Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is about balancing the right of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) civilian staff to take industrial action with New Zealand’s national security and defence needs. I would like, once again, to acknowledge the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who considered this bill and the principles that underpin it.

The core role of the NZDF is to protect New Zealand and advance New Zealand’s interests through military operations at sea, on land, and in the air. The security of New Zealand is a 24/7 issue, 365 days of the year. Our Defence Force consists of hard-working men and women who are sailors, soldiers, and aviators—collectively, the armed forces and their civilian colleagues.

The NZDF civilian staff are entitled to take industrial action. This is a fundamental right of employees, recognised in law. The civilian staff in our Defence Force play a significant role in keeping New Zealand safe, whether through providing security at military bases, testing of NZDF capabilities and technology, aircraft maintenance, and countless other important tasks. This means there will be times when industrial action could put New Zealand’s national security at risk or impact the NZDF’s ability to deliver the tasks expected of it.

This bill seeks to ensure the Defence Act 1990 is fit for purpose. This bill ensures that when it is justified to do so, the Minister can authorise the armed forces to conduct the work of striking civilian staff, and it streamlines the process for doing so.

Rather than authorisation lasting for 14 days, the Minister of Defence will be able to say how long an authorisation will last. This removes the requirement to have a parliamentary debate about whether the NZDF can deploy people within their own organisation for longer than 14 days. Parliament will be notified of such an authorisation and the reasons for giving it, and any member of Parliament can bring it to the attention of the House for further scrutiny. Likewise, the Minister will continue to be able to authorise military personnel to conduct the work of striking Public Service employees where not doing so could lead to health and safety risk, which they already can do under current legislation. Parliament’s role in approving an extension beyond that period will be maintained, and the House will not need to be recalled if an authorisation expires when the House is not sitting.

These changes strike a balance between ensuring industrial action can still go ahead and have its intended effect, while ensuring that critical activities can continue, that both health and safety are protected, and that national security is not put at risk. The passing of this bill is a further demonstration of this Government’s commitment to ensuring New Zealand continues to have a defence force which is ready and able to protect and defend New Zealanders, New Zealand, and its interests. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of this particular bill. As we’ve done in other parts of this bill, I do want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel, both those who serve in uniform and the civilian staff, who I know contribute to the wellbeing of this country and contribute to the ongoing effectiveness of the New Zealand Defence Force, and it’s with them in mind for both sides of this House that this bill has been well debated. While we might not agree that we’ve managed to get any of the amendments, certainly from this side of the House, across the line, it is important that when we look towards the operation and the functionality of the NZDF, we acknowledge both those parts, because this particular bill pertains particularly to them.

Now, the Minister spoke about getting the balance right, and I think that is always an important thing, and we hoped that some of our amendments would strike that balance, get a bit of a middle ground, where we could continue to support both of them: those civilian staff who wish to take work action—strike or whatever it might be—and those NZDF personnel who continue to serve and could be utilised to backfill those roles. We will continue to oppose this bill for the reasons that we have spelt out through the first and second reading and, of course, the committee of the whole House.

We know that when you leave grey areas, regardless of the bill, or regardless of the legislation, that’s where people are unsure about what’s happening. We wanted to make sure that it was clear that we can continue to protect the national interest, continue to protect the health and safety of this country while also allowing work action to be taken by those staff and workers right across the country. So we don’t back down from the stance that the Labour Party has taken on this particular bill.

The other matter we want to make very clear to the House during the third reading of this particular bill is that when this Government came into power, the first Budget, the finance Minister made it very clear that there were cuts to be made across the public sector, and that included the Defence Force and, in particular, the civilian roles. Multiple times, the Minister and this Government were asked whether or not those cuts would impact on these civilian roles or, more importantly, impact on the ability for the NZDF to do their work—the important work—and we were told no, it wouldn’t. Yet we are changing the legislation—the Defence Act—to have a plan B or a “just in case”.

When we asked the Government these questions, we were told that no, it wouldn’t impact. Well, it’s clear, then, from the debate that’s taken place during the passage of this bill, that it indeed does have an impact on the opportunity for the NZDF to be deployable, to be ready to serve in times of crisis or emergency. It’s clear, then, that this particular bill is to cater or to cover a plan B, to make sure, at least in the eyes of this Government, that their readiness and deployability is at the forefront.

We always stand, as the Labour Party, on the side of the workers, and we make no apology for standing alongside the civilian staff and, indeed, the public sector. The instances that have been raised in this House during the debate are ones that sound reasonable. When we say that the NZDF can cover for public sector roles where it’s relevant and where it’s necessary, the one that’s always offered is Corrections. It makes sense to, I think, every New Zealander, when we say, “OK, for Corrections, because they’re doing an important job in securing our prison facilities right around the country.” However, when we try to approach this Government to make sure that we can be far more specific about what roles it can cover, or whose role it can cover, sadly, I didn’t think there was an open engagement with the Government on being far more specific.

Now, that begs the question: does it mean that when health staff go on strike or teachers go on strike or other parts of our public sector workforce go on strike, the NZDF could be deployed? I think, like I said, the New Zealand public are quite reasonable to think, “OK, Corrections; Police, maybe even; that makes sense to us.” But where it’s an important role in the health sector or in our classrooms with our teachers, I’m sure the New Zealand public would have some questions about that.

I thought there were also some really good amendments or suggestions put forward to the Minister that look towards some of those other fail-safe mechanisms around the ability to extend. We talked about the Commander-in-Chief or the Governor-General, and the role that they play in making sure that that can take place. We acknowledge, though, that if they come back to the House here, the House will be notified by the Minister. We asked also if that notification could have far more detail in it so that it could be discussed and debated in the House. Sadly, that didn’t get across the line, but we acknowledge that the democratic processes of this country are important, and when these important matters are raised, we always push that it should come back to the House for consideration—not something that continues to put power in the hands of the few. That’s something that we will always stand up against and make sure that the democracy that our country believes in continues to be practised here in Parliament.

One of the important things that the Minister mentioned in her third reading speech was about making sure that the Defence Act is fit for purpose. I think that should be something that we should always look at. Something that the Minister said during the committee of the whole House sort of raised the eyebrows of a number across the House, and that was that when the Defence Act was written, in 1990, it was written in times of peace. Now we’re making an amendment 25 years later because it’s important. Well, there were a heck of a lot of conflicts between 1990 and 2025, which I think serves up an opportunity for this House to look at the Defence Act as a whole. I mentioned it in one of my earlier contributions. It’s that beach batch or that holiday home in Coromandel, where you put a lean-to on the lean-to and before you know it, you’ve got a wet carpet, and the house is leaking.

The Defence Act is an important Act, and the Minister highlighted that, and I totally agree with her and support her on that matter. Therefore, the Defence Act should be relevant, it should be agile and, more importantly, it should be fit for the purpose of today’s Defence Force and the needs that confront our country.

It’s been made and highlighted, as points across the House, that national security is at a challenging time geostrategically around the world. We know that there are challenges, and New Zealand certainly isn’t immune to that, so we do need to make sure our NZDF is fit for purpose and the legislation that governs it is also as well.

The other part where I think the Minister made a really good point is that weather events, and right now in the hurricane season, mean that it’s really important for us to remain ready to deploy, ready to operationalise, to support not just New Zealanders. We’ve seen over the past few weeks the devastating floods in the south, the devastating fire in Tongariro, and we know that the NZDF will play their part in our community, and we need to make sure that they are able to do that. Of course, that extends to our friends and our neighbours and our whānau in the Pacific, where, if I recall correctly, even in my time as the defence Minister, the NZDF quite regularly was deployed because of hurricane season or tropical-storm season.

I think the House and the Minister make really good points there, to make sure that despite the debate on this bill, New Zealanders need reassurance that our NZDF will be there for them. That’s what I want to give to our community that are listening or the community that follow this debate: the NZDF, and, of course, the public, the civilian staff, and the uniformed staff—the reassurance that the NZDF is there to serve our country, and we know they will; the reassurance that despite the challenges, known or unknown, that we might face in the coming weeks or months, the NZDF will be in the best position to be able to support, however the Minister and the Government sees fit. We support that.

We want to encourage and make sure that our whānau out there feel safe and secure because we know, whether it’s in the Pacific or locally, that when a grey ship shows up after an event and it’s got the Kiwi or the Royal New Zealand Navy on the side, that brings assurance, and it brings security to those areas. I reflect back on the volcanic eruption in Tonga. The HMNZS Aotearoa was the first ship to arrive. After having spoken with the Tongan people, they said they couldn’t have asked for a better blessing, and that wasn’t just because it was the first one to arrive. It was because it was Aotearoa who answered the call.

It’s really important, despite the debate, and the backward and forward across this House, that our public know our NZDF are always ready to go. They’re highly deployable, highly trained, and will always answer the call when needed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill in this third reading. We have just completed the committee of the whole House stage, which was illuminating. The Minister of Defence was very engaging, and, I guess, one of the things with that Minister in particular is that you don’t need to read a crystal ball—they’re pretty straight up whether you like the answers or not. I didn’t like the answers, but at least they were clear, so there is that as well.

I will say that the comments around the right to strike didn’t land well with me; I think there was some talking around that right as well. I still see this as limiting the right to strike, and I think that this bill weakens the right to strike by allowing striking civilian staff to be replaced with uniformed personnel. It’s called strikebreaking. It creates lots of pressure on staff, whether they’re uniformed staff or civilian. In the committee of the whole House stage, we did talk about the unique nature of the Defence Force—you have civilian staff, you have uniformed staff, military personnel, and that’s a unique situation. When you sign up for the military or when you sign up for the defence force, you sign up for a hierarchy, and you sign up for a whole lot of issues. You don’t get to strike—you don’t get to do partial strikes, and so on and so forth—and that is the expectation there, but you do have 3,000 civilian workers, and at least 1,000 of those civilian workers are unionised, and it is incredibly important that they have the right to strike. The issues around bringing in uniformed personnel or other parts of that staff to take those roles is also something we should be incredibly careful about as a House.

One of the illuminating things—I think it was one of the earlier clauses where we were talking about the reasons why this bill is coming to the House in the form that it is—was that there could be an escalation of an industrial dispute because that is one of the only ways that workers can actually engage when they’re not being paid properly. I immediately thought, “Well, is there an exception that can be made in this case, because of the different circumstances with the Defence Force workforce, for partial strikes?” For those who sat in this House when partial strikes legislation was being moved through the House, that was something where if you do partial strikes, you will get your pay docked. Just for people’s clarification: for example, you had teachers who were participating in partial strikes where they just wore T-shirts saying a particular political slogan. You’re not allowed to do that, but, because you’re not allowed to do that, you go straight down the strike avenue as well. I think there is a strong argument there to allow for partial strikes as well.

In another one of my amendments, I did talk about making sure in the legislation that the union is informed—that there is consultation with the union. I think that’s important, and I think that’s important because it provides a way to have that discussion, that negotiation, because the reason we are in here at this particular time is because, in 2024, Public Service Association members in New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff roles were offered a zero pay increase. That’s amazing to me. It’s not even the beginning of a negotiation that people could agree to, right? You show up to the bargaining table and the offer on the table is “Here’s nothing”—here’s nothing. The workers used the tools that were available to them—used the avenues that were available to them—and good on them. They actually won that strike. That is the rules working as they should. The unique situation you have with the Defence Force with uniformed personnel and civilian personnel has to be taken into account, and I don’t think that this bill fully addresses that at all.

We also had a bit of a discussion around the use of urgency. This House has seen a lot of urgency over this parliamentary term—too much, some would say, and I would say as well. There was a bit of a discussion around that, but this particular bill did have a select committee process where we did have submitters coming to the select committee. They presented very strong arguments, I thought—strong arguments that I don’t think were picked up in either the departmental report or in the select committee report. There were issues that were not resolved adequately as well. Although I acknowledge the straight answers that we did get from the Minister, I was not left feeling that submitters who had come to the select committee could feel that those issues had been resolved at all.

This bill only had a couple of stages going through urgency. We had the first reading, it went to select committee, and then it came here; then we had the committee of the whole House, which we’ve just finished, and now this is the third reading—so part of it was under urgency. One of the questions that we did pose to the Minister was: why was this particular part in urgency? We should only really use urgency if we really need to, but, in this case, half of it was and half of it wasn’t. What was the rationale? Is it the proximity to Christmas? Is the Minister aware of any industrial disputes that might be arising? Why was the timing such that we’re rushing this part of the bill through under urgency?

I think there is an argument that we could actually—by acknowledging the unique circumstances that we have with Defence Force personnel, both uniformed and civilian—find other solutions to help to allow civilian staff to be able to express their rights, and to allow civilian roles to be able to fully use the rights that they have for them. I know that, for myself when I was sitting on the select committee, and for others as well, I was actually quite surprised with how many people there were in civilian roles—3,000 is quite a lot. There’s the other question around, well, why are so many of these roles being done by civilians when you would assume, and I did assume before the select committee process, that a lot of them would be done by military personnel—by uniformed personnel? Is it a cust-cotting—cust-cotting—apologies—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cost-cutting.

TEANAU TUIONO: Cost-cutting—that’s the one! Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it a cost-cutting measure? If so, just be straight up about it. Is this the reason why you have so many roles? I do take the point—and possibly there could be some agreement on this across the House—that people made around, well, if you’re going to put people into these roles, and I’m particularly thinking about the uniformed side of it, you should pay them properly. You should make sure that their housing stock is up to scratch as well. I’ve talked to enough people to know that although there are plans in place to make sure that housing stock is being replaced, in the case of Waiōuru, as far as I have heard, that has not happened.

Yes, it’s important to note that this a career pathway that people choose, and I did note that the Minister was talking about the large amount of money that she was able to get through the Budget—but how much of that is actually going into the pockets of the workers? How much of that is being put into the pockets of both uniformed personnel and civilian personnel? We know that, on the civilian side, when they went into that negotiation, they were just offered a zero pay increase. It’s all very well and good to talk about all the money that is coming through the Budget lines, but you’ve got to look after people. You’ve got to make sure that they can put food on the table, keep the lights on, be able to look after their families and look after their kids—that’s incredibly important. You have to ensure that the housing stock is good as well. If you have issues with that, there is no recourse that I know of within the uniformed side of it—the military personnel side of it—where you can actually rectify that and speak up. In some ways, if there are issues around that, you have to rely on those who are within the civilian roles to raise those issues—those incredibly important issues about the impact on workers.

There were a lot of questions that were posed, and there were a lot of straight answers, but a lot of those answers missed the mark. A lot of those answers went around and didn’t address the concerns of those that came to the select committee. There’s an old saying: if you’ve got a hammer, and that’s all you’ve got, everything looks like a nail, and I think this is the situation that we’re finding ourselves in. There was an industrial dispute that happened last year; the Minister wanted to fix that, but she’s only got a hammer, and she’s using it on the nail. The other thing that is really important is that if you really wanted to solve industrial disputes, pay workers properly. Pay workers properly—pay them what they’re worth, make sure that it keeps up with inflation, and make sure that we look after workers. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on the third reading of this important piece of legislation. But just to remind those at home, in no shape or form does this reduce the ability for industrial action. I think I said in my second reading speech that it’s awfully disruptive to any industry when there is industrial action. Being able to use and utilise your staff in order for the safety of our Defence Force, our personnel, and, actually, our country’s safety and security—I think that’s a very fair and reasonable bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

It is an honour for me to rise to confirm New Zealand First’s support for this Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. I would also like to acknowledge the incredible work that our Defence Force does, being prepared to put themselves into harm’s way on our behalf. I know that that view is shared across the House—well, at least I think it was; we’ve had some fairly moderate support, would I say, from some of the other parties here, but certainly not from us. In fact, we’ve been very proud in the past, in the 52nd Parliament—I know that the Hon Ron Mark held that portfolio. I know no one would have been prouder to hold the portfolio than Ron, a returned serviceman himself, and someone who I know still keeps a very keen interest in what the Minister of Defence is doing in this this respect.

It’s important to note that this is not only about armed conflict—we know that geopolitics is dangerous around the world and there are heightened tensions at the moment—but it is about emergency management as well. We’ve seen numerous examples lately, where our Defence Force personnel have come to the service of people, New Zealand citizens, here at home. Actually, just a couple of weeks ago down South, with the big winds, we actually had military personnel out, with communications down, going door to door, delivering flyers to farmers to just let them know what was going on with the telecommunications being down. So we really appreciate what they do for us.

This bill enables the New Zealand Defence Force uniformed personnel to carry out civilian roles in the event of industrial action. The military simply must be able to function, whether it is in an offensive manner or whether it is here at home delivering flyers in the Clutha region. This does not undermine the right to strike. There is absolutely the right for those civilian personnel to strike. It was a ridiculous assertion that was made—in, I think, the committee of the whole House yesterday—where the Hon Phil Twyford said that it somehow equated to the 1951 waterfront strike, and the Government would be using this to bust strike action. I thought that was alarmist and completely irrelevant to what this bill actually does.

This is a moderate and sensible measure. It enables the military to perform its key functions, and maintains civilian employees having the right to strike. There is a formal process to go through, there are checks and balances, and there is still parliamentary oversight. Minister Collins has done a great job bringing this pragmatic measure forward, and New Zealand First supports it to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call—Oriini Kaipara.

E te Pīka, tēnā koe. On behalf of Te Pāti Māori, we oppose this bill in its entirety because it makes it easier for the armed forces to replace civilian defence staff and Public Service workers who are taking lawful strike action. Let’s be clear: soldiers cannot strike, but civilians in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) can. This Government now wants to use those soldiers as strikebreakers. The bill gives the Minister of Defence a new and expanded power during industrial action by NZDF civil staff.

The Minister will be able to authorise the armed forces to do the work of those who are striking whenever the Minister believes there are reasonable grounds where national security, operational readiness, or safety could be affected. That authorisation only has to be in writing; not agreed by Parliament, not independently tested, just signed off by the Minister. The Minister must then notify workers that the military has been sent in to perform their jobs and must notify this House after the fact—not seek approval, not justify it, but simply tell us what they have already done.

For Public Service workers, the Minister’s power is widened again from 14 to 30 days. If Parliament is adjourned, the authorisation just rolls over automatically. This is a step change that removes the safeguards that recognise how extreme it is to use the military to undermine strike action. It normalises military interference in civilian industrial disputes. The people most affected are the people who keep our country running; the people who have already been denied fair wages.

The Public Service Association has been absolutely clear. They said this legislation restricts defence workers’ rights and is completely unjustified. Last year, their members were offered zero pay increase. They only achieved something better because they took strike action, the precise right that this bill now seeks to silence. Fleur Fitzsimons has said—[Knocks glass over]—plainly bringing in the military as strikebreakers is “extremely serious”—sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s OK. I’ll just get one of the clerks to bring a towel. Thank you.

Hon Member: “To the left, to the left.”

ORIINI KAIPARA: “To the left”—that’s right. OK. Fleur Fitzsimons has said plainly bringing in the military as strikebreakers is “extremely serious”. What used to require a resolution of this House will now require only the stroke of a Minister’s pen. Unions have called it extraordinary and an attempt to undermine New Zealanders who are standing up for better pay and conditions, and they’re right. My colleague Teanau Tuiono’s recommendation for partial strikes must be noted and supported. From a Te Pāti Māori perspective, this bill does not align with our kaupapa.

Mana motuhake: we oppose any move that strips away workers’ rights and suppresses collective power. Māori make up a majority of the NZDF civil staff, as well as the wider Public Service. We are nurses, we are teachers, and we are firefighters. Now, at any time, the armed forces could be deployed to replace us when we strike for fair pay. That is an erosion of rights that will ripple into every workplace here in Aotearoa.

Mana ōrite: this bill makes it harder for workers to negotiate improvements, harder to achieve pay equity, harder to challenge unfair systems. Our incomes policy is clear: uphold pay equity and strengthen collective bargaining. This bill does the absolute opposite.

Finally, mana mokopuna: when workers lose their rights, our mokopuna lose security. They lose whānau stability. They inherit a society where the power of the State can be used to silence legitimate dissent. That is not the future we fight for, and let’s be honest: if the Government were truly concerned about safety, wellbeing, and national security, they would pay our nurses properly, they would value our firefighters, they would resource our teachers, and they would uplift the New Zealand Defence Force’s own civilian workforce, not undermine them.

Instead, this Government wants to send troops into schools and into hospitals, into our communities, not to help but to break strikes, to weaken workers, to keep wages low. Te Pāti Māori cannot and will not support a bill that erodes rights, undermines collective bargaining, and weaponises the armed forces against civilian workers. We do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Civilian staff are critical to supporting us when disaster strikes, and it’s really important to note that armed personnel depend on civilian staff, even within the New Zealand Defence Force, to keep them well—whether it’s in IT roles, health roles, or administration roles. Actually, the Minister, during the committee of the whole House, acknowledged that those were incredibly complex, highly qualified roles. This includes engineering roles that help the military personnel equipment to adequately function, so I find it really interesting that that every time that we have a bill that erodes workers’ ability to participate in strikes, we have speech after speech from the right-wing politicians thanking those very same workers they are undermining. Their actions actually speak louder than their words. It’s hard to believe their speeches are thanking those very same workers they’re about to undermine when we have a bill in front of us that follows, literally, a 2024 zero pay increase for the Defence Force civilian staffers, which would have seen them take effective pay cuts due to inflationary pressures.

Make no mistake: this bill is a direct result of what we saw last year. What else can you call a bill that seeks to erode the parliamentary checks that are in place to ensure that a Minister is adequately accountable to a decision to replace civilian staff with military personnel and that makes it easier for military personnel to replace civilian staff? During the committee of the whole House, one of the questions that I asked was whether the Minister had sought advice or reassurances or was able to elucidate to the House the advice that she received as to whether military personnel had the adequate skills, qualifications, and experience to actually replace civilian staff. She wasn’t able to actually substantiate this, and all she gave us were just platitudes about the highly qualified military personnel, which no one was necessarily challenging. It was more a matter as to whether those roles would be able to be replaced to the very same competency that the civilian staff are able to perform.

If the Minister is not able to tell us that she did receive reassurance and advice on this very same matter, it’s hard for us to have faith in a bill in front of us that seeks to erode civilian staff’s ability to adequately withdraw their labour as a tool of bargaining, which is one of the most powerful things workers can do when they are trying to prove their worth to their employers. By withdrawing your labour, you demonstrate the importance of your work. If the Government is choosing to, instead, deploy the military to fill those very same roles, they are undermining people’s ability to take industrial action, to fight for better wages, and to fight for better pay and conditions and safe staffing levels.

I do not buy, nor believe in, any of the Government’s arguments that this is not about undermining the ability to strike, because even though the Minister says that striking is part of a democracy, well, clearly this Government doesn’t really believe in the right for workers to take part in strikes without those very same actions undermining their ability to make ends meet, because, otherwise, they would have not introduced legislation this term to actually add pay deductions to striking workers. You can’t say that striking is part of our democratic process and then, at the very same time, bill after bill after bill, erode workers’ rights and people’s ability to sustain industrial action.

The Green Party is clear that independent of our criticisms of this Government’s encroachment and alignment with the US when it comes to the military-industrial complex, the New Zealand Defence Force plays a critical role in supporting us when natural disasters strike. Therefore, we cannot stand by a bill that seeks to erode those very same workers’ ability to perform their duties in a way that is adequately dignified.

The members who have talked and thanked the personnel should actually be standing up for those workers’ ability to fight for better pay and conditions, instead of defending zero pay increases, while, at the very same time, they’re handing billions of dollars to landlords, to tobacco industries, to fossil fuel companies—

Hon Member: That’s rubbish.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —while everyday workers struggle. If the members on my left call out “rubbish” when I say those things, what do they call those billions of dollars going to entities that are ripping our planet and our communities off?

The Green Party will fight to improve workers’ conditions and ensure that everyone has a dignified life. Judith Collins may call that a “communist utopia”, but we call that simply socialism, which is, actually, honouring the dignity of everyone.

Storytime is over; we’ll come back to reality here—the simple, practical changes that this bill makes to ensure we can uphold our national security. It’s, frankly, embarrassing that neither of those two previous speeches, and indeed some of those before, from the Opposition benches had not a single mention about upholding national security. All they care about is their union mates being able to strike. That is an absolute disgrace. This bill ensures that we can maintain national security on our bases at a time when, unfortunately, globally, it’s becoming increasingly important. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for an opportunity to take a call on the third reading of this bill just after we’ve had actually quite a robust committee stage. I’ll refer to some of the conversations we had during committee stage in my contribution.

We won’t be supporting this bill, but I would like to start by recognising first the important role that our Defence Force plays. I think we have a rich history of a strong, well-resourced defence force. It didn’t always start that way. I’ll make a few historic references in my contribution. The first defence force in New Zealand was actually set up in 1863 under the Colonial Defence Force Act. It was a regular force of only 500 troops, who were all voluntary and expected to serve for a term of three years each, funded to the tune of only £30,000.

Of course, since then it’s grown rather substantially, and quite rightly, the Minister and others have pointed to the fact that the Defence Force plays an integral role in terms of national security, but also in terms of peacekeeping and our aid contribution, and also in terms of emergencies. Certainly, on this side of the House, we respect that role and we are grateful for that role. My contributions are all made in the context that I think that is a fundamental part of the role of the State and that it’s important that we have carve-outs for the Defence Force as well, to ensure that they can act where there are threats to our security. We recently had a family member who became a private in the Defence Force, and it gives me a huge sense of pride to see her become a member of our Defence Force as well.

In the context of that deep respect, it really is how I look at this bill, and what I always look for with any legislative change is: what is the problem statement, where is the gap? That’s why I spent a considerable amount of time in the committee stage questioning the Minister on the rationale for the bill. I think what became clear is that it doesn’t appear that there’s a gap in the way it has been described at the stages of the bill coming through the House.

The way in which I understood the gap initially was that if we had a period where the House is adjourned—adjourned only; not concluded for that term, but just adjourned over the summer break—and you have an authorisation that expires during that period, there is no way for an authorisation to be extended by the House. Now, while that is true—and that became clear through the committee stage—it was also clear that the Minister can make a second authorisation. My line of questioning was really about whether that was the case, and clearly it is the case. There is no gap. The Minister can make a second authorisation. My line of questioning was then around whether there would be administrative delays that would cause detriment to our national security and whether that was the thought process that gave rise to the bill. I’m still a little unclear as to whether that is the case, but I did propose to the Minister that perhaps if it was, one way of rectifying that would be to create a power in the bill that allowed the Minister alone to extend an authorisation.

If we were looking at levels of scrutiny, the first level you would have is for Parliament to authorise it on the expiration of the 14-day period. That’s obviously the best-case scenario; not always going to be able to happen in a long extended period where Parliament isn’t sitting. However, your next best option in terms of scrutiny would be to have the Minister extend the authorisation. Now, the beauty of this is that then there is still a level of scrutiny, and the Minister would be expected to turn her mind to whether the circumstances were still such that an extension should be authorised. I don’t know that the House has quite had an answer as to why that wouldn’t be a suitable thing to do. Just recognising again, as we all have across the House, that the right to protest is in fact important, and so minds must be turned to that when weighing up if the circumstances are appropriate to make an authorisation, and, if so, what that period should be.

I remain of the view that given the timeline in section 9(4) of the Defence Act has not changed, there’s a recognition that, actually, 14 days is a reasonable period of time for, in that case, the Prime Minister or the next senior Minister to turn their mind to whether it needs to be extended by the House or not. Again, I don’t think that we really travelled sufficiently through the argument why those two provisions are as different as they are.

There’s a solution—well, the first thing is there is no current gap, unless there is an administrative difficulty for the Minister over that summer, and I think the House needs to be clear about that. And, in the second part, if there is an administrative difficulty, there is a fix to that, which would still overlay that ministerial oversight. I think, unfortunately, we haven’t explored, in truth, the proposed amendments, which I think would have gone some way to improving the bill—and broadening the powers, actually—because right now, the Minister doesn’t have the power to extend on her own; it’s only the House who can do that. However, it would just be the next layer of broadening that we would be doing.

A number of submitters at select committee—I wasn’t on the select committee dealing with this bill—pointed to the issues that have been spoken to across the House. Again, I think it would have been prudent to consider some of the changes that we suggested in this bill, but unfortunately that was not done. Again, I go back to the issue of I guess what I’d almost call a bleed into treating urgency as just a way of churning or getting legislation through the pipeline as opposed to genuinely considering whether the reason is urgent or not.

As I’ve said earlier, in my view, there is no urgency tied to the summer break period, given the Minister could issue a second authorisation. That argument simply isn’t there. I wonder, as we continue going through this week of urgency in the House, whether it’s an obligation on us all to consider whether the Standing Orders are sufficient in their requirements for moving the House into urgency. Currently, the requirement is that a reason be provided by the Government, but, again, what we’re starting to see—and I’ll acknowledge here that this has been something that’s come up regardless of which party is leading Government—is a reason be given as opposed to a genuine reason that ties itself to why we’re skipping through certain stages.

Attached to that is my concern that if the select committee stage is fulfilled—if a bill is sent to select committee at all—that’s now deemed to be sufficient in terms of engaging the democratic process. I don’t believe it is. I think, again, we’re seeing a bleed to shortened select committees. It certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed by me that there seems to be an increasing use of the four-month-and-one-day behaviour, where bills are referred to select committee for just over the period where, if they were under four months, there would need to be a debate in the House. Then, of course, it’s the select committee who decides what period of time submissions are called for.

Now, this presents the problem that if you layer one atop the other—the shortening of those periods—you would have a public who doesn’t feel consulted. You would have members who are viewing amendments sometimes at the last minute, and you’d have Ministers who aren’t truly considering Amendment Papers as they should in the committee stage. I mean, this is probably not the worst example of it, but it’s certainly an example where there were some sensible amendments which I had hoped would be considered but haven’t been. Thus, sadly, I cannot commend this bill to the House.

This bill is not about helping the Government. It’s not about helping the National Party or Minister Judith Collins. This is about helping our Defence Force, supporting our Defence Force, from the newest recruit to the Chief of Defence Force. It is telling to see the Labour Party and the Green Party come out firmly opposing that support—not only that they won’t debate the issue that exists but they spread these mistruths. We hear about the 1951 wharf strike, and this could be used to break it. The Green Party tell us, “Oh, it could be used for forestry workers.” No, it can’t. This is only an internal thing for the Defence Force. It shows the lack of knowledge, it shows the lack of respect on that side of the House for our Defence Force, and it shows the lack of support. The National Party supports our Defence Force. National supports every single service person, and we support this bill.

This is a split call. I call Helen White.

Thank you. It’s a split call, and that gives me five minutes to tell you why I don’t think that it is fair for the member of the Government who just stood up to talk about this as an ill-informed Opposition. This Opposition has done its level best, in urgency, to take this matter seriously. That has been very evident in the questions that have been put. My friend on the other side of the House has just raised the thorny issue of the 1951 strike. It clearly hit home when the Hon Phil Twyford talked about that. It’s an absolutely relevant thing to talk about if you’re from the Labour Party, because those times were definitely very, very formative for this party.

I want to talk first of all just about the value of strikes. There’s a little bit that may have been said by other speakers, but I want to reinforce it. When the Labour Party and the Green Party talk about this as having an impact on striking and being a strikebreaking tool, that’s because if a military worker takes the position of a striking civilian worker, they undermine the power of a strike. We set about a striking mechanism in a structure. You can’t strike for any reason in New Zealand, and you can’t strike at any time in New Zealand. You can only strike when the legislature says that’s a legitimate tool in the tool box, and you have to give good notice, and there are essential industries in this country where there is a lot of notice required because they are essential to the population. It is a managed ability that people have.

What this piece of law does is it says that people can be ordered or forced, because they are military, to go into those positions and do those jobs in a time of strike. That actually does undermine the industrial rights of that group of people. That’s a big deal, and it isn’t that the Labour Government hasn’t seen a balancing act here, because this is our military and this is an important part of the mechanisms that keep the country safe. That has been an important thing. It’s only an amendment to a law. There was already a checks and balances system in place, and part of that checks and balances system was coming back to this legislature if we extended the period that the military were going to do that. People had to come back to this legislature. They no longer need to do that in the same way. That’s an erosion. That’s a lack of balance.

What my friend the Hon Phil Twyford talked about, that seems to have really got up the noses of some of the Government members, is that, right now, we are in a world where we have seen military forces on the streets in the US. We have seen that happen. I never thought I would see that. I never thought I would see that kind of intervention. We’re in a time of great change, and so it’s very important we hold and respect our organised rules for things like striking and for things like the use of our military. We respect those young people who come into the military. I talked about it in the committee stage. My volunteers who come in are full of wonderful ideas and ambitions, and they join the military, and they don’t expect to be told that they must go over and do the work of a plumber, because that happens to suit the Government of the day. That is not what they signed up for. That is not why I value them. I value them, and I respect them, and I respect the fact that they are human beings doing great work and being brave. There is a balance to be struck. Thank you.

It really fills me with sadness hearing some of the comments from the other side of the House. I haven’t had the pleasure of being on the select committee that dealt with this bill, but, from the basic reading, I can see and hear that what’s being said on the other side does not reflect what we’re doing here. As the Hon Judith Collins just said, the arguments against are showing actually how much the other side cares about our Defence Force—or, rather, doesn’t care for our Defence Force. This law, essentially, keeps New Zealand safe around the clock while still respecting the right of civilian staff to strike. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I often go to the regulatory impact statement for the truth because that’s one area where it’s harder for the Government to spin things. The regulatory impact statement makes it incredibly clear what we’re doing today. It says in it that back at the end of 2024, when civilian staff undertook industrial action in support of bargaining for a new collective agreement, that caused problems. That was when they got a zero percent pay rise.

The member Rima Nakhle, who has just resumed her seat, talked about the fact that they care about the Defence Force. My question would be: why, then, did this Government offer them a zero percent increase in pay? Then when they took industrial action, they’ve introduced this legislation as a direct response to prevent those civilians from being able to take collective action such as strikes in the future. Essentially, what this does is use military personnel to conduct the work of New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff in the event of industrial action. That is incredibly short-sighted because if we are seriously talking about our defence workforce, about the wellbeing of New Zealand, about how we grow our defence service to be capable and able to respond, this is a short-term stopgap measure to simply prevent situations that occurred at the end of 2024 when civilian staff took industrial action because they got a zero percent pay increase. That’s the nub of it.

I think it’s important to note that this bill is No. 8. There are more, but this is the eighth thing, in general, that this Government has done to undermine the rights of working New Zealanders, and so I think it’s important that we put it in the context of all of the things they have done since being in Government.

The first one was to repeal fair pay agreements—that was done right away. They’ve brought back 90-day trials, removed the 30-day rule, removed the ability to give workers access to the collective agreement when they first start work—that’s been taken away. Pay deductions for partial strikes—we’ve discussed and debated that one in the House. The ability to partially strike has been removed by this Government. You’ll have your pay eaten into by your employer if you determine you’d like to partially strike. The next one is that if you earn over $180,000, you cannot take a personal grievance against your employer—huge undermining of rights in that one—and the public sector funding cuts right across not just Wellington’s local economy, which is completely downwardly spiralling as a result of those cuts, and right across the country we’ve seen workers who can’t afford to feed their families and pay their bills as a result of that. And, of course, we have the scrapping of 33 pay equity claims.

This bill is hot off the heels of those changes that this Government has made, and I do not take to heart and believe this Government when it says that it has the Defence Force’s interests at heart. We do not accept that at all, because this comes in the context of an ongoing undermining of workers’ rights in New Zealand. This bill is an answer to a question that nobody in Defence is asking. Nobody is asking that question. At a time when the New Zealand Defence Force is facing staffing shortages as well, this House should be focused on real solutions of how we build our workforce, not political theatre masquerading as reform.

Does this actually solve any of the real problems that the Defence Force is currently facing? Does it strengthen our country? Does this improve the lives of New Zealanders in the Defence Force who are struggling to pay their bills without having a decent wage? This bill fails on all of those tests. The defence workforce is not struggling because of a lack of rules or powers or structural levers. It is struggling because people can’t afford to stay, and so are only coming when unemployment is peaking to such a level that we might see a slight uptick. They are struggling because pay has not kept up with inflation. That is the problem, not the fact that we’re going to suddenly install uniformed people to take the roles of civilians to prevent them for striking for decent pay. Military families cannot secure housing near their bases because specialist roles are leaving faster than they can be replaced.

This bill does not take any steps towards addressing those problems—problems such as burnout from long hours, repeated deployments, and persistent vacancies, and the hollowing out of morale of the defence service. This bill actually takes steps to increase or further erode the morale by having uniformed or civilian Defence Force personnel potentially having issues if they’re stepping into those roles. This bill deals with none of the pressures that have led to it. Instead, this Government has brought forward legislation that tinkers with obligations, expands bureaucratic oversight, and creates compliance costs that are absolutely unnecessary. It’s a complete disconnect with the workforce issues that we are seeing.

One of the deepest concerns that has been raised is that the Defence Force should be supported in a way where we have a long-term plan to build our workforce. This bill does not do that. One of the most alarming aspects of this legislation is the lack of evidence that underpins it. The Government has repeatedly asserted that the bill will strengthen the workforce but when we’ve looked for data, when we’ve looked through the submissions and we’ve looked at that, there’s absolutely no evidence that the proposed interventions resolve any of the issues that were heard at select committee, and there’s no evidence that this will actually make a real difference to the problems we’re seeing.

Good lawmaking requires evidence, and this bill offers a bunch of slogans instead. It is not really assisting in any way. We would like to see meaningful change that raises the wages of those people and enables their ability to take collective action and to have decent working conditions. By simply taking this and doing this, it fails to modernise the workforce or address future challenges. New Zealand’s Defence Force deserves to have that oversight and that foresight and a future planning model in place, and this bill is incredibly short-sighted.

I would like to conclude by saying that it’s all well and good to talk about what a great service the Defence Force provides. We hear, “Aren’t they amazing and don’t they do a great job?”—yes, they are, and they deserve better than this. They deserve better than having this kind of tinkering at the margins that doesn’t go to the heart of addressing the fact that they deserve to be paid better. They deserve to have oversight and a plan in place that supports that. They deserve to have support for their families. They deserve to have improved housing and cost of living conditions taken into account. They deserve to have expanded mental health and wellbeing services. They deserve to have stronger recruitment pipelines in engineering, aviation, healthcare, and IT. We would like to see those things put into this House. We would like to see better retention incentives that match the reality of the modern labour market.

This bill does none of that. All this bill does is take another step in the long line of assault on workers’ rights that prevent situations that happened at the end of 2024, when we had people striking for more than a zero percent pay increase. New Zealanders expect to have a defence force that is ready to respond in floods and fires, geopolitical risks, and humanitarian crises, but, instead, this Government has delivered a piece of legislation that responds only to its own political messaging, and that’s a sad loss.

I have never heard so much rubbish in my life—it’s just unbelievable. I’m delighted that I’ve got the last word on this bill, because I’ve got a few things that we need to clear up. Let’s just remember, shall we, that the Government of the previous regime had six years in which they did nothing for Defence—not a single thing. The attrition rate in Defence in their time was out the gate. It has now turned around.

I just want to reiterate a couple of things that my colleagues have said. It’s shameful that the Opposition thinks it’s OK to leave armaments and secure bases unprotected in times of strike because striking people are more important. No one denies that they are allowed to strike—if you want to strike, happy days; go for your life—but let’s just remember that some of those places need to be protected in that time. You can’t tell me—no, not you, Madam Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good point.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: The Opposition can’t tell me that nurses and doctors leave the hospital when they strike and nothing is put in place to help people in that hospital. There are people that go in there and they take up those places so that people get looked after.

Dr Tracey McLellan: No, they don’t. There are limited life-preserving facilities.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Yes, they do, because I know some that do it. Let’s just remember that we support our Defence Force and our service personnel and we want to make sure that they have safety and security as one of their key areas of focus, leaving the civil personnel to strike if they see fit.

It’s very simple, this bill. The Opposition members seem to have whipped themselves up into a frenzy, thinking it’s a whole lot of things that it’s not. It’s simple: if you want to strike, you can strike if you’re a civilian member of the Defence Force. This is plan B. This makes sure that those places are looked after. It’s quite simple, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Speaker—oh, no?

Actually, that’s my call. Is this a point of order?

Hon Member: No.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill.