Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

Members, the House in committee on the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. We come now to clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the “Title” clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to clause 1, there were a number of matters that were raised by my colleagues, and certainly this side of the House, with relation to, actually, what is the true intent behind this bill, looking towards whether or not this is simply just as it says on the tin, or something far more sinister; something that actually does detract from the rights of workers. Something more sinister than that actually goes towards looking towards using the New Zealand Defence Force in places where they’re probably not best suited to be used, yet leaving the door open, leaving the bill, naturally, grey enough to make sure that there’s wriggle room for this Government to shoot their needs.

I suggest, then, perhaps, that there could be a better title for this particular bill—something along the lines of “Denigrating Workers’ Rights Bill”. Something like that—that is very clear, it’s quite poignant, it makes out exactly what we believe on this side of the House this bill actually does. If we look towards the title, it seems innocuous in so far as it says it’s just a “(Workforce) Amendment Bill”, but, actually, what’s happening is more far reaching. It isn’t just the workforce in the Defence Force; it’s actually the workforce across the public sector. That’s where we believe that the name of this bill probably doesn’t match, actually, the intent of the Minister or this Government.

We would recommend—and I’m sure that there will be suggestions from others of my colleagues about how this might be better labelled so that those out in the public can understand at least some of the comments made from Government benches about what they believe Labour or the Green Party might think about this particular bill.

I will leave that one as a starter, just to make sure that those out in the public know exactly what it is that this bill does.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on this bill, in particular, looking at Clause 1, the title of the bill. I do take the points made by the Hon Peeni Henare that perhaps we should consider having a more accurate label on the tin. We look at the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, and, of course, as we heard throughout the discussions of the second reading debate, they were wide-ranging, and there were wide-ranging concerns and, of course, differences that were highlighted between civilian personnel and military personnel. The question is: how does this particular title encompass the differences between military personnel and civilian personnel?

I do make the point around some of those differences, as well, which I think should be more accurately featured in this title, but it doesn’t—that is, with civilian personnel you should have the right to strike. You should have all those abilities to do all the things that you do in civilian life in the same way that other public sector workers are able to do that, as well. It’s different if you’re working as military personnel: you sign up for a particular role, there’s a hierarchy—you can’t just get up and leave, because that’s deserting. You can’t do particular other issues, as well, that you could do within the civilian sphere, because that is what you sign up for and that’s understood and that’s appreciated.

I know that many people across the House, including myself, have relations that are in the Defence Force who have taken that role, have been recruited, and who understand what it is that they are doing, as well. But it is different in this bill, because this bill actually focuses on the civilian personnel. I think there is an argument that we should be having around whether the label on the tin is as accurate as it could be, because we look at it and we think, “Well, actually they must be all talking about the same workers. The workers that are military personnel must be the same as the workers that are civilian personnel.” That is clearly not the case.

I think it’s important to also highlight a number of questions that actually came up in the select committee around why there were so many civilian personnel. There’s around about 3,000; around about 1,000 of those are unionised. Is it a cost-cutting exercise that we’re actually bringing in civilian people to do what many of us would have assumed that military personnel would have done instead? Having that clarity, I think, right at the top in clause 1, as part of that label on the tin, would go some way to giving some clarity about what this bill is actually about—because those differences, as we learnt and as we explored in the select committee, are actually quite profound there. There are actually some differences there, as well.

I did mention that in round one of the submissions we heard that if you are in the military personnel, you don’t get to mouth off; you don’t get to do or say certain things, you just follow orders. But if those orders mean it is you taking roles and preventing a civilian colleague from being able to exercise their right and to actually strike in the fullest sense of the word, then I think that needs to be accurately described in the title.

I did take the point from the Hon Peeni Henare in his suggestion that the title be the “Denigrating Workforce Bill”—a bit harsh, but if he does put it down as an amendment, it’s probably something that we could probably support, as well. But I think it could be more accurate to describe it as the “Impacting Civilian Personnel (Workforce) Bill”. That might be, I don’t know, a nicer way to put it instead.

This opening debate on clause 1 is an important debate, because it sets the tone about what we’re actually talking about and having to make sure that we have those differences laid out. I don’t think those have been laid out very clearly in the title. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, which would help to, at first glance, when you look at this thing, be a lot more clear about what it is. We did hear a number of speeches from this side of the House around strikebreaking, the concerns from unions, and the concerns from workers, as well, while finding a way to be as respectful as possible to the military personnel. We’ve got to find ways to make sure that civilian personnel and military personnel could work together.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s nothing wrong with this title to the bill. It’s accurate and it doesn’t have all that emotional rubbish that I’ve just been listening to. I think it’s very important to understand that the Defence Force is somewhat different from what it was in 1990, when the original Act was first brought through. One of the differences is that there is a higher proportion of civilian staff now than what there was in 1990. What we’ve seen is a drop in the number of uniformed staff and that is because of the decisions over the last 35 years, particularly around civilianising parts of the Defence Force. Those decisions were made for reasons that, no doubt, seemed sensible at the time, but what it has done is that the Chief of Defence Force has fewer people who he can choose to deploy on overseas and other activities.

I take you back to the fact that the New Zealand Defence Force tries very hard to make sure that civilians and uniformed staff are treated in a decent and good manner and that they work together wherever possible. The point is that everyone brings something different to their roles—but it is important that the Chief of Defence Force has more say over where his people are deployed and what they’re doing, and to be able to make sure that he doesn’t have a situation as we had around this time last year when we were looking at the Christmas break in Parliament lifting for the year, with the possibility of the civilian staff, or the union that was representing them, the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA), deciding that they were going to lift the people who were guarding the armaments supplies.

That was something that, I felt, showed a real lack of appreciation by the PSA union: that they would leave armament supplies unguarded at a time when anyone could have gone in there—not only health and safety but national security issues. We do not live in a benign strategic environment. We do have people who, unfortunately, will steal those sorts of things. It is totally unacceptable. For the Chief of Defence Force to be powerless to actually put in uniformed staff over that Christmas period when Parliament had risen, and we couldn’t actually come back to get Parliament to vote again, was outrageously unacceptable and we’re not going to have it again. I want to make this really clear: mess around with our national security, you’re messing around with something that this Government takes very seriously, and we will take it seriously.

So the title is exactly as it as should be. It is clear, it’s unambiguous, and it deals with the fact that the Chief of Defence Force has to be able to look to his whole workforce and to use them the best that he can for national security reasons. Think, also, of the other work that the New Zealand Defence Force does around civil disasters that we have here, whether it’s volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, cyclones, and everything else. He’s got to be able to deploy people into those sites, in those areas, and he’s got to be able to have the uniformed staff, who are supported by the civilian staff, to help make that happen. It just doesn’t all happen overnight. It’s not just one person who does it; it’s a whole team. The workforce needs to be a team, and it’s incredibly important that we take a responsible situation.

The Chief of Defence Force would be the only employer in the country who has to come to Parliament to get permission to make decisions about who he has working somewhere. That is truly a difficult position—he’s about the only person who does. To have the Opposition that voted against all the attempts we had last year to give the Chief of Defence Force the powers to have his ammunition supply areas guarded, to have camps guarded, to take those measures—how dare they turn up tonight and say this is about workers’ rights. They put the country in this situation by not supporting the Government then; they’re not going to do it again.

Just before I take the next call, I just have to say it’s very difficult to insist on the Opposition keeping very narrowly to the point of the clause when the Minister, basically, gives a general debate speech. Just saying. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You’re spoiling my fun. I thought that the Minister of Defence gave a very emotional and heartfelt speech, and I was going to give the Minister a nice response to that. But I will stick very closely to the first clause, thank you, Chair.

In terms of what the Minister’s referring to, I think my colleague Teanau Tuiono has a good point in terms of whether the “workforce” is actually the best term to use in this case, because while we do see workforce happening if we see subsequent clauses, all of that is referring to “use of Armed Forces” in specific circumstances. I want to check with the Minister if she would consider my amendment, which is “Defence (Use of Armed Forces) Amendment Bill” which is more in line with the subheading and the crossheading of clauses 4 and 5 of this current legislation.

In terms of another potential amendment—and this is something that my colleague Teanau Tuiono hasn’t spoken on, is one of his amendments on the title, because as the Minister mentioned, the main reason that we’re bringing this bill into the House is around instances where there is a strike action. I also agree with the Minister that, when you are looking at why people are striking in the first place, the Government, as the Minister puts it, also has the ability and the responsibility to settle any sort of negotiating, etc., so, that way, staff don’t have to resort to strike. I’m sure the Minister is well aware of the fact that people will strike with a lot of processes and in extreme and dire circumstances where there are no other options remaining.

Finally, just to the Minister: considering that this bill is more about preventing or undermining, as some would say in the select committee stage, the ability for people to strike, I wonder if, quite appropriately, the Minister would consider the title by my colleague Teanau Tuiono, which is “Defence (Counterstrike) Amendment Bill”.

I’m concerned that the bill has a title which we look at and we actually simply can’t tell what the bill does. It’s not particularly descriptive of the bill’s activities, no matter which way we look at this. I appreciate that the Minister comes from a very different point of view from the Labour Party on this, but even the Minister must accept that the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill tells the public nothing. It doesn’t inform them.

We have here a bill that takes a group of workers who sign up to the military to do a job—and they are actually our bravest people—and they’re coming in on one basis, and their labour is being forced to be redirected in another direction. I’ve had several volunteers who have been in the military, and I think about their commitment to the values of the Labour Party. I think about their commitment to issues around industrial labour and striking, and it looks to me like, here, those very people would be forced to take up a role while another worker is striking. It’s not a military role; it’s a very different kind of role that they’re being forced into. They’re not defending the country, as such.

Now, I appreciate there’s also the issue of the extension of the powers not to bring this back to Parliament. I presume that’s why Parliament was there: it’s the check and balance, in a difficult situation—and I appreciate life is messy—but it’s a check and balance that this Parliament put in place because this is a difficult situation, because we sign up our young men and women to do military service, and we redirect them into something that they didn’t anticipate being part of. It does have a political impact, because if you are replacing civilian workers, that is a political act for many people. That is why you have heard such passion tonight, Minister—sorry, for the Minister’s benefit: that is why the Minister is getting such a passionate response from the Labour Party and the Green Party, because it goes against the values of a lot of the people on this side of the House to replace the work of someone who is legitimately using industrial tools, which are narrow anyway. They’re not something that they can do outside of the law; they are restricted enough as it is. It takes away the balance that’s already been built in.

I do wonder about this title, and I’d like a real answer on this: does the Minister really think that this title tells us what this bill does? Is there a possibility of coming up with something neutral? Now, I might not come up with something neutral. I might come up with something which actually talks about the forced labour of the military and forces them into civilian occupations. I might do that, but, actually, even if we pared it back emotionally, I do think there is a need to get the bill aligned with what it does, in terms of its title. I just simply don’t think it happens.

I’d like the Minister to assure me that she thinks this title—Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill—tells the public what it needs to know, and what does she have to say about the forced nature of the labour moving across into the civilian areas? What can I tell my young volunteers who are in the military and have signed up for the sake of their country? What do I tell them about their obligation to cross the picket line and do the work of a striking worker, given that they’ve joined the Labour Party because they believe that these principles are pretty important? Can they tell from this title what, actually, this bill is going to make them do when they sign up? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking on the “Title” clause, we’ve heard a number of impassioned speeches—one from the Minister of Defence, as well—so I’m not planning to use any emotion here, Minister, you’ll be pleased to hear.

But coming to this bill for the first time—it’s not one I’ve looked at before—I looked at it and thought, “Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; oh yeah, something about workforce.” But having listened to these debates, it does very much seem that this is about uniformed staff or armed forces doing the job of civilians—civil staff—when those civil staff are taking some strike action. I’m happy to be told by the Minister that my listening to the debate is wrong somehow, but I really think that something along those lines would be a much more accurate description of what this bill does.

We will look later, when we come to clause 5—which I’m very interested in—about this relationship to those strikes, with the reference to section 97 of the Employment Relations Act, which is all about striking. I would like the Minister to answer my question about whether or not she would consider some change, to really be clear about what this bill does. From listening to the Minister, and from those very, very brief speeches we heard in the second reading from Government members, it does seem that they’re very much in support of this bill and think that it’s very simple. We heard in the second reading that people who were disagreeing with the Government—we’re told that they are illiterate. So I want to help with the literacy of everybody in this House, and suggest that the Minister respond to me about why it is called the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, when it would be much better called the “Defence (Armed Forces Doing the Jobs of Civil Staff When Those Civil Staff are on Strike) Amendment Bill”.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Defence for her earlier response, because it did spark a question that I didn’t have in my head before. She spoke about the framing of the problem or the genesis of the problem being striking over the summer months when Parliament isn’t sitting.

I went back to the Defence Act and I’m just looking at section 9(8)(b), which I’ll read out. These are the exception provisions which say, “Any authority given under subsection (2)”—this is the one we’re amending—“or subsection (4)”—that’s an existing power relating to helping the Police—“shall lapse on the expiration of 14 days after the day on which it was given unless—(a) the House of Representatives passes a resolution”—we know that; we’ve talked about that. Subsection (b) says “or (b) if Parliament was dissolved or had expired before or after the authority was given and has not been summoned to meet before the authority would lapse, the Governor-General, being satisfied that it is necessary to extend the authority, extends it by Proclamation approved in Executive Council for such period as is specified in the Proclamation.”

Just so that we are all clear as we start this discussion as to what the problem statement is, it doesn’t feel to me like there’s an absence of power. There is a power there for those authorisations to continue over a summer period. The issue is how that happens, and perhaps it’s duration of time; perhaps it’s the burden of getting the Executive Council together at a short notice. Perhaps it’s certainty. I’m sure there may be some of those reasons that have factored into the Minister’s thought process in terms of the need for this, but I don’t necessarily see the need for the power.

Of course, the power is coupled with other things, including the extension of that period that it would apply to, so the 30 days instead of the 14. But it would seem to me that the power is already there, and so I’m very curious about the Minister’s rationale as to why that was not sufficient. I think the value of having a proclamation-type power is that it does hold the right to strike in high regard, and it feels like there would be a high-bar threshold to deciding whether it was warranted to continue that or not. However, that’s still precisely why we have proclamation powers in New Zealand.

Tim van de Molen: Which clause?

VANUSHI WALTERS: Section—it’s not in the bill; it’s in the original Act. You just need to go to the Defence Act 1990, section 9(8)(b). Section 9(8)(a), you’ll all be familiar with—section 9(8)(b) is the one I’m referring to.

The existing provisions only cover a situation where the House of Parliament was dissolved or expired. There’s no current provision for when the House is adjourned, and the bill addresses that.

The other question about the workforce amendment bill, and the title, which is what this debate is about: all those other suggestions seem, to me, completely out of line. The bill itself “introduces a new process for the Minister of Defence to authorise the Armed Forces to conduct the work of NZDF Civil Staff taking industrial action when there are reasonable grounds to believe that—an authorisation is needed to avoid prejudicing—national security; or the ability and/or readiness of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities that are integral to core defence outputs; or it is necessary for the work to be performed for reasons of [health and safety]”. So it’s not just people striking; it’s all these other things having to be in place.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the title replacing “Workforce” with “Use of Armed Forces” be agreed to.

Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to the title replacing “Workforce” with “Counter Strike” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.03 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)