “Massey’s Cossacks”, who came in and who, again, weren’t paid. It very much was around the fact that we were trying to keep the country operating, which I understand is what the Government was wanting to do, but the fact is that the defence force and the special constables, Massey’s Cossacks, were there to do it.

Well, that was 1913, and then nothing happens for a long time until 1951. We all know of—hopefully, if we did learn a bit of history at school—the great waterfront dispute, which was an appalling time in New Zealand history.

Hon Chris Penk: It’s getting very far from the motion, man.

GLEN BENNETT: But in terms of—no; one of your colleagues, Minister, was asking me to come back to the defence force and talk about that, so I thought I would reflect on that just to understand that they’re actually unusual and extraordinary circumstances when they are used.

Then we look and we come along, and there was 1979, in terms of transportation. Then, because we’ve talked about firefighters and that type of thing, 1981 was around traffic control. Again, this is where we understand that the defence force plays a key role in terms of the operations and the skills that they bring.

I want to propose an amendment. I want to step aside from the dates and look at amendment—so we look at what the Minister of Defence has here and we look at the third bullet point, which says, “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at” specified camps and bases, it continues.

I would like to move an amendment in my name, That after the words “camps and bases” the following words are added: “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.”

The reason I propose that that be added is, again, around transparency. I don’t know if the word “pressure” is the word I want to use but it puts it firmly in the camp of the Minister to ensure that the work that is being done to negotiate with the civilian staff—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can we get a copy of that?

GLEN BENNETT: Yes, I can provide it here, Mr Speaker. The reason is not only for the Minister to account to this House to make sure that progress is being made but also it is, I would hope, around allowing for the public to know what is actually progressing in terms of this space.

I want to ensure that all avenues have been exhausted before we actually come to this point. It was in July that negotiations began, and it’s been several months now. Having that added into that third bullet point, I think, just allows clarity not only for us to hold the Government to account in terms of progress being made but so that the public is fully informed of what is happening.

There has been a zero percent pay offer. It is taking time, and I think we really need to consider how we come to a place of solution. I’m just coming back to my initial thoughts on my colleagues and their amendments around the dates. I fully hear what the Hon Kieran McAnulty is saying about something before Christmas, and I think that really honours the staff and says, “Look, we are committed to working towards a solution before Christmas.” I think the amendment I am moving is far more significant because we haven’t traversed any dates.

I had considered putting in “28 January 2025” as the day, and the reason I was thinking of that, just so you know, was that it is our first sitting day back in 2025. I thought it would be a good line in the sand, but also we hear the narrative that this Government is a hard-working Government and they work through Christmas and New Year, so we come to the House early, back in January, and we’re all here. Of course, we have a recess the week after and we don’t actually have a full three-week sitting block until the end of March. But that’s beside the point. It kind of strays away from this motion.

I hope the clerks will give me some advice on the wording. I hope that the wording is correct and appropriate. I really do believe we should support the Minister in terms of getting this right. It does also put pressure on her to ensure that she is reporting back to the House, that she is ensuring transparency. We know that there has been some criticisms, and we on this side of the House have criticised some of those things. We felt that, potentially, transparency has been degraded slightly. We were speaking yesterday on the fast-track bill and our concerns on that. This is making sure we shine light in that space and making sure that the Minister is in a place where she can work her way through and keep us, as a House, notified. Of course, what that means is it keeps the public notified.

I caution the Government to seriously consider the issues of 1913 and the issues of 1951, the issues of 1979, or 1981. Are those issues that are etched in the memory of New Zealand’s history—are we in that pivotal moment? Or is this just something that they’re doing because they haven’t really given it the time, haven’t given it the effort, and really haven’t looked at the funding structure so they can do right by the civilians in the New Zealand Defence Force who do an amazing job, not only for our security here but in serving in peacekeeping throughout the world.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Before I take the next call, I do want specific contributions on the amendments. That would be very helpful for the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker, thank you. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this Government notice of motion No. 1. I concur with the comments that have been made around this being a very unusual step to take. I mean, it is one that is obviously permitted with the legislation, so there’s no issue there, but it is—well, it’s not unusual; it is very rarely enacted. I understand the last time that it was enacted was back in 2001, so it means that this is not an issue or an item that has been placed before the Parliament on a frequent or regular basis.

This does come back to the position of the Government not having any financial resource or capacity to be able to deal with the zero-pay offer from the New Zealand Defence Force—

Hon Chris Penk: Oh, repetition, come on! This is half a dozen times, for God’s sake!

TANGI UTIKERE: —and that really is a matter for the Government. Now, I raise that because this has a direct implication on my constituents. My constituents of Palmerston North, as you know, sir, are individuals who are employed heavily within the defence force. When we’re talking about the financial position of the Government and the decisions that they take, I do not believe that anyone in this House has spoken about the impacts on the constituents of Palmerston North as a result of that Government’s choices in this particular space.

Hon Members: Ha!

TANGI UTIKERE: Now, members opposite might laugh about that, but I might need to remind them that a significant number of defence force personnel who will be undertaking this work fall within Palmerston North City—and I’m not just talking about those from Linton Military Camp; I am talking about those who, Mr Costley will be aware of, also are employed or work at Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Base Ōhakea. This does relate, actually, to the decisions that the Government have taken and the impact that this will have on my community in Te Papaioea.

Mr Speaker, I actually was reflecting on the amendments—and you’ve asked me to speak to the amendments, which I will specifically do. Mr McAnulty has identified a particular range of dates there. I think actually having that as the option of the last sitting date of this calendar year does make some sense, because it does allow for the Parliament to turn its mind to those particular issues, which are pretty important as well.

One of the things that hasn’t been addressed—and this might be something that the Associate Minister of Defence can respond to—is he’s identified that the strike notice ends on 31 January. The extension is sought through to 14 February, which in itself is questionable. Is he aware as to whether or not those involved would be, effectively, within the time period within which that ends and the extension ends—whether a lockout is going to be on the cards or undertaken? Now, that is not something that the House has been made aware of, in terms of that. It is important, because—

Hon Chris Penk: It’s a bad-faith suggestion.

TANGI UTIKERE: A bad-faith suggestion? OK, well, then I look forward to the Minister’s response around that, because there must be some movement perhaps that must be discussed, and maybe the Minister just wants to indicate that no, it’s not on the cards. There is a clear difference here between when the notice ends and when the extension period is sought to end as well.

Hon Chris Penk: I explained it earlier; you weren’t here.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Minister Penk. I intend to move an amendment that doesn’t relate to dates, actually, and it doesn’t relate to what Mr Bennett has referred to. The reason why I’m going to move this amendment is that the original order that was issued by Minister Collins on 5 November had an annex appended to it, Annex A. It actually identified the specific list of defence force bases within that. That was not contained in the subsequent one in terms of the further extension notice.

My amendment seeks to just focus specifically on the third bullet point of the Government’s notice of motion—and I have a copy of it. I will move, That “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”—so that’s the final bullet point in the notice motion—be replaced with “authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at”, and then specify the individual locations. That is important because it was contained specifically in the 5 November documentation that the Minister issued—it didn’t appear anywhere else.

Now, there might be a question, “Well, you know, you don’t need to do that from the Government because we’re just referring to camps and bases.” If that is the case, why did the Minister of Defence specify that on 5 November? There is a bit of a mismatch there. To address that, I suggest that it be replaced with “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 Ōhakea, Linton Military Camp, Trentham Military Camp, Burnham Military Camp, RNZAF Base Woodbourne, and Headquarters, Joint Force New Zealand”. That is, basically, a lift and shift from the 5 November annex, Annex A. It is basically, effectively, introducing this into the notice of motion to provide a level of specificity around where this would apply. I reflect on that, and that’s why I think—well, you know, the folk of Linton and Ōhakea are constituents of Palmerston North, and, somewhat, the wider surrounds of course.

I think providing some clarity would be very important, and that’s why I’m prepared to move that amendment in my name. When we look at the actual relevant piece of legislation, which is the Defence Act, we know, Part 1, section 9(2)—it does indicate in that piece of governing legislation that the “authority shall specify the part or parts of the Armed Forces that may be used and the public service or public services that may be provided.” Now, the Government might be pursuing that, “No, no, that’s contained in the earlier notice of motion.”, but the question I have for the Minister is: why was that not effectively carried through to any of the documentation post 5 November, but also any of the documentation that currently is in front of the House in terms of the notice of motion?

This is, in terms of the exercise of this power, something that is not utilised very often at all, and so I think the proposed amendments—I’m sorry to my colleague Camilla Belich, but I do prefer Mr McAnulty’s amendment in terms of the date, just because it provides a little bit more timeliness. I think Mr Bennett has identified that issue of transparency—that this is a responsibility of this House and of this Parliament to effectively extend the Minister of Defence’s time frames and rights. On that basis, I commend this particular amendment to the House.

This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 November 2024.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.