Ministerial Statements — Defence Act 1990—Authorisations Made Under Section 9
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a ministerial statement about authorisations made under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990. The ministerial statement is made under Standing Order 364 in relation to the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. Section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 states that I, as Minister of Defence, need to inform the House that this authority has been given and why.
On 5 November, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) received an official notice from the New Zealand Public Service Association that strike action will take place from 6 November to 31 January. Security guard services and firefighting services are among the key areas impacted by the strike action. As a result, and to ensure our defence areas are kept secure and safe, I have authorised the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide security guard services at a number of NZDF sites, and for appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide aircraft rescue, firefighting service at Base Auckland.
It is in the public interest that security of defence areas can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure public safety and national security. Likewise, it is important that firefighting services are continued throughout the industrial dispute to ensure the preservation of life and the protection of infrastructure and assets. My approval of this matter was provided to the Chief of Defence Force on 5 November, and I have tabled those letters in the House.
The current industrial action dispute is an operational matter for the New Zealand Defence Force and I have full faith in the Chief of Defence Force and the wider New Zealand Defence Force leadership team to make the right decisions in the current fiscal environment. These are hard decisions and are not made lightly. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The New Zealand Labour Party supports the right of all private and public sector workers, including Defence Force civilian staff, to seek meaningful and reasonable pay increases. Civilian staff work in important roles, as the Minister of Defence has said, across our Defence Force, including for firefighting and security services for military bases and the likes of Defence House and Pipitea House.
Invoking section 9(2) of the Defence Act is unusual and should only occur in exceptional circumstances. In the opinion of the New Zealand Labour Party, the circumstances we are facing here today are of the Government’s making. They chose to underfund parts of the Defence budget, which resulted in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) offering nothing of substance to civilian workers. It will not surprise many New Zealanders that faced with an offer of zero increase, they chose to instead issue a strike notice. Rather than addressing the root cause of this strike by enabling the New Zealand Defence Force to make a realistic offer to civilian staff, the Minister has instead escalated this dispute by invoking section 9(2) of the Defence Act.
This must be worsening the capacity problem within the NZDF. The NZDF are down at least 1,200 staff and, of course, are dealing with the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui. Labour encourages the Government to financially support the NZDF to enable them to go back to the bargaining table with a real offer in order to avoid the long-term deployment of Defence Force members to tasks that are not part of their core roles.
I have a number of brief questions for the Minister, the first of which is: is it correct that the wage offer made prior to the strike notice was zero, and, if so, is the Minister able to inform the House of any prior instance of section 9(2) of the Defence Act having been utilised after a zero offer was made, leading to strike action?
Mr Speaker, thank you. I note the comments made by the Hon David Parker. The Defence Force was massively underfunded and massively under stress when we became the Government. We were able to secure, despite the very difficult fiscal circumstances, well over $450 million extra of operating costs in the Budget just passed. I am appalled that the former Minister does not understand what a shocking state we were left with.
What I can say is that the Defence Force has been able to cut the massive attrition rates it has had. It is clear that this is an industrial dispute. The Defence Force is taking full responsibility to be able to deal with this situation. I will never leave Defence to be defenceless, like that previous Government did.
Point of order, Mr Speaker. The structures surrounding ministerial statements are quite clear, and Speaker’s ruling 150/1 clearly states that a Minister’s responsibility when asked a question is to address that question. It is not an opportunity to make another speech or to make a political comment.
That is true, but that was a very politically motivated question, with all due respect, and I think it would be hard to say that the question was not addressed, given that it was funding that was mentioned straight up in the start of the question.
I ask again whether the Minister can inform the House as to whether there is any prior instance where this section has been used in the light of a strike notice after a zero percent wage offer.
Well, I’m not responsible for what that previous Government might have done with its resources or what was done under previous Ministers. What I can say is that I’ve been the Minister for a year and I have not had to use this power before, but I am certainly doing it now.
Has the Minister been advised by the Chief of Defence or the State Services Commission when the last wage increase was received by these workers and what the effect of inflation since has been in terms of their real wages?
No, I have not been informed of that, but I can say that I’m happy to say that after some excellent work done by the Minister of Finance, the inflation rate is dropping.
Are any of the roles that the New Zealand Defence Force will be filling vacancies or the consequence of voluntary redundancies, or are they all as a consequence of the strike notice?
Well, I don’t have the full details of who is on strike, but I can say that it’s hard for people to be on strike if they’ve already made themselves redundant. I’d expect that they will all be people who are currently employed by Defence Force doing valuable work, but it is work that needs to be done. Whether it’s by people who are civilians or it’s people in uniform, it will be done.
Supplementary—it’s probably not a supplementary, is it, sir? Another question to the Minister, if I may, sir, is: has the Minister sought any advice from the State Services Commission as to whether the negotiations with the civilian workforce are proceeding in a manner that the State Services Commission would have thought is normal?
No. It’s now the Public Service Commission and, no, this is an operational matter. I have full confidence in the Chief of the Defence Force and his leadership team. I expect them to get on with their job.
Is the Minister confident that she has followed all of the relevant provisions in the Employment Relations Act on when and how employers can replace striking workers when she invokes section 9(2) of the Defence Act?
Yes, I’m fully aware that we have followed the law. In fact, I’ve had advice on that and, as one would expect, I have read my advice and taken it on board.
Is she surprised that the workers issued a strike notice after a zero percent wage increase?
It’s not for me to be surprised or not. It’s simply a fact, and my job is to make sure that Defence is not left defenceless.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the comments from the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, in relation to just how extraordinary the circumstances we’re in are. Using armed forces for civilian functions is a significant decision and should not be taken lightly and it requires adequate scrutiny. As has been noted, we want to reflect and put this into context that this is coming from civilians that have been offered a pay cut, effectively, because if you’re offered a zero percent increase and you put that and match it with inflation, you’re, effectively, asking civilian staff to perform their same duties with less resources in real time, because of inflationary pressures on things like housing.
We echo the comments from the PSA—I note from Duane Leo, the national secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi—“The zero wage increase NZDF tabled in bargaining is insulting to all civilian workers, so our members are left with no choice but show the depth of their feelings by taking this action”. I think the life-saving and critical role that the civilian staff play has already been reflected in the Minister’s comment. She referred to how the civilian staff had a role in the preservation of life, and the fact that these workers have to be replaced by someone else shows the importance of the mahi that they do, particularly in responding to emergencies. I hope we can all value the work that civilian workers do but also understand why they would have taken this sort of action and why they feel so insulted in doing so.
I also want to contextualise that while the Minister may have noted that this is an operational issue, it cannot be separated from decisions that the executive has taken in terms of how they choose to resource Public Service entities, because, at the end of the day, those operational issues play out reflecting the austerity politics or otherwise that we’re seeing right now.
My first question to the Minister is whether she has sought any alternative solutions that did not include using armed forces personnel to cover the striking civilian defence workers. I’m asking relating to whether she has sought any advice or whether she considered any other options.
Well, thank you for the question. I’m pleased that the member’s clearly going to support any increase in the Defence budget. It’s really important that this work is done. We’re talking about firefighting around air crew. I’m not ever going to say, “Let’s get a few casuals in.”
It’s very important for people to understand and the House to understand that the New Zealand Defence Force has trained firefighters. Some people will be very aware that they actually assisted, recently, from Burnham Military Camp for the Port Hills fires. They are fully trained people, including at Linton as well. When it comes to security guards, I think that they can do that work very well.
The point is that we cannot simply not have these jobs undertaken; they are critical to the safety of the New Zealand Defence Force. Also, I’m not going to ever say, “Bring planes in without firefighters being there.” That would be totally irresponsible. Actually, this work has to be done. We’ve done what we can do and that is to be able to fill the roles with suitably qualified people who are otherwise in uniform. I note that there’s going to be unanimous support for any increases in the Defence budget from the House.
I’m just going to reflect on the answer and note that I think the Minister’s comments talk about the disconnect between how we value our public servant workers and then how they’re resourced. Just reflecting on those comments, I didn’t really feel like I got a question in, so I’m going to ask again and then ask my second question about whether she sought any alternative solutions and whether she was presented with options, and, if so, what were those options.
My second question is: what are the implications in regards to section 97 of the Employment Relations Act around performance of duties of striking or locked-out employees, in particular section 97(3)(c), which means that this is only permitted if employees agree to perform the work? How does this work for Defence Force personnel, who have limited ability to refuse orders?
Point of order. Sir, Speaker’s rulings 150/1-3 are very clear. This is an announcement that pertains to the security role that military personnel are playing. It’s got nothing to do with the ebb and flow of politics around the rights of workers, equity, and labour. That question should be ruled out of place.
Well, it’s not a question as such; it’s an exchange that’s permitted under Standing Orders between a Minister making a ministerial statement and those representatives of parties in the House who are seeking greater clarification of what is behind that statement. That is perfectly reasonable, but I do take your point that once you get into some of the extremely detailed aspects of the question that has just been asked, it does go a little bit beyond the purpose of the motion itself, but the Minister may choose to respond.
Thank you. Look, I’ll deal with the second question first, which was asking for a legal opinion. That’s not my role in this House. The member should ask somebody that he wishes to, but that’s not what I do here.
The first question was about advice. Well, of course, I have full advice from the Defence Force and they have their own legal team as well. This action is not taken lightly, but I cannot leave pilots bringing in planes and others unprotected should there be a need to have firefighters, and I cannot leave our bases un-crewed at the security gates because people are having morning tea or afternoon tea and are choosing when they take that. It is simply not acceptable. This is too important to be left to somebody hopefully coming back from morning tea break.
Is it her view that budgetary decisions have led us to this debate?
SPEAKER: Well, I think the problem you’ve got there is that if this is because of a budgetary decision, that would be an operational matter for Defence. You need to confine your questions to the ministerial statement, which is about the notices that have been issued as of today.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, that’s exactly what I’m asking—I’m asking whether previous—
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: say it more clearly. Don’t say it in a way that confuses poor souls like me. Make it very, very clear, please, that your question is directly related to the motion.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: What actions is she taking to ensure that we don’t find ourselves having to discuss this ministerial statement again?
Well, it’s an operational matter, of course, for the Chief of Defence Force. But I’d say, too, that I’m very pleased that at the last Budget—which the member did not support—Defence was able to get close to half a billion dollars for operational costs. Everybody understands that we live in a really difficult world and Defence cannot allow their bases to not have security at the gates or for their planes and others to operate without fire crew. We wouldn’t do it for civilian airplanes; why should we do it for Defence airplanes?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hadn’t intended to quiz the Minister on this, but as I sat and listened to the debate, I couldn’t help but wonder at Opposition members who, until recently, were part of a Government that put half the New Zealand Defence Force as de facto guards of hotel rooms for two years while the other half were lost to attrition, who drove Defence Force capability into the ground while inflation went through the roof and they crashed the economy, and are now trying to play politics out of this difficult circumstance. This Government, by putting half a billion into Defence this year, is doing everything it can to fix the problem. I wasn’t going to make a contribution, but that just came to my mind.
SPEAKER: I’m not actually sure there was a question—that was a contribution.
I found a question in there, and, of course, the answer is—
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what—[Interruption] Does the Minister now wish to make a reply to all the statements?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, yes, thank you—yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the contributions in the House. I also particularly liked that last contribution, I have to say—that was very apt. The point is that Governments, successive Governments, have asked Defence to do all sorts of jobs, some of which have not been to Defence’s liking. Whether it’s COVID hotels, managed isolation and quarantine hotels, or whether it’s occasionally something like a prison situation, Defence are there to defend this country and I am not, as the Minister of Defence, ever going to say I don’t care if there’s no fire crew when an Air Force plane is landing. I expect the same quality of service and the same rights that anyone else would expect when they’re flying in on a plane into Wellington out of Auckland.