Why Oppose the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill
Intent framed as efficiency — outcome is erosion. The Bill claims to “clarify” Defence workforce rules, but in reality it centralises power in one Minister, reduces parliamentary oversight, and allows military personnel to replace civilian staff during lawful strikes. What looks procedural is in fact a deep constitutional and industrial shift — expanding executive reach and undermining collective rights.
Here’s what the Bill does, why it matters, and how it risks the balance between democracy, defence, and workers’ rights.
Key Principles at Stake
- Democratic accountability: Military deployment must remain under parliamentary, not personal, control.
- Industrial rights: Civilian staff must not lose the right to effective strike action through executive substitution.
- Transparency: The Minister should not be able to act in secrecy under the guise of “sensitive information.”
- Proportionality: Any exceptional use of the armed forces must be temporary, limited, and reviewable.
- Te Tiriti & Equity: NZDF’s civilian workforce includes many Māori employees — policies must not erode collective or Treaty-based fairness.
What This Bill Really Does
- Removes Parliament from oversight: Section 9(9) lets authorisations automatically extend when Parliament is adjourned — no vote required.
- Concentrates power in one Minister: Section 9A(1)-(2) allows deployment on the Minister’s “reasonable belief” without Cabinet or Defence Council approval.
- Legalises strike-breaking: Section 9A(4)(a) excludes Employment Relations Act s97 — permitting military staff to perform the work of striking civilians.
- Allows secrecy in justification: Section 9A(7) enables the Minister to withhold “sensitive information” when notifying Parliament — reducing accountability.
- Removes time limits: Section 9A(8) allows indefinite extensions of military substitution, normalising it as an ongoing option.
Why This Threatens Democracy and Rights
- Undermines Parliament: Extending authorisations without debate sets a precedent for unchecked executive use of the military in domestic contexts.
- Weakens the right to strike: Using uniformed personnel to replace civilian labour during disputes destroys bargaining balance and union leverage.
- Blurs civilian–military boundaries: Civil roles should remain under civilian authority; this Bill militarises workplace functions.
- Encourages secrecy: Citing “sensitive information” to limit disclosure turns accountability into discretion.
- Excludes Māori and equity impact checks: No public Te Tiriti analysis or equity review accompanies the Bill — a serious omission.
What Good Law Would Do Instead
- Retain parliamentary oversight: Any extension of authorisation must require a House resolution within seven sitting days.
- Require collective decision-making: Cabinet or Defence Council concurrence before any use of armed forces to replace civilian staff.
- Respect labour law: Keep Employment Relations Act protections intact — no military substitution during lawful strikes.
- Limit duration: Set a 30-day maximum, extendable once only with committee review.
- Ensure transparency: Mandate full notification (with classified annexes if needed) to Parliament and unions.
- Protect Māori and equity rights: Require Te Tiriti impact assessments and proper consultation before any authorisation.
If You Care About Democracy, Rights, and Accountability
This Bill is not efficiency — it is erosion of balance. It allows the executive to act without oversight, the military to cross picket lines, and rights to be overridden under vague justifications.
If you believe democracy demands checks on power…
If you believe military and civilian roles must remain distinct…
If you believe fair bargaining and transparency are cornerstones of trust…
Then now is the time to oppose this Bill.
“Democracy falters when power hides behind uniforms and silence.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission:
Formal Opposition to the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill