Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1282] 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What progress has been made on acquiring a new multi-role vessel for the Navy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Good progress has been made with construction being on schedule and within budget. The ship has been launched with its initial fit-out currently under way at Merwede in the Netherlands. In July it will sail for Melbourne for its final fit-out and for the addition of military equipment. The Ministry of Defence will accept the ship in December just 20 months after the first steel was cut. 
Dianne Yates 
: What capabilities will the multi-role vessel add to our Defence Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The multi-role vessel will provide tactical sealift and patrol and at-sea training for the navy. It is capable of carrying for example 250 troops; around 50 vehicles including light armoured vehicles and Pinzgauers; four helicopters; and 33 containers. Its landing craft and its helicopters will increase our capacity for disaster relief in the Pacific. It will also work with a range of other departments to protect our borders. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the process by which the contract for the multi-role vessel was awarded was a subject of an Ombudsman’s review that made a number of criticisms of the Ministry of Defence and a number of recommendations; and can he give the House an assurance that all those recommendations have now been implemented? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can tell the member that the process followed by the ministry was in accordance with the practice guidelines for procurement which were put out by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. The process was properly audited by Audit New Zealand which did not find fault with it. The Ombudsman came up with the conclusion that because one of the tenders had been inadequately prepared the ministry should go back to that tenderer. Now that does produce some difficulties as the member will be aware because if the ministry went back to one tenderer and said that the tender had not been adequately prepared the ministry could be prejudicing the cases of other tenderers. The ministry is currently implementing those aspects of the recommendations as appropriate but it is also seeking Crown Law and private legal advice on the issue I have just raised. 
Dianne Yates 
: Given the National Government’s experience of major instability with the last sealift vessel the  
Charles Upham 
 what confidence does the Minister have that the new ship will not suffer from the same problems? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am very conscious of the difficulties that were incurred by the  
Charles Upham 
—the “ 
Chuck-Up 
” as the seamen on board used to refer to it. As a result we have gone about this process in quite a different way from our predecessors. We did rigorous tank-testing last year which showed that the multi-role vessel fully met its sea-keeping requirements. The testing has shown that the vessel is capable of being fully operational in harsher conditions than weather that keeps the Cook Strait ferries in port. I think that that is a very good result from that testing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not interrupt the member answering because you had clearly decided he should answer. But I ask you to look at the  
Hansard  
record after this and consider whether that question was in order and whether the answer was in order. It would be our assertion that given the discussion earlier today both question and answer were well out of order and that Mr Goff had a bit of a free hit as it were. But if we are to have rigid enforcement of the Standing Orders around questions that are contentious I think that similar provisions should be applied to the question for which we have just heard an answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Very briefly I say that the thrust of the question asked what confidence I have that the new ship will not endure the same problems that the previous sealift vessel had. That is absolutely within my responsibilities—absolutely appropriate—and the member’s point of order is without foundation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look at the matter for the member and that was the essence of his point of order. There is a further point of order? It is a different point of order I hope. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No that is not the essence of my point of order. It is simply to say that had Mr Goff required the back-bench patsy question to be asked in that way it would have complied. But he did not and that really is the issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister had kept his answers— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
:—only to that particular issue it would have complied as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I said that I would look at the matter for the member. I can do no more at this moment.