Sitting date: 18 November 2025

DEFENCE (WORKFORCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I'd like to thank Tim van de Molen, chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, indeed, the entire committee for their careful consideration of this bill. After careful deliberation, including a review of 37 submissions, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed with no changes.

The committee raised some important points in their report, which I will address in a moment. But first, I would like to remind the House of the reasons why this bill is needed. In a deteriorating strategic environment, New Zealand needs a defence force that can respond quickly and with agility; a force that is combat-capable, interoperable, and ready to do whatever is asked of it, whether that be to respond in the aftermath of a natural disaster or to deploy offshore with our partners. To do this, we rely on the Defence Force's hard-working, highly trained sailors, soldiers, and aviators, who together make up the armed forces, but we also rely on the New Zealand Defence Force's (NZDF's) professional and skilled civilian staff. This is a common-sense bill. Its focus is on ensuring national security and the delivery of core defence outputs is maintained if civilian staff in the NZDF take industrial action.

This bill makes two sets of changes for two different groups. I want to be clear about these differences in order to avoid any misunderstandings. The first set of changes relates to when the armed forces are used to conduct the work of NZDF civilian staff—that's their colleagues within the Defence Force itself. In this area, the bill makes the more substantive change. When the NZDF civilian staff take industrial action—which they are entitled to do—that can cause gaps and pressures which can stand in the way of the Defence Force, as a whole being, ready and able to deliver whatever New Zealand needs whenever it needs it. The Defence Act 1990 allows the Minister of Defence to authorise the armed forces to conduct the work of striking NZDF civilian staff, but the current mechanism is too limited and impractical. The current mechanisms do not account for the breadth of tasks that NZDF civil staff undertake and the potential impact on New Zealand's defence and security if these activities are stopped.

The bill amends the Defence Act 1990 so that the Minister can authorise military personnel to conduct the work of striking NZDF civilian staff, but only when (a) there is industrial action taking place, and (b) there are reasonable grounds to consider that an authorisation is required, either to avoid prejudice in national security or the ability to deliver core defence outputs, or (c) where necessary because of health or safety. The Minister must specify in writing the period of the authorisation, which cannot extend beyond the period of the industrial action. To support parliamentary scrutiny, Parliament would be notified that an authorisation had been given and the reasons for giving it. Effective members of civilian staff and their union would also be informed.

The second set of changes relate to when military personnel are used to conduct the work of Public Service employees outside of the NZDF. This provision already exists in the Defence Act 1990, and the bill makes only procedural changes. Clause 4 amends the Defence Act to increase the number of days an authorisation for military personnel to perform the role may last, from 14 days to 30 days. An extension beyond this would still require a resolution of the House, and so the opportunity to debate that extension remains. A minor amendment is also made to ensure that if an authorisation expires when Parliament is not sitting, it will automatically extend to the next sitting day, when Parliament is able to consider whether an extension is merited.

Now, I'll turn to some points considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Firstly, the committee considered whether the changes would reduce Parliament's oversight. The bill does remove the requirement for the House to debate the extension to an authorisation when the military personnel are conducting the work of NZDF civilian staff. I do not shy away from this. I consider this as akin to the process of an employer being able to use other members of their own staff to cover the work of striking colleagues.

Members of the armed forces and the NZDF civilian staff work alongside each other every day, working together on the common goal of protecting and defending New Zealand. I do not know of any other employers that have to go through the hoop of parliamentary approval simply to use one member of staff to conduct the work of another who is striking for an extended period of time. It is simply not necessary for the House to have a role in approving extensions of this kind of authorisation. It is not a good use of limited House time for something which in any other organisation is routine.

I accept that some members may continue to hold strong views about this, and so I want to reiterate that the bill does maintain parliamentary visibility of authorisations and to do this by requiring the Minister to notify the House if an authorisation is given and the reasons for giving it. Members will have the information they need, should they wish to raise this with the Minister of Defence at oral questions or to bring it to the attention of the House in another way.

To clarify again, the bill maintains the current role of Parliament in approving an extension to an authorisation for the use of the armed forces to conduct the work of Public Service employees. This is important because the use of the armed forces outside military settings should never be taken lightly, and so maintaining an approval role for Parliament here is appropriate if the armed forces are undertaking this work for a sustained period.

Secondly, the committee considered whether the bill should define certain terms, particularly "national security" and "core defence outputs". I will discuss these in turn. Defining "national security" would be inconsistent with our existing statutory approach. New Zealand has typically adopted an approach which aligns with many of our closest partners, who also do not include a definition in legislation so as not to constrain the ability to respond to new or emerging threats. Instead, we take the view that the interpretation of "national security" should rely on formulations that sit outside of legislation in key strategic documents, such as the New Zealand National Security Strategy.

The committee also considered the criteria of "core defence outputs". This criteria stated in full is "to avoid prejudicing … the ability and/or readiness of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities that are integral to core defence outputs;". This contains multiple elements that must be satisfied before it can apply. This could include activities essential to maintaining the NZDF's 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.

Finally, the committee considered whether the bill would negatively impact the collective bargaining and industrial action of the civilian staff. Let me be clear: industrial action by members of the civil staff absolutely has an impact on the NZDF, now and in the future. Using armed forces to conduct the work of civil staff means that they are not able to perform their regular duties. The Chief of Defence Force does not have enough staff to take these decisions lightly.

I know that the NZDF will continue to work hard through negotiation discussions to avoid industrial action coming about in the first place, but if it does occur, let there be no doubt that any disruption imposes a cost to the NZDF. This bill does not prevent industrial action. What it does is balance the right of NZDF civilian staff to take industrial action with New Zealand's very much defence needs.

Separately, the bill makes minor changes to the existing process for allowing the armed forces to undertake the role of striking public servants. It safeguards national security and operational readiness. The Chief of Defence Force needs the flexibility to manage the NZDF workforce to ensure that those core defence activities can continue to take place where necessary, even when parts of its workforce are taking industrial action, and the bill makes sure that when the military personnel are required to take on essential tasks during industrial action, provisions are practical and fit for purpose.

In these increasingly challenging times, we need to make sure that legislation that supports our soldiers, sailors, and aviators to protect and defend New Zealand's interests is sensible and pragmatic. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I start my contribution in this second reading of this bill, the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, by acknowledging our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel here and abroad who continue to work hard, represent our country well, and serve the communities here and around the world. They do a fantastic job, not only in the day to day operations that they involve themselves in but also flying the flag for New Zealand as ambassadors of our country and ambassadors of a highly reputable New Zealand Defence Force in our communities at home there. So I want to start by acknowledging our NZD personnel.

I want to make very clear that we can do this while also continuing to represent the clear views of the Labour Party, which is around the rights of the worker, which is around making sure that those people who work in the civilian roles—as highlighted by the Minister; the crucial civilian roles—continue to have the opportunity not only to take civil action in representing themselves through making sure that they receive a fair go, if you will, but also in making sure that they can continue to be acknowledged for the important work that they do do with the NZDF. And we are the Labour Party; we stand up for those people. We want to make sure that those people can have that opportunity, and the Minister has set out a few matters that I'll come to throughout the entirety of my speech and understand that we will be going through the process of the committee of the whole and into the third and final reading of this bill.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, a very good and hard-working committee, generally look at the vast majority of its work in a very multi-partisan way. We all tend to try and be rather collegial and look towards making sure we advance the best interests of this country, so I want to acknowledge the committee. The Minister did rightly point out that we in the Opposition offered a number of opportunities or avenues for the Minister to consider. That might be a way of making sure that we continue to work together on something so important but also trying to be helpful and making sure that we can strengthen this particular bill moving forward.

I want to be very clear. When this Government signalled its public service cuts, we asked not just this Minister but this Government whether or not those cuts would have a significant impact on the NZDF and its operations. At the time we were told no, yet here we are amending a bill, making it very clear that the Government is looking for a get out of jail free card, a plan B if you will, to say "Oh well, we'll change the law to make it easier", just in case industrial action is taken not only by those NZDF civilian staff but also by the wider public sector who, as we've already seen, have continued to protest many of the actions of this Government. We've had a number of bills already in the House looking at our teachers. We know our health sector is under pressure and on its knees and have continued to protest against the actions of this Government. And now what we're doing here today in this bill is saying that certain parts of those sectors who do take industrial action, it'll be OK for the NZDF to backfill those roles.

Now, let me just remind the House again, we asked this Government whether or not it would have an impact—we were told no. And yet here we are changing the law, making it somewhat easier, or the process easier, for those decisions to be made. I made a contribution earlier in this House too, today, about one of the things that we're always keeping an eye for on this side of the House, which is to our view, minimising democratic processes. We're very clear when there's a reason for matters such as this to come back to the House, for the House to have an opportunity to debate these matters. It's there for a reason. It's there to make sure that for such an important sector in our country, such as NZDF and the civilian staff that support them, this House gets the opportunity to debate that. It gets the opportunity to continue to make sure that we are all in support of the crucial role that our NZDF people play in our country and how they might be able to support this country's aspirations.

We're also very clear, too, as the Minister pointed out in her speech, that there are some areas where we talk about the national security interests, also health and safety. We were quite clear on the side of the House asking the Minister and members of the committee, "If we know what those provisions are, and we're very clear on what they are, let's make sure we are clear on that" so that it isn't just an open door to be able to allow them to backfill in positions or in roles that actually they shouldn't be doing.

We've got a number of amendments that we'll look towards putting for the House's consideration during the committee of the whole House, to make sure that it isn't just a carte blanche approach to making sure that NZDF personnel can just backfill any old position. We've heard the Minister speak towards national interest and health and safety. We want to explore that a little bit more and be very explicit about saying, "OK, that's fine, but make sure that they can't do what would otherwise be termed as clerical or administrative roles." So if that's the purpose of this bill, to make sure that we can continue to remain operationally ready, we can continue to support health and safety, we can also continue to support the national security interests of this country, that's fine. We support that too. But we want to make sure that it isn't just pushing people into administration or clerical roles, because we don't believe that for the most part that is in the best interests of the NZDF personnel or this country.

We also will be promoting a number of other amendments that will speak to some other more smaller, minor, technical bits that the Minister has spoken to in her speech. But I want to make very clear that on this side of the House, we do support the rights of workers. We are the Labour Party. That's who we stand for. And those who did submit, those unions that did submit on this particular bill were very clear about that. They were very passionate about making sure that those rights continue to remain. Let's be very clear, it was their view that the rights of workers right across this country have been beat down, have been kicked in the guts, and been taken for granted by this Government. They made that very clear in their submission, and we sat through those submissions. We engaged with the unions. I want to point out that the NZDF in the consideration of this particular bill did not proactively engage with the unions. In fact, it says it in their report here. And they give a reason for it in the report, saying that it wasn't in the interests of those who might consider taking industrial action. To my view, that's just not good enough.

We know that these people are represented by unions, have been for a long time and in fact those unions, for a number of years, even in my time as a defence Minister were keen to engage with either the Minister or other members of the House, and in particular the NZDF leadership. So we've seen already that those submitters could only find their voice during this particular process. One would have thought that in order to support those important NZDF civilian roles that we've heard the Minister speak of this evening, they might be a bit more open to engaging with the union on important matters that affect them.

We do oppose this bill, and I can say as a former defence Minister, having looked across the wide scope of what it is that the NZDF does, one of the other concerns that I do have is it was raised with me and, and a number of my predecessors that the Defence Act of 1990 is like that beach bach where you keep putting a lean to on a lean to, on a lean to. And all of a sudden you think that it's going to cater for everybody, and then there's a leak. And so the point of that is the Defence Act does actually need, in my view, a considerable overhaul. We can't keep just making these amendments or these, you know, changes to the Act just here and there. As I said, it's just putting a lean to on a lean to. And before you know it, it's leaking and the carpet's wet, and we've got a bigger problem.

That's something I want to leave on the floor for the Minister and this Government to consider—

Glen Bennett: On the soggy floor.

Hon PEENI HENARE: On the wet carpet, if you will, to make sure that we have a look at making sure that legislation is fit for purpose. There are lots of things that have changed, but what we do know about the NZDF in this country is they always stand ready to serve. They serve our communities well, even when it's unexpected, such as the weather events and other matters, such as COVID, that impact this country. The NZDF have always served our country well. So let's make sure they can do that with an Act that supports them well and isn't simply just a piecemeal approach to supporting them in the important work that they do.

We oppose this bill. We will be putting forward some amendments for the Minister and this Government to consider, and we look forward to the next stages of this bill in the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. I think through the journey of this bill as it came through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, there were a lot of learnings that I personally had—and I think this committee as a whole had—as we began to understand exactly what the conditions are of the workforce. I think a number of us were surprised at the number of civilian personnel that are employed in these roles; I think the numbers were around about 3,000 and around 1,000 of those are unionised workers.

It's important that is understood: that when they're doing civilian roles, that's civilian work and they should have all the rights that everybody else has when they're doing those civilian roles. Different if you're in the military personnel as well. If you're in the military personnel, as expected—you're working for the army or you're working for the air force or whatever—therefore there's a strict hierarchy that you have to go through because that's what you signed up for. I mean, that is clearly understood as well.

I think it's also really important to understand the genesis of this bill as well. Not only was I surprised at the number of civilian personnel working in our armed forces, but also the roles that they did and the expectation that if you do those roles that you should be able to have all of the other rights that other people have, like the right to strike, for example. In 2024, Public Service Association (PSA) members, in particular in the NZDF civilian staff roles, when they were negotiating their pay, what they were offered was a zero pay offer. That's what they were offered.

We all understand we're living in the cost of living crisis, right? This House talks about that all the time. Everybody's feeling the pinch, especially workers, and we just look around this country, the unprecedented number of strikes that we're seeing. There's firefighters, teachers, nurses, support staff as well. We know that everybody is feeling the pinch and that people are offering pay increases below the rate of inflation. So if you show up to the bargaining table and the offer is zero pay, you look around for the different options that you have to be able to—as your right—find different ways to make action. That's what these workers did. At the time, the Minister of Defence responded by using her powers under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 to authorise the use of the armed forces to provide services at these NZDF sites.

This is the situation that we're finding ourselves in. It's an attempt to stop the ability for workers to be able to access their rights, and I think this is what should be of great concern to this House. We've seen that with the partial pay strikes. We've seen that with the fair pay agreements going out the window. We saw what happened with the 33 pay equity claims as well. So I think it's important to see this bill in the context of all those things as well.

At the heart, this bill weakens the right to strike by allowing striking civilian staff to be replaced with uniformed personnel, not just when there is a risk to health and safety, when there is a threat to national security, but effectively in any circumstance. Workers engaging in lawful strikes are entitled to take effective industrial action and it is an important bargaining tool and a legitimate expression of the industrial power of working people.

Just to remind people: we're hiring these civilian people to do these, as civilians; they deserve all of the rights that they have. Workers engaging in lawful strikes are entitled to take industrial action as an important bargaining tool and a legitimate expression of the industrial power of working people. The ability for the Government to replace striking workers with uniformed personnel will always be controversial and should only be used in the rarest of occasions, if ever. That is why the law currently provides for clear limitations and democratic guardrails, including parliamentary approval for extended use of uniformed personnel to fill the civilian roles during industrial action.

There were a number of submissions that came to the select committee, and I think as a select committee we work relatively collegially. I think generally the other side of the House will say something, I don't agree with it, we agree to disagree and we kind of work our way through it. As opposed to some other select committees, where we don't agree with each other and it's all on. So I do appreciate being able to agree to disagree, and in this case we are disagreeing.

Tim Costley: I agree with that.

TEANAU TUIONO: He's agreeing to disagree with my agreement.

There are a number of themes that submitters brought to the select committee. One of them was around concerns about removing parliamentary oversight, and I do note that was talked about by the previous two speakers.

There were concerns that the bill would enable the military to encroach on civilian life. One of the submitters—and this is the PSA; I think that a really, really, good strong submission. I would encourage the public to go out there and to read that. I remember part of that submission; they said that they had talked to military personnel who, of course didn't want to be identified in any way, were worried that this would cause friction in the tearoom, right? We can say these military personnel are going to do these civilian roles, but what does that practically look like? When you're going into the morning tearoom, you're going to have people that are doing your jobs or this other sort of thing. Some of these people actually spoke to the union; this is part of their submission that said that this would create an awkward situation, this will create friction as well. I think that's something for this House to be mindful of as well.

I think it's important that the workers in this particular case were using all the legitimate tools that they could find. They were offered a zero pay offer. These were the actions that they were able to take as well, and they took effective action and they won. Winding back those rights, I think, is the wrong thing to do.

A couple of the other submitters brought up potential breaches of New Zealand's international obligations. Submitters raised concerns that the bill would undermine or frustrate or breach New Zealand's obligations under the International Labour Organization conventions 87 and 98, which relate to freedom of association, the right to strike, and the ability to organise and collectively bargain.

Just noting the contribution from the Council of Trade Unions, who commented that the right to strike should not be disturbed unless there are clear and good reasons for doing so. They cited the Employment Court judgment in Secretary for Justice v New Zealand Public Service Association. I think that's an important point, because we get the arguments around our national security; the arguments around emergencies as well. But there was another component that is part of this legislation which also involves core defence outputs, I think it is. Maybe one of the other side could correct me on it—no, it is core defence outputs as well, which is basically anything.

Previously there's an argument about what national security is and I think that's an important discussion for us to have: what is in the national interest, what isn't in the national interest. Let's discuss what that is and whether we should be withdrawing the right to strike from those particular workers as well. Emergency situations; I can understand that as well. But what is actually core defence outputs? Well, it could be anything, actually, and that, I think, is a problem. So I think we should have discussions about that through the committee of the whole House stage as well, to really figure out, what does that actually mean? Is it clerical work? Is it—who knows? That was one of the other core concerns that submitters brought up as well.

Submitters have also talked about how this would negatively impact morale and the effectiveness of the NZDF as well. Because who wants to be a strike breaker? You've got your mates that you work with, civilian or military. I mean, those are the labels that we give them, but if they're all walking down the same hallway, the next thing you know: "Well mate, I'm just—they've given me a zero offer here and I'm trying to feed my kids, to keep the lights on, and you're not going to allow me to do this strike." It puts them in an awkward situation. That's what this does as well. I think this is what the House needs to turn its mind to.

Therefore, on that basis, the Greens will not be supporting this bill. This bill is another example of strike breaking. It is an example of this Government not taking workers seriously. It fits right into the context of all the work that they've been doing undermining workers' rights, whether that's getting rid of fair pay agreements, bringing back 90-day trials. The workers can see that for what that is, not to mention all the mucking around with the Employment Relations Authority as well. This bill is not a good bill and I do not commend it to the House.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tim Costley: Hope this is better.

LAURA McCLURE: Oh, thank you.

I would also like to give a shout-out to the men and women in the Defence Force that do an excellent job at keeping us safe. Really, this bill is about keeping us safe. It's very sensible that we would expect our sites—our Defence Force sites—to be secure and safe. In no way, shape or form does this actually stop the ability for industrial action. Anyone at home might think that may be the case, but that is not the case. Any type of industrial action is actually highly disruptive to the Defence Force; there's a lot of planning and time that goes into that. So that alone is still there, and there is still an ability for people to take that action. It's a really small change; it's just extending the time frames for the Chief of Defence Force and the Minister to make sure that we cover periods when this House isn't sitting. It's really sensible, so I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. I thank the member from ACT who brought us back to reality around the fact that this is not removing the ability to take industrial action, and perhaps we need to repeat that again: it does not remove the ability to take industrial action. It is very simple that we have—particularly in the current climate; a highly volatile global environment where we expect Defence to be able to do its job at all times.

For those of us who have worked with sworn and non-sworn personnel, there is no conflict. There is a common goal. There is an ability to work together and understand differences, and to take industrial action does not undermine the relationship between Defence personnel and civilian personnel. They have a common objective, and they work for Defence because they believe in their common objective of serving their country. So to suggest that this bill would in any way undermine the relationship between civilian and Defence personnel is just a total fantasy. This is about ensuring that New Zealand can continue to protect itself, allow civilian action to be taken when they need to take it, but at its core it is about ensuring Defence can continue to do its job.

Defence personnel don't want to fill civilian positions, but they will always and ultimately put the defence of this country first. That is what we need as a nation, and this is a practical, obvious step to ensure that we can do this. As the Minister of Defence has pointed out, any other organisation has the ability to shift staff around to manage through industrial action. It is common practice. It does not undermine the ability of any organisation to have industrial action taken. This is exactly what this bill is doing: it is allowing Defence to do exactly what every other organisation does in times of industrial action.

It is a practical common-sense piece of legislation. It will ensure that our Defence facilities and our borders and our personnel can remain protected and looked after, which is a priority along with our assets, our expensive Defence assets, being able to be protected no matter what the situation with industrial relations. It is absolutely disingenuous to stand here and say that we really stand up for our Defence personnel and we thank them for the wonderful job they do and then deny them a tool to actually continue to do what they do in the period when there's industrial action. It is just disingenuous to say that we're standing up for Defence personnel but we're not going to let them defend their assets or defend their staff or defend their personnel or defend their functions in times of industrial action. This is a quick and easy remedy to resolve that situation. It does not remove any opportunity to take industrial action and therefore New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know what's disingenuous? It's Government politicians thanking the New Zealand Defence Force for their work, while at the very same time pushing forward legislation that literally undermines their bargaining power when it comes to their paying conditions.

The reality is that this bill is about undermining bargaining power for the New Zealand Defence Force, particularly civilians within it. While the member prior to me, Hon Casey Costello, may have said that this is not about preventing those civilians within the Defence Force from striking, the bill does take away one of the most effective tools when it comes to workers fighting for decent pay and safe working conditions, which is the withdrawal of labour. Effectively, the Government is creating a tool, with less accountability for them, to put military personnel in place of civilian staffers in the Defence Force when they often will be seeking better pay and conditions.

I think those Government politicians defending this bill may want to query as to whether the civilian Defence Force, that have raised issues in relationship to their pay and their conditions, were wrong. And it's quite different to say, "Well, there may be a bargaining process that needs to be undertaken." And, sure, we recognise—even in the Greens, who are often out there supporting striking workers—that those decisions to strike are not taken lightly. It's different to say that, you know, we have a process for those workers to fight for decent paying conditions. To then go and push forward with a bill that—effectively, what it does is that it removes a democratic check on decisions by Government to basically have the military Defence Force fill in those civilian roles.

I took part in the debate, not that long ago, when the Minister of Defence chose to extend the period in which the military Defence Force would be filling those civilian roles as a result of industrial election. What was clear to me is that it is important, in our democracy, when we have military personnel filling civilian roles, that we actually take the time to (a) debate it, for the public to be adequately informed, and for those checks and balances to be put in place.

I also want to raise the issue, in the current context, that the civilian Defence Force does play a really important role in protecting us when, for example, natural disasters strike. And the reality that we have right now—

Tim Costley: They can't deploy.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: They can't what?

Tim Costley: No, they don't. You don't understand what the Defence Force does.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. Well, I'll wait for the member who made famous YouTube videos on it.

Hon Judith Collins: Civilians don't deploy.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: But they don't necessarily—did I use the word "deploy"? No.

Tim Costley: How are they going to help if they're not deploying?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, according to the National member, they don't seem to help at all, so I'm looking forward to the member talking about the contributions of the civilian Defence Force and how important they are.

Effectively, what this bill does is that it allows the Minister to have one less level of accountability in Parliament. I think what was really telling, as well, throughout the debate, is that members could not identify the problem with the status quo; they just talked about how this is a common-sense bill. But, for example, the member prior to me was not able to articulate what the problem is with having an adequate parliamentary check for when the Minister chooses to extend the time in which those roles are going to be filled with military personnel.

We did hear from the unions and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about their concerns of how this would undermine the bargaining process, and I think that is an incredibly fair point. I think the Government members, in this House, who seek to actually justify this bill need to explain how exactly this does not undermine—in any way, shape, or form—the ability for civilians within the Defence Force to actually bargain for better pay and conditions.

The other issue that we have, as well, is that if the Government wasn't ramming through so many pieces of legislation via urgency, I don't think they would find the current processes that we have in place so onerous or such a big barrier. The reality is that in terms of time in Parliament that these most debatable moments take, it's not huge or substantive. And if the Government wasn't seeking to ram through so many pieces of legislation through urgency, it would not take such a huge proportion of time within Parliament.

The reality is that this bill only seeks to undermine workers, and it's part of a trend of Government actions that have sought to undermine the pay, the conditions, and the bargaining power of workers across the country; the latest ones to be affected by a piece of legislation are the civilian Defence Force. I commend the words of my colleague Teanau Tuiono, who explained, through his participation in the select committee, as to why the Greens are not supporting this bill.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think anyone watching this will realise that was a typical Green Party contribution where the wokeness comes through. They dislike the military being able to do military functions and would rather have them disbanded until it comes to the point where they actually need some support and then they'll be crying foul and wanting help. And that member's contribution showed that he was clearly out of his depth in terms of the content of what he was talking about. In fact, he'd be out of his depth in a car park pothole, I suppose. Ultimately, it's quite clear that this bill makes simple changes to ensure, primarily, we can maintain national security at all times, a critical function of our defence force, and, indeed, to ensure that operational readiness is maintained as well.

I want to take a moment to thank all our current serving personnel in the Defence Force for the work they constantly do—turning out day in and day out. Now, this does not take away the ability to strike. We've heard that; we've covered it in detail. Ultimately, it's a practical change that ensures we can maintain national security. That is the critical factor here. The rest of it is just garbage. I commend this bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just like my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, I'd like to take the opportunity, in the start of my speech, to acknowledge our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) members both here in New Zealand and overseas, and the fantastic work that they do to support us and to support our national security. We are very fortunate to have a well-thought-of defence force in this country, who are pretty world-leading in many respects, for the work that they do, and it would be remiss of me if I didn't take the opportunity to acknowledge that.

As my colleague has pointed out and said here earlier, we as the Labour Party find ourselves in a position where we won't be, at this point, supporting this bill. There are so many grey areas that are in the bill as it stands at the moment. I've read through the bill, and I know it's only a short bill. It seems like it's only a few pages. Maybe that's the problem; that it is only a few pages long and that it hasn't actually highlighted enough what some of the phrases mean within the bill.

Those people that have read it from the other side of the House and other parties on this side of the House might think that they know what is in there and what it's talking about, but from our perspective, we might have a different viewpoint and it's really important that we actually come to the same conclusion on what some of those phrases mean. I know that my colleague has, as he said to the Minister of Defence in his speech, some amendments that he will be putting forward in the committee of the whole House stage for nothing other than to actually clear up the grey areas that exist in the bill at the moment.

I read through the departmental report from the select committee process and, as this is the second reading of this bill, it would, again, be remiss not to talk about what happened in the select committee. I do acknowledge the work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, giving the analysis and looking at this bill with the seriousness and the depth that they did. I noticed that they had 38 written submissions on the bill. Three submissions were received from non-governmental organisations and 35 were from individuals, which I thought was a pretty amazing ratio, there, of individuals to organisations. Out of those 38, one submitter supported the bill and 35 submitters opposed the bill. One submitter expressly stated that they neither supported nor opposed the bill, and one submitter did not provide a clear view about supporting or opposing the bill. So that's come directly from the departmental report, and I thought that we haven't actually heard that here this evening, but seeing as we are talking in the second reading, it is important that we do bring this up.

Some of the reasons why so many submitters did oppose this bill have been outlined by other speakers here this evening, but some of the ideas that came through were about the restrictions that could be put on civilian members and their right to strike. As my colleague has already pointed out, we are the Labour Party, so the name is on the tin. We do actually stand up for workers and we do hold very, very clear to that, so we need to make certain that is not being taken away and that is clearly something that is of right, and that the backfilling that happens in those areas by the defence force is authentic and that is not something that is happening because of job losses that have happened.

As my colleague pointed out—we've asked the Minister multiple times—when there were job cuts, would that have a meaningful impact on the NZDF personnel to either deploy or to do their job? The Minister said it wouldn't, but now all of a sudden the Government's trying to backfill those civilian roles with NZDF personnel to make sure that they can continue the very basics of those functions. So those are things that we will be prosecuting through the committee of the whole House stage as well. I know that's something that we haven't had a clear steer on in the select committee process, so it's really important that we make certain that we discuss that.

But one of the areas that I was really concerned about when I read the bill coming through from the select committee was when I talked about those grey areas earlier. It talked about areas such as, you know, the most important roles of the defence force, but what does that mean? Maybe that's the people that are in the civilian areas and it's important that they're working to deploy the ship, but what are those roles? They're not being highlighted out. It's really important that we know exactly what they are because there'll be others in there that aren't quite so important, but it's kind of been left up in the air as it is at the moment in how it's been written in that particular bill, so it's really important that those are the sorts of things that are highlighted.

Then it goes on about backfilling when public servants from other areas outside of defence go on strike. One of the areas that has been used as an example in this is Corrections, but it doesn't narrow it solely to Corrections. It actually could be anything within the Public Service. We've got people in the defence force that would be crossing that picket line of any of the areas. It could be teachers. It could be health workers. It could be any of those roles. I heard a member say earlier that the civil side of the defence force and the active service people don't stand against each other, but actually you could be putting them up against public servants overall, so those are areas—

Tim Costley: No, no—section 9.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —that we would like to prosecute during the committee of the whole House stage. I do hear the people on the other side saying, "No, no, no.", but that's what the committee of the whole House is for, to actually prosecute that. I would hate to think that they were undermining the democracy within this House, because the democracy in this House says that we have the right, as Opposition, to actually prosecute this bill a bit more. It would be a very unusual and upsetting day if we had that side of the House thinking that we couldn't do that. It would be a sad day in this House, overall.

The other aspect around this is—and it is actually the second piece of legislation that I've spoken on this evening that I do have concerns about—where we are narrowing the power down to a very narrow group of people. It seems to me that this bill is giving far more power to the Minister and the Chief of Defence Force than what we've seen before. Those are areas that I would like to prosecute when we do get to that committee of the whole House stage because again, it almost feels like in several areas here that we're starting to narrow to the Beehive solely, and I don't think that's very good for this country. I feel that there needs to be a much wider and broader view here. So that is something that, again, we would like to take forward.

Just going back to when I talked about going into other Public Service areas such as education, such as health workers, you know, that is something that we saw over COVID. Again, like my colleague, I acknowledge those defence force people who supported our country over that time and did an amazing job. But the Minister herself said then that being deployed into civilian roles such as providing security to managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities is not what they signed up for. She said, "I don't think the COVID MIQ duty made many people in defence that happy and I think people just wondered if this is what they are going to be used for." So, again, this is something that they seem to be saying on one hand is a bad thing, but on the other hand, this is what this bill is enabling this to do. Again, those are areas that we need to prosecute further because it feels like those are questions that we still have after this bill has come back from select committee.

Again, I want to acknowledge our defence force. I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee team who brought this back. But I do look forward to the committee of the whole House stage where we can ask those questions to make sure that the rights of workers are upheld across all areas in this country.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): If this is the level of illiteracy that we're going to see in the Opposition—not just about this bill but about what the military does—you know, I feel sorry, on the one hand, for one of the members who spoke earlier, who I actually think would like to support the Defence Force. But they stand there with their crocodile tears: "Oh, we acknowledge what they do.", and then they just want to oppose anything that's going to help the military to do their job.

I thought the unions were terrible when they came to select committee. They didn't even understand what civilians do in the military; that they guard main gates or bases. They did not understand that military people who normally do that—we used to do this. Like, how fundamentally can you not understand your job? Then the Green Party stood up, and if you thought the unions were woeful, listen to Ricardo Menéndez March—absolutely awful, this kind of anti-military rhetoric we hear.

It didn't get any better with Jan Tinetti, as she stands up and says, "Oh well, you know, the military had to help in managed isolation and quarantine." That's right, uniformed personnel had to do it. That's not the job that they wanted to do; this is people doing the job they would normally do, and military security force personnel filling a civilian role. They don't understand it.

It's a good bill, I support it, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Phil Twyford—five minutes.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It wasn't that long ago that a National Government got the troops out and deployed them to keep the ports operating during a major industrial dispute in New Zealand. Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel were used to load and unload cargo on the wharves to keep essential goods moving. Troops, effectively, were used to replace striking watersiders on the docks to guard strategic infrastructure and goods, and the ports were, basically, militarised during that dispute. It was highly controversial at the time. The country was divided.

It was clear at the time that the National Government of the day got the troops out on the streets and on the ports as a way of framing the dispute as a challenge to State authority, rather than it being just an industrial conflict; much in the way that Donald Trump has been getting the National Guard out on the streets of major American cities for his own political purposes. That dispute on the waterfront in 1951 was an unprecedented level of State coercion in 20th century New Zealand industrial relations. It's worth remembering that—

Hon Simeon Brown: That's a long time, Phil.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It may seem a long time ago for some people—the 1951 waterfront lockout—but, actually, in the world we live in right now, that sort of undermining of democratic norms and democratic institutions is happening all over the world as we speak at the moment. That's what is most disturbing, actually, about this debate: that this bill is, essentially, a charter for State strike-breaking. That's what it is. By loosening the parliamentary and the democratic oversight that for a long time has been a cross-party consensus in New Zealand—a recognition that from time to time, it may be in the national interest for the uniformed armed forces to be used to provide essential services during, for instance, a prolonged public-service strike. The consensus has been that that is something to be done very sparingly, very carefully. If misused, it is, potentially, a threat to our democracy, and that is why we have careful parliamentary oversight.

What this bill does is that it loosens that oversight so that in the case of the defence forces being used to break a strike in the public service, the Minister doesn't have to come and get a resolution of Parliament—no; and the time periods are significantly longer. In the case of armed forces personnel and uniformed personnel being used to break a strike by the civilian employees of the defence forces, the details are slightly different, but the effect is the same: it removes parliamentary oversight and gives the defence Minister sweeping powers to deploy the armed forces to break strikes. Now, New Zealand has been a party to international law for a long time, provisions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) that preserve the legal right to strike. It is a very important part of our democracy.

I'll say to colleagues that it's really distasteful, actually, when Tim van de Molen and then Tim Costley got up and, really, responded with abuse when people like Ricardo Menéndez March, quite legitimately, pointed out that this bill is undermining important democratic norms and protections in our system; and for doing that, they are accused of hating the military and not understanding what the defence forces do. I say to members on that side of the House: you should be better than that. Have a proper debate—

Hon Member: Oh, cheer up. It'll be ok.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Have a proper debate. This bill is about strike-breaking; there's no two ways about it. It is about breaking industrial action, and defence members of the defence forces will be asked to cross the picket lines of striking workers. That is not the way we've done things in New Zealand for a long time, and there's a very good reason. No evidence has been provided that gives any sort of justification for the changes in this, other than some perfunctory reference to a deteriorating strategic environment.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is important to bring it back to reality. This bill does not mean that no one can strike in the Defence Force—in the civilian workers in the Defence Force. They're still entitled to strike. This bill continues the ability for the Defence Force to carry out its vital activity in the security of our nation, and anything to the counter is just absolute rubbish.

Hon Tama Potaka: Gobbledegook.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It really is gobbledegook. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): How do I respond to that speech? That was outstanding. I think the summary of that in its entirety was: "That was gobbledegook, and this is a good bill." I think you could say that about anything, really—but, never mind, we're here to discuss this piece of legislation, which is a direct consequence of the cuts that this Government has driven right across the public sector and right across New Zealand's front-line services. This is yet another one that's being cut.

We asked the Minister multiple times if cutting civilian roles would have any meaningful impact on New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to either deploy or to do their job. The Minister said that they wouldn't allow it, but then, all of a sudden, we hear that the Government's trying to backfill those civilian positions that we're discussing today to make sure that NZDF personnel can continue to do those very basic things of their work. That is a real concern on this side of the House, and we've heard some strong arguments in terms of why this doesn't work well. This Government has a long track record of assaulting workers' rights, right from the get-go of when they took office, and this is yet another notch—

Tim Costley: Tell us about assaulting workers.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —on the list of what's happened in terms of workers' rights. Those members opposite might think it's funny that workers' rights are eroded; they might talk about this being a two-stage economic recovery, but the reality is that all New Zealanders know it is two-stage—one's for them, and the rest of it is for us.

These workers who are trying to pay their rates and their insurance and their weekly grocery bills and their rent and trying to put clothes on their kids to go to school all day don't think it's funny. They're not cracking a joke, Tim Costley, because they're struggling every week to pay for bills, and people in the Defence Force are no different. They're struggling to be able to pay as well, and by you coming in here and assaulting workers' rights and having a laugh about it with your mates is just insult to injury to the New Zealanders out there who know that this Government has well overspent its time, and it's about time that they took a check on what's happening out there.

It is undermining those taking industrial action to protest the Government cuts, and it's making it even harder to bargain for fair pay and fair working conditions. It is actually quite disgusting that we have this elitist mentality to laugh at people who are struggling and are struggling for their rights. The Act currently requires the Minister to take the decisions to Parliament for debate and resolution, but this bill gives that power to the Minister directly. She has said herself that New Zealand Defence Force personnel being deployed into civilian roles and providing security to places like managed isolation and quarantine facilities is not what it was designed for, but we stand with civilian staff undertaking industrial action, and that is the point of difference.

We've seen coverage in the media in terms of the perceptions of what this bill does; it hasn't been picked up as much as we potentially would have liked, because it is quite important that we have fair working conditions right across the Public Service. Restricting the right of civilian defence force workers to strike is completely unjustified, and it represents an escalation of this Government's undermining of fundamental workplace rights. We think this is yet another slight against workers in New Zealand, and it's completely unacceptable. There's no doubt about it: this legislation will make it harder for defence personnel and their families to be able to achieve fair pay and to be able to pay their weekly bills and afford things—like many other New Zealanders right now.

Last year, we saw that Public Service Association members in the defence force were offered a zero pay increase and were only able to achieve a better offer by, in fact, taking strike action. Strike action is an incredibly important tool for workers to be able to stand up for those rights, which are currently under assault. It is absolutely no coincidence that introducing this legislation at the same time is restricting public sector workers' rights to strike for better pay and better conditions—and that's not fair. That's not fair for people who don't have that right to fight back. It's taking advantage of having power, and it's making those in a weaker position suffer more, which is emblematic of the actions and the legislation that this Government has put into practice from day one.

We know that many, many of those who are in the military will be quietly uncomfortable about being required to cross picket lines if civilian staff take action, and these kinds of divisive tactics by the Government within the defence force really undermine morale in general. It's not right. Public sector workers face exactly the same rising costs as everyone else, so instead of restricting their fundamental democratic right to strike, the Government should show them some respect and pay them fairly. Instead of giving tax cuts to landlords and tobacco companies, you should be paying the people who work hard every day for the State. Instead of calling public servants "wasteful" and "a waste of time", we should acknowledge that they give their lives and their careers to serving our country, and that is an incredibly important role. These people are public servants who deserve that recognition.

I think it's important to put on the record that we have a Government that has completely disrespected the value of public servants, not just in Wellington but up and down the country—people who choose to take a job that, quite often, pays less than one they could get in the private sector, but they do it because they believe in New Zealand and they want to build a country that we're proud of, where we work hard and we look after each other. Acts like this—taking away a basic right to strike for fair pay conditions—undermine the fabric of what New Zealand is. It stops people from having that ability. Public sector workers face the same rising costs as others, and that is completely unfair. When we have members opposite speaking for 32 seconds and saying, "Your arguments are gobbledegook, and this is a good bill", it's absolute rubbish. This is an absolute direct consequence of those choices to cut Government spending and not to pay people what they're worth. We know that it provides the ability for that Minister to have additional powers when that's not required.

We know, from the ministerial statement provided by the Minister, that the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill means the Minister of Defence will be able to authorise the Chief of Defence Force to redeploy uniformed personnel to carry out the roles of New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff. Currently, the Defence Act allows the Minister to authorise the redeployment of uniformed personnel in situations where health and safety is compromised or if work is not carried out by the armed forces. We know that this is not a good move for the New Zealand Defence Force. We know that they're worth more than that, and it's unfair of this Government to actually subsidise their cuts into other areas by causing this to happen. We do not support the bill.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): My son is a 19-year-old in the Defence Force. He was one of the youngest to graduate, as an 18-year-old, last year. He would be ashamed of hearing the ramble, the Labour lies from the left-hand side right now. This bill takes away the vulnerability of the status quo. It takes away the—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he make a minute? Do one minute. I dare you! Do a minute! Come on!

RYAN HAMILTON: Longer doesn't mean better, Ginny. You think you would have learnt that in your career by now. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Glen Bennett called first, so Glen Bennett for the Te Pāti Māori call.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You're not disputing my call, I hope. Don't dispute the call.

Tim van de Molen: I'm seeking clarity on the clear Standing Order that makes it specifically clear that it's not about who's first to their feet. It's about the proportionality and who get the call in that instance, which is the largest party—the National Party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Chair will make the decision. The Chair has made the decision. Do not challenge it.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Simeon Brown: Terrible.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Who said "Terrible."? Who was that? Was that you, Mr Costley? Who said "Terrible." then?

Hon Member: The other side of the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): No, no. Someone there said "Terrible." If the member who said "Terrible" doesn't—

Hon Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave the House. Basic rule: do not comment on Speakers' rulings here. Leave the House, Mr Brown. You should know better; you're a Minister.

Hon Simeon Brown withdrew from the Chamber.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Right—Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As with the New Zealand Defence Force, this is around rules and regulations and what a sworn member of the New Zealand Defence Force should be able to do and shouldn't need to do.

I heard a comment just before from the previous speaker, Mr Hamilton, in regard to his son. I considered this as I was looking through the notes and having a flick through this piece of legislation and spending the evening listening to the debate on all sides of the House. As I reflect on this, I think of my husband, who joined the New Zealand Defence Force many years ago. The reason he joined was not to not to fill gaps when it came to civilians within the New Zealand Defence Force striking. He came in to serve his country, to be a peacekeeper around the world, to do his part whether it be a disaster, whether it be a rescue situation, or whether it be serving internationally, which he got to do and he was proud to serve New Zealand as a peacekeeper on several tours of duty. As I said, the reason he joined was not because he thought he would have to jump in and deal with issues around civilians within the New Zealand Defence Force taking strike action. He joined to serve and to make a significant difference.

As I've listened to the debate tonight, as I've listened to the short and long contributions, it's become very clear to me that again we have to look at this legislation not just as one piece as we go through the process of the House. We've got to look at it in the context of other legislation that comes through or that has come through and has changed it.

Todd Stephenson: No—on the bill.

GLEN BENNETT: I am on the bill, thank you very much.

Todd Stephenson: The context you guys are giving is totally wrong.

GLEN BENNETT: You haven't listened to any of my arguments, so if you'd just listen up, Buttercup, that would be really cool.

This is around our workers, and this piece of legislation is around our workers, and that's why I bring that up. Look at things that have come through around the pay equity challenges, around the introduction of pay deductions for partial strikes. What this Government has done against our workforce is why we stand up against this legislation this evening. It feels like the bigger picture you look at is an attack on workers. We need to make sure we stand strong and make sure that our New Zealand Defence Force are standing up and doing the work that they must do as those who have been trained to serve our nation and to serve our world.

What I find interesting about this piece of legislation—and my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, who was a Minister of Defence and a very good Minister of Defence—

Hon Judith Collins: Ha, ha!

GLEN BENNETT: We get a laugh from across the floor there, as we always do, and we really appreciate the laugh track in Parliament.

This is around the fact that this bill provides for the Minister to authorise part or parts of the armed forces to perform the work of the New Zealand Defence Force so the civilian staff can take industrial action. Actually, the current legislation requires the Minister to take the decision to Parliament for debate and for a resolution. In this legislation that we are debating tonight, the amendment gives the Minister that power directly without having to come to this House and say, "Hey, I've got an argument why we actually need the New Zealand Defence Force to be stepping up and stepping into these spaces.", because there is a reason and a need for it.

We cannot support this legislation. We stand as a Labour Party with our civilian staff in the New Zealand Defence Force. I just want to finish in reflection on what was said by the Public Service Association: that members of the defence force were offered a zero pay increase and were only able to achieve a better offer after taking strike action. They were offered a zero pay increase, and so they took strike action because it was an embarrassment and we need to support our workers.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill.

© Scoop Media