Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

We now come to clause 5, the debate on new section 9A, use of armed forces to perform work of civil staff. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues, because this is an important matter. We’ll see just by the nature of the way the bill is that this is quite a chunky part of much of the reason why we can’t support this bill. The proposals here and much of the context and the speeches that have been given to date have talked about the threat to national security, the need to uphold national security, and matters around health and safety, and those are all things that I think everybody in this House will agree to. That’s the reason for the amendment tabled in my name that looks towards proposing tightening up this area. This is where I believe the greatest grey area section is.

In my amendment, what we’re asking is that the Minister of Defence makes it very clear that we be far more explicit in the description of what it is those roles are. We know what they are. In fact, a number of speeches in this House have already spoken to it, whether it’s the protection of ammunition depots or dumps, whether it’s the ability to make sure a ship or a vessel can go out to sea, etc. So what I take and what I glean from that is that the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) knows exactly what those roles are, so let’s make sure it’s clear and that there are no grey areas.

What I’m proposing in my amendment tabled in my name is new subsection 9A(3)(a), inserted by clause 5: “Any authorisation granted under section 9A must comply with the following limitations.”—a very key word there, limitations. “Armed forces personnel may only perform functions that are (a) essential to maintain the security of defence installations and restricted areas”—that make sense to me; it’s already been mentioned several times throughout the course of this bill—“(b) necessary for the maintenance and safety of weapons, munitions, and explosive stores”—another one that has been well traversed during speeches in this House—“(c) required for aircraft and naval vessel safety checks essential for operational readiness; and”—it answers the question about making sure whether or not we’re still able to deploy—“(d) urgently required to prevent imminent harm to health or safety.”

Health and safety is, of course, one of those important issues that I know this side of the House takes very seriously, so let’s put those into scope here. Let’s allow the Defence Force, under very clear legislation, to understand exactly what it is and the parameters with which they can use these powers.

Of course, the flip side to that is—and this is where I think this is another one of those grey areas that my good colleague Teanau Tuiono has raised on a number of occasions—then where else could the armed forces personnel be used? What I’m proposing in my amendment is that armed forces personnel must not perform—and I’ll be very clear, must not perform—(a) routine administrative, clerical, or non-critical maintenance duties or (b) work unrelated to national security or immediate health and safety.

Those are pretty straightforward. That clears up the grey areas that many of us have with respect to this particular clause to make sure that the scope of this bill actually allows the NZDF personnel to do exactly what it is that is required of them without some kind of loose terminology that says it is in the national interest. Well, this one sets it out a little bit more and makes it clearer, at least from the reckons on this side of the House. I wonder if the Minister—and that’s the first question I put to the Minister, if she would consider any parts of that amendment that allow us to remove those grey areas.

Also the other important side of it is to make sure that NZDF personnel aren’t simply being used for the sake of being used to backfill positions which aren’t in national security interests or health and safety matters. That will help a big issue that the unions raised when they brought matters not only to the Labour Party and the Green Party, but also in parts of their submission. This kind of carte blanche opportunity to use NZDF personnel anywhere and everywhere it sees fit can be removed by this simple amendment that I’m offering to this Government in a way to make sure that this bill is sharper and actually gets to the heart of what it is we’re trying to achieve here.

Mr Chair, thank you. It is a pretty simple amendment from the member the Hon Peeni Henare The point is, though, that it’s a very prescriptive approach which leaves very clear gaps. For example, there would be no basis to backfill roles to secure the security of sensitive information or equipment, nor to ensure essential military training with partners can continue. Exclusion of administrative roles would leave a gap. I don’t like that term “just administrative roles”; they’re actually very important roles. There could be a circumstance where those roles are actually critical to a core defence output. That’s why the bill’s requirements are around the impact of the industrial action, not the specific roles that are in or out. It would be unworkable to apply the member’s amendments in practice.

I would also say to the member: think back to COVID times with the work of the Defence Force then, our uniformed personnel then—all within accordance with what he’s saying—and the answer would have to be no. I’ve heard speeches from the Opposition saying the Defence Force do not sign up to these jobs. They didn’t sign up for security guard duty, either. They didn’t sign up to having to front, every day, the COVID discussions or, let’s say, sermons from the pulpit. They didn’t sign up to that either, particularly when they didn’t actually have the power to do the things they should have been able to do, instead giving that to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment staff. So I think it’s really important that we understand we don’t always know what’s going to happen, and that’s why it’s very specific about the effects of the industrial action, not who’s taking industrial action.

The other thing is, too, it does need to be in accordance with the rules under this amendment, and they are very strict rules. There’s no other employer in the country—that I can think of—that has to come to Parliament to say why they have to shift staff from one job to another; it’s really only the Chief of Defence Force. This is not for the benefit of the Government; this is actually for the benefit of the Defence Force and the Chief of Defence Force, who has the authority over thousands of people. But also, it’s not just that: it’s the requirement to do what is needed for the country. It’s not for the Government; it’s for the country.

I’m sure that people, when they think about this a bit more—administrative roles are not just administrative, they are important, otherwise they would not be there. We don’t have surplus funding to fund roles as “just” something; they are important. That’s why the Chief of Defence Force needs to be able to backfill those if needed in certain circumstances—not every day; not anything else; has to come, cap in hand, basically, to the Minister of Defence, who in this case is me, and say, “This is why I need it”, with legal advice, with the reasons for it, because it is a big step to take these steps. It’s a big thing to do, and we don’t do it just because we feel like it.

Also, just dealing with the fact that this preserves the right to strike. It is very clear there is the right to strike; there is a right to partial strikes. But the Chief of Defence Force has to also, in certain circumstances, have the power to backfill where that’s necessary. Otherwise, we end up with people—health and safety issues, obviously paramount; safety, security of the nation: paramount. The Chief of Defence Force needs to be able to do his or, in the future, her job. It is really important that they not be tied by the fact that this Parliament now wants to debate partial strikes. It’s nothing to do with partial strikes; it’s actually about giving the Chief of Defence Force the power to do his job.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a question in relation to new section 9A and particularly subsection (2). I would be interested in the Minister elucidating for us—what reassurance can she give us in terms of the ratio of military personnel who have the relevant qualifications, skills, and experience to fill those civilian roles, and what work has she done to be able to reassure the House that such is the case?

I think this is important because—even though I see the language in the clause in relation to the work needing to be done to not prejudice national security or “the ability or readiness (or both) of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities”, or when it is necessary for reasons of health and safety—there doesn’t seem to be a provision around also having those relevant skills, qualifications, and experience for those roles. I think, to me, that poses the question as to whether the backfilling of those roles will be performed at the very same level of competency as the civilian roles that may not be performed at the time due to industrial action, for example.

I think this is particularly important because, previously, one of the safeguards that we had was the sort of parliamentary debate that would be triggered earlier, and, in such a case, the Minister could have given a much earlier reassurance and explanation as to whether there are the adequate skills, qualifications, and experience to fill those roles. With the diminishing of those safeguards, now it becomes even less clear to parliamentarians if we’re going to be able to get those answers now that a debate wouldn’t be happening.

Going back to my question: I’m keen to seek the Minister’s elucidation as to whether she sought advice as to the range of those skills, qualifications, and experience, and, if so, maybe to what extent did she get details in relation to that? If she got information that shows, perhaps, that there is a gap between those in the military personnel and the civilian personnel, if there is any, what work would be undertaken to make sure that military personnel are equipped with the necessary skills and competencies to ensure that when the Minister or future Ministers choose to backfill those roles, those roles can be performed to a degree that actually a civilian would have been able to do so?

Thank you. Happy to answer that question. I realise that the member who asked those questions is probably not very familiar with the excellent people in our New Zealand Defence Force and the remarkable skills, trades, and professions that they undertake. They’re not only infantry people, they’re also engineers, they’re lawyers, they’re doctors, they’re nurses, they’re electricians, they’re airplane technicians; there’s all sorts of trades and professions within our uniformed staff as well as within our civilian staff. Some of those actually cross over. Sometimes, for instance if you’re on a Navy ship, you’ll find that the galley is actually crewed by uniformed staff. They’re the chefs and the waiters and everything else; they’re the stewards. But if you go into an army camp, you might find that they’re civilian staff. It depends where they are and what they’re doing, and if they’re deployed, because it’s the uniformed staff who are deployed, which means actually leaving their families and being able to go and live on a ship or go and live in some tent somewhere or whatever. They are extremely highly trained.

I’d say there is a reason that Defence Force staff normally have no difficulties when they’re sick of being deployed—or their families, more likely, are sick of them being deployed—and they want to go into civilian roles: it is because they are highly employable. They are trained to think on their feet, to be able to not only understand and take orders, but also to think about them and to question, if necessary. So you’re dealing with people who are highly trained.

They would only conduct the work of civil staff if they had the suitable skills for the roles, and the fact is, you’ll see in many parts of the Defence Force; there are both civilian and uniformed staff there. Even in the public relations part of it, there’s both. There are all sorts of things. There are roles that are both, but it’s all about what is necessary at that time. Safety will always be a paramount consideration. There would be nothing that I can think of in the Defence Force around health and safety, generally, that doesn’t have uniformed staff already working in there.

I’m pleased to be able to give the member a little rendition about some of the excellent training, and, might I just say, it’s another way of saying to our young people out there: come and join the New Zealand Defence Force. If I can use this as a recruiting measure, I’m going to do so because they come out very happy, very well trained, very fit, and very ready for action.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister in relation to new section 9A, the “Use of Armed Forces to perform work of Civil Staff”. In particular, I’m quite interested to understand how this addresses some of the workforce issues that we have in defence. I’ll admit my familiarity in this space does stem from experience in the police, where there’s previously been a freeze on non-sworn staff in those roles, even a sinking lid in the past. What that has resulted in is uniformed staff coming in to fill those civilian roles, and that has a range of complexities.

What I’m interested to understand from the Minister is how this change under new section 9A addresses some of those systemic workforce issues and, in particular, the ability to not only attract but to retain those specialist roles that we want to make sure that we have in place, and to fix some of those basics, such as making sure that those specialist roles are paid fairly, that they’re not overworked, and they’re given the resources to do jobs safely and professionally, because it’s some of those pressures within the workforce that, effectively, make it really difficult for those people who continue to work in those roles. What I’m interested to know is, if we have uniformed staff taking up those roles that have been in the past civilian roles, what impact does that have on the workforce? Does it increase the stress on those staff? Are they taking up roles that they are potentially—are they trained for them? Are they prepared to do that work? Are they having to do more than their fair share as a result of freezing uptake of civilian roles in that space?

My other concern that I’m interested to hear from the Minister is that we’ve heard some commentary in the public that when you have a situation where you’ve got uniformed staff being brought in to fill when civilians are taking some kind of industrial action—how does that work for the general, I guess, cohesiveness of a workforce? Does that undermine, potentially, a collaborative approach to working together when you’ve got one half coming in to fill the spaces and could be perceived, potentially, as undermining the industrial action being taken by civilian staff in order to get a fair pay increase? How does that work for the workforce in general?

So just to recap, my question to the Minister really is: how does this bill, specifically new section 9A, address some of those more fundamental workforce issues such as attracting and retaining key roles and making sure there is a cohesive team in place that can be called upon in times when New Zealand needs them?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for her ongoing engagement. I want to speak to some of my tabled amendments to this part of the bill. I actually have to start with an apology because, reading back through them, I note that I’ve submitted two identical proposals, which was not intentional at all. I’m going to put that down to the House being in urgency and attempting to get my head across a number of different bills, so I’m just flagging that.

I would start at the amendment that was submitted at 7.10.05 p.m. This is amending clause 5 and amends new section 9A and inserts new clause 9A(2)(c), which would say, “and consideration has been given to the impact of granting an authority on the right to strike.” It’s an explicit inclusion of the right to strike within the language of the legislation. I was delighted to hear the Minister reference the right and say that it is not extinguished, that it exists, and that it’s not extinguished, which I think is absolutely wonderful to hear from the Minister. Of course, we’ve got a strong history in New Zealand of strike action, so we know that strike action is one of the methods that does lead us to fairer outcomes really in New Zealand. We’ve had a history of striking in New Zealand from 1821 where Māori timber workers were striking about the way in which they get remunerated. They were remunerated at the time in, I believe, food and consumable products, and the ask from them was to be able to be remunerated in something that could be tradable, essentially. These significant moments in our history are important, and we’ve had the Waihi gold miners’ strike actions in 1912 and then several instances steadily into our future.

The right does need to be protected in New Zealand law. It obviously exists in international law—in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). That, I think, is an interesting place to start because it recognises the right, but it says it has to be exercised in a way that is within the bounds of domestic law. What domestic law says or doesn’t say about the right to strike is very important.

Earlier, I spoke about judicial reviews and the use of discretionary power and the challenge on what a Minister must turn their mind to when exercising their discretion. This is why my view is that if you had this phrase within subsection (2)(c) of the legislation, it’s a clear directive to the Minister that that must be specifically taken into account before an authorisation could be made. I’m hopeful that the Minister, having acknowledged the importance of the right and that it isn’t extinguished, agrees with me that that direction is a useful one.

I then go to the tabled amendment submitted at 7.10.06 p.m. This is the one that’s replicated, so the next one is one minute later. This one proposes to amend clause 5 to amend new section 9A(2)(a) and insert the words “before the expiry of the authority made under section 9A” between the words “the work needs to be performed” and “in order to avoid prejudicing”. The intent behind this proposed amendment is to indicate that there’s a certain amount of urgency to the work that needs to be done, which is, again, a request for the Minister to turn their mind toward the urgency of the work that needs to be done so that there can’t be a pause until striking work has come back into those roles. My view, again, is that we were expanding any discretionary power, if there is a useful option to provide some legislative guidance, as there is in this case, then I think that that is useful for the Minister to bear in mind and decide whether it’s appropriate for us to include it.

I do have other amendments that I’m interested in speaking to if the Chair is so willing, so I will be seeking another call. The next one is the amendment filed at 7.10.08 p.m., and that amends clause 5 to amend new section 9A(2)(b) to add after “health” the following phrase: “where regard has first been given to whether other measures can be put into place in the short term to avoid the need for the granting of the authority.” I’m just going to go to new section 9A(2)(b). This is where “The Minister may grant an authority … if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that— … (b) it is necessary for the work to be performed for reasons of safety or health.”

I agree with this. I think it is important that if there are health and safety concerns, the Minister ought to be able to make such an authorisation. However, I’ve managed health and safety processes before when I was the manager of YouthLaw Aotearoa. Whenever I’d create those risk registers, one of the things I examined was the various options that I could put in place to manage said circumstance. It was almost never one thing. There were always multiple potential things that could have been done. Again, the question here is whether, for example, if there was an area that was being managed by a staff member who was on strike, you could minimise access to that area because the health and safety issue had arisen in that area. I’m sure discretion could be used. The question is: is legislative guidance useful, again, to anchor ourselves in the importance of the right to strike?

I am now going to the amendment filed at 7.10.09. This one is an amendment to clause 5 to add a new clause 9A(3)(c). That would be to read “the capacity and capability risks identified in other parts of the Defence Force as a result of an authority being made and how the risk is being managed.” This is in relation to where the authority has to be specified in writing and the things that it must specify. Currently, it only reads that the things to be specified are “(a) the part or parts of the Armed Forces that may be used and the work that may be performed; and (b) the period for which the authority applies.” I do think that it’s worthwhile, if the Minister is thinking through the risks that are identified to other parts of the Defence Force as well, that those are also specified in writing. Again, it’s very clear that the Minister has considered those risks and that, despite them existing, the Minister, regardless, believes that the authorisation should be granted.

I’ll then move to the tabled amendment filed at 7.10.10 p.m. This is to amend clause 5 to add new clause 9A(3)(c) to read “the alternative arrangements that were considered in determining a need to grant an authority under section 9A.” This is, again, the flip side of what I was asking before—that the Minister consider various things. This is that the Minister, in writing, provides her rationale, if you like, for making those considerations that she’s turned her mind to—other arrangements that could have been made. My example was closing off a particular area if there are physical hazards or health hazards in a particular area that is now not staffed and just reassuring the public and, indeed, the workers who are on strike that those considerations have been considered.

The next amendment I have to speak about is the one filed at 7.10.11. This is the one to amend clause 5 to add a new clause 9A(3)(c) to read “any indication that the authority will be subject to an automatic extension.” Given the other changes that have been made in this bill, I feel that the Minister may have a view, even at the stage of granting the authorisation, as to whether an extension is likely to occur. This would be useful, also, to flag at the outset in terms of that written authorisation.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the contributions from members to date as well. I guess I want to begin by responding to some of the answers that the Minister has given, in particular a response to my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March. I guess if the Minister could clarify exactly what that process would be, in terms of determining how staff will be moved through. I do take the point, and I agree, that uniformed staff are highly qualified and come with a lot of expertise, but, sometimes, those with expertise and, sometimes, those specialists aren’t in large numbers. There could be only a small number of people. So what is the process in order to identify when there are gaps because of an industrial dispute to move people from one particular spot to another? How is that identified? Also, what happens if you don’t have qualified staff at that particular skill level available at that time? I think we want to get to a situation where we’re not number eight wiring ourselves through particular processes. I do take the points that people made about COVID as well. So if I could get some clarity from the Minister on that, that would be appreciated.

Also, the point that the Minister made around encouraging people to join the Defence Force as well: I hope that that also comes with good pay conditions, that that comes with suitable housing stock, because I have heard from uniformed personnel who have talked about some of the issues around some of the housing stocks. That would be my plea to the Minister, and hopefully, that’s being sorted out—

Tim Costley: The irony—just because last year, the money went to the uniforms, and you opposed it. You wanted the civilians.

TEANAU TUIONO: Tim Costley might want to take a call at some particular stage instead of yelling out across the Chamber. So if that could be clarified, that would be good.

On that, if I could draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper No. 442. This deals with new section 9A, inserted by clause 5, “Use of Armed Forces to perform work of Civil Staff”. In my proposed amendment, I propose that “In clause 5, new section 9A(1), after ‘Minister’ (page 2, line 14), insert ‘and following consultation with any union involved in the industrial dispute’.” I know that side is allergic to the unions, but we’ve got ourselves in a particular situation here, where last year, the union took some action, and now we’re here debating this bill as well. I think my amendment would go some way to providing an avenue for those discussions to happen as well, noting the very the different nature of the defence sector as well.

We’ve got uniformed staff, civilian staff, civilian personnel, and military personnel working together. Having a way for the union—the representatives for those workers—to be able to have a say and to have a talk and communicate with the Minister, I think, would be a good way to alleviate the situation in the workplace, noting that in the submissions, they did talk about how this could create awkwardness, uncomfortableness within the workplace. We want to avoid that. This House should try to strive to do everything to avoid that as well.

I did make the earlier point about partial strikes—having the ability to do partial strikes, the ability for civilian staff to be able to use that as an avenue to highlight the industrial disputes, I think, would also go some way to sorting out those issues as well.

While I’m up here, if I could draw the Minister’s attention to Amendment Paper No. 441, which relates to new section 9A(2)(a)(ii), “the ability or readiness (or both) of the Armed Forces to perform … operational activities … that are integral to core defence outputs;”. I agree: all jobs are great. Administrative jobs are really, really important, but I think it’s important for us to get some specificity about what those Defence Force outputs are, because it seems very vague; it’s very broad. National security: we can have discussions about that—that’s fine. There’re some parameters around how you can have the discussions. Emergency matters: of course, really important as well. But what is the “core defence output”? It could be anything, so that kind of discretion needs to be teased out. It is something that needs to be debated more thoroughly so that we’re not actually just giving a whole lot of power over to the Minister without any recourse.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Now, members, there’s been quite a bit of contextualisation going on in a lot of the questions. We need to start getting reasonably specific. Probably the second part of Vanushi Walters’s speech, where she spoke directly to each of her amendments was a pretty good example.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just thought I’d take some of the questions in sort of no particular order—a rather random order, really. I’m going to add some of them together and try and come up with some responses that are acceptable to the Opposition and to Parliament.

First off, it is not my role as the Minister of Defence to decide where staff are shifted, what roles they do, or anything like that; that’s the Chief of Defence Force. That’s why he’s in that job, not me. It’s very important that the Minister is not to be involved in that; otherwise, we could be accused of trying to give a preference to one person over another. That would be a very bad thing to happen, and this is not acceptable in a democratic society.

The bill very clearly maintains the right to strike. There is no attempt to affect the right to strike, because, you know, one of the hallmarks of a democracy is the right to strike. I always think it’s so important for people to remember that the right to strike is actually part of our democracy. It doesn’t mean, though, that an employer has to sit back and do absolutely nothing. It is important that when it’s a critical situation to deal with, like the Defence Force has to deal with, at the appropriate time, and only in those times, and it’s very clearly set out in the bill, that there is an ability to shift staff from one job to another in terms of uniform staff to civilian staff roles. Now, that doesn’t mean to say that the Chief of Defence Force is going to do this all the time; all these other steps have to be in place—all the other requirements, plus the Minister has to sign it off. It is really important that this is not just a general willy-nilly where they can do anything they wanted. Understand, too, for the Chief of Defence Force to shift a uniformed staff, a trained armed forces person, across to do a role which a civilian has been doing takes that person away from the role that the Chief of Defence Force actually wants them to be doing. So this is not something that is just every day; it is only in very prescribed situations.

There is an amendment to add that the work needs to be informed before the expiry of an authorisation to turn the mind to urgency. It’s superfluous. The bill’s really clear that the conditions in new section 9A(2), inserted by clause 5, need to be satisfied for the duration of the authorisation. This is not everyday work; this is a situation where those particular requirements are in place. If they’re not met, then there’s no need for an authorisation, because it would not be valid and it would be subject to judicial review and the Minister would be subject to debate in the House and it would be a matter for the House to debate.

Should there be an amendment to require the health and safety risk to be imminent? Well, that goes further than the current Employment Relations Act. So that would be more restrictive than the current arrangements. So, no, that would potentially create a health and safety risk that doesn’t exist or present.

How would our military personnel feel about being tasked with civilian roles? “Won’t this influence morale?”, essentially, is a question from Parliament. Well, I’m glad everyone is so worried about the morale of the Defence Force, because I am too. But I’m really happy to report that morale is pretty jolly good these days because they’re getting to do the things that they joined for. I’m not asking them to stand outside managed isolation and quarantine facilities. I’m not asking them to go and guard beaches, like the poor old police were made to do. I’m actually asking them to do their job, which is exactly what they are.

Can I also tell you that, first and foremost, our defence personnel are professionals—they’re absolutely foremost professionals in what they do. These types of taskings that we’re referring today only occur in extreme circumstances. This is all about needing to respond just when needed, not every day. We’re not uplifting them all and going, “You go fill this job; you do that.” It’s not like that.

I think, too, there were some comments about the striking and everything else, but our civilian staff are a key enabler of our military operations, and their work is valued. I’m not going to say to the Chief of Defence Force, “You point out exactly where that person’s work’s adding to operations.” They’re all adding to operations in many ways. The Government is committed to defence.

So I’m really pleased to hear the Green Party of Aotearoa is so supportive of our defence housing. I want to see them supporting us in the Budget bids that we make. I want to see them supporting the fact that we have a $957 million uplift in operational spending over the four years as part of Budget 2025. I’m so pleased they care about the standards and the work and the living conditions of our Defence Force, because I want to see them put their money where their mouth is. I want to see them coming out and saying, “Thank you. Thank you, Government for supporting our Defence Force.”

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the Minister’s response to our questions and Amendment Papers. I also have a number of tabled amendments that I would like to seek the Minister’s support on.

I think we’ll start with my first tabled amendment, which was time-stamped at 9.00.03. This is to deal with what the Minister said before, and I think this is really timely, because the Minister just said, “Look, I’m not the Minister responsible. That is on the advice of the Chief of Defence Force.” This is an amendment that is replicating what we’re currently seeing in section 9(4) of the Defence Act, which states that the Minister, on information supplied by the Chief of Defence Force or a Vice Chief of the Defence Force, may grant the authority. I think this not only allows there to be some sort of safeguard that proper consultation advice has been given but that there is a paper trail for public transparency in terms of the decisions that the Minister makes. Hopefully, the Minister will consider that, because this sounds to be in line with what the Minister has just stated.

My second one is around what my colleague Teanau Tuiono has mentioned in terms of “core defence outputs”, and this is in new section 9A(2)(a)(ii). Now, “core defence outputs” is not a defined term within the legislation, including the primary legislation, and I think “core”, it can be argued, is up to interpretation. I wondered if the Minister would consider an alternative word or even just defining what “core” would mean and some examples of that. But my alternative that I’m suggesting is rather than “core defence outputs”, we look at “essential defence outputs”.

Moving on to my next amendment, which concerns new section 9A(2)(b): now, this is an interesting one, because the Minister and various members during the committee stage have consistently used the term “health and safety”, but in the legislation it is not “health and safety” or “safety and health”; it’s “safety or health”, as two mutually exclusive elements. I don’t know if this is a drafting error or there is a reason why those two things have now become mutually exclusive, when every instance that the Minister has referred to it, it has been “health and safety”. My proposal and my amendment is looking at what is stated in new section 9A(2)(b)(ii), which states “ability or readiness (or both)”. My amendment is to actually replicate the same thing—to say that “for reasons of safety or health (or both)”; or, alternatively, the Amendment Paper by my colleague Teanau Tuiono, which is just a simple adjustment of the conjunction from “or” to “and”, which then is also consistent with the wording in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Now, moving along to new section 9A(3)(b), which is around “An authority under this section must be in writing”, and must specify the period for which the authority applies. Noting that new section 9A is a separate section from section 9—from the previous section—there is no specific and defined date that is being given here. I think having a specified date is important, so I want to check with the Minister if she would consider to add a new subsection (3)(b)(i), which is “any period under subsection (3)(b) must not be longer than 14 days”—this is consistent with the existing drafting of section 9(8) of the Defence Act, which mentions subsections (2) and (4)—or if the Minister would like to extend that or clarify that it’s still the same as the previous amendment, which is no longer than 30 days, which is also a reasonable clarification. But at this stage, the period for which the authority applies has no defined boundary. This will be the same in terms of clause 5 of the bill, new section 9A(8). It’s also my amendment, which was time-stamped at 9.00.07, which is also including that particular time frame.

The last thing I want to mention is in new subsection (6), when it says that the Minister must inform the House of Representatives immediately if the House is sitting. There is an anomaly in terms of the previous clause, as well—I’ll be very quick, Mr Chair—in that the authority lapses—Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Lawrence Xu-Nan—I see you’ve got one more amendment.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: One more. Just to clarify that, in terms of this, when the House is sitting, we normally assume that’s at the beginning of the House, but any of the authority that has been granted in this section, for example, and also in the previous section lapses until the next sitting of the House. But a motion that’s been raised by the Minister to provide a reason under new subsection (6) would not happen at the beginning of the sitting of the House, but, in fact, it would take, at the very earliest, after question time. What, then, we’ll see is a weird gap in which the authority has lapsed and the renewal for the new authority by a motion that’s been raised by the Minister has not been triggered. I want the Minister to clarify that, as well, in terms of the sitting of the House and what happens when that authority lapses for that brief moment of time.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have one further question for the Minister, and it’s in relation to, really, the key point of what this bill is trying to do. It gets to that section 9A—the ability to use military personnel to conduct the work of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) civilian staff in the event of industrial action if it’s constrained in situations where there is a risk to health and safety. We know from the past that the constraints of section 9 were acutely felt, particularly at the end of 2024, when civilian staff undertook industrial action in support of bargaining for their new collective agreement.

My question to the Minister is in relation to some of the risks that have been highlighted in the regulatory impact statement. There’s a direct risk that has been highlighted that this will impact on the bargaining power of civilian staff to some extent. I’m interested to understand—I know that there wasn’t consultation with unions. The select committee process and some discrete consultation was undertaken, but it would be really good to know what her analysis is of the impact of this legislation on the bargaining power of civilian staff.

Secondly, I’m interested to know what this may mean for NZDF activities that cannot take place where the role of striking civilian staff is central to core defence outputs but there is no link to national security or health and safety. I think that’s an important point that we need to understand.

The final question I have in relation to this part of the bill is about the removal of the requirement to seek House approval to extend an authorisation. Is that, in the Minister’s view, compromising an important check on ministerial power in any way? I know that there are good procedural reasons to counter what we saw happen in 2024—those have been highlighted—but, really, I’m interested to know from the Minister if that removal of the requirement to seek House approval to extend that authorisation is perceived at all as a removal of a check and balance on ministerial power when we’re talking about industrial relations.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There were a few questions in there. There’s some concern that unions are not being consulted and stuff. Well, actually, industrial action is itself actioned by the union, so I understand there are always negotiations around that. In fact, the committee might be interested to know that the head of the Public Service Association has a meeting with me tomorrow, so no doubt we will discuss all sorts of issues and I will no doubt answer those queries in my usual way.

There was a question about why it says “safety or health” in the legislation. It’s because that actually mirrors section 97 of the Employment Relations Act. I think the member is taking the fact that I often talk about health and safety as it’s my area and I naturally go into that, and I’m probably the only person in the House with a graduate diploma in occupational health and safety.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: We have talked about that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We have talked about that, haven’t we? So I do tend to think in terms of health and safety, and it’s not to skite, actually; it’s not all about me. But it is important, I think, to have consistency across the legislation. And so that’s why it’s “health or safety”, or “safety or health”, as it is in the Act.

Why not have a time limit? Well, the Minister must set a period of time for which the authority applies. It’s all part of what the Minister has to do, but it can only apply during industrial action and when the criteria are met. The fact is that industrial action itself, the end of it, provides a de facto time limit anyway. So once the industrial action is finished or the other requirement has finished, then the authority lapses. There was a question around why the bill does not define core defence outputs. Is the criteria too broad—that was the general question. The full version of this criteria is “the ability and/or readiness of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities that are integral to core defence outputs;” and it is worded intentionally so that a number of elements must be demonstrated before this criteria can apply. This is still a high threshold which would require robust justification to satisfy it. This could include activities essential to maintaining armed forces’ ability and readiness for deployment or operations, such as responding to expected or unexpected events in New Zealand or overseas requiring military capacity tasks under security treaties or UN agreements, or emergency management.

Does the bill denigrate workers’ rights? That’s pretty much a question coming through. Well, the right to take industrial action remains. It’s the joy of being a democracy. You don’t see too many communist countries where that happens—just saying; it does not work that way. For those people who yearn for the communist utopia for workers’ rights, understand there is no right to strike without tanks coming at you. So understand that it’s only in democracies, and as a Government absolutely committed to democracy, let me tell you it is a core foundation of it.

This bill ensures that the security of New Zealanders and safety of New Zealanders endures should civilian staff exercise these rights. There are always consequences, and those consequences may be a loss of pay. It may be that someone else is doing the job, but the main thing is that the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) has to be able to deal with emergency and other situations that may arise.

Industrial action will still have a considerable impact on New Zealand Defence Force operations under these changes, and it’s because the work that would otherwise be performed by military personnel is less likely to be delivered whilst they cover for their colleagues, and the resources of the NZDF will be stretched to fill both military and civilian duties. It is not an ability for the CDF and for the Minister that they take lightly. I can tell you it is a very difficult decision to make and is only taken in situations where it really must occur.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendment to clause 5, new section 9A(1), set out on Amendment Paper 442 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 9A, amending subsection (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendment to clause 5, new section 9A(2), set out on Amendment Paper 441 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 amending paragraph (a) of section 9A(2) be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ other tabled amendment to clause 5 amending paragraph (a) of section 9A(2) is out of order as being a duplicate of a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 9A(2), amending subparagraph (ii) of new paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 amending paragraph (b) of section 9A(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 amending paragraph (b) of section 9A(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting a new paragraph (c) into section 9A(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting paragraph (c) into section 9A(3) to require an authority under the section to specify capacity and capability risks be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting paragraph (c) into section 9A(3) to require an authority under the section to specify alternative arrangements be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting paragraph (c) into section 9A(3) to require an authority under the section to specify whether it may be subject to an automatic extension be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new subsection (3A) into section 9A be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new subsection (3A) into section 9A be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting the words “with urgency” into section 9A(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting the words “and the reason for giving it” into section 9A(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting the words “whether there is likely to be an automatic extension of the authority” into section 9A(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting the words “and whether there is likely to be an automatic extension of the authority” into section 9A(6) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting the words “whether other options were considered instead of granting an authorisation” into section 9A(6) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 amending subsection (8) of section 9A be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new subsection (8A) into section 9A be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading