Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8336. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does he take responsibility for Defence Force morale reaching the lowest level since surveys began attrition rates soaring to over 21 percent and reduced Defence Force capability; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
on behalf of the Minister of Defence: No; the member is using historical data. Morale is going up attrition is going down and both measures are forecast to continue improving. To deal with the three issues raised by the member I note that attrition for the New Zealand Defence Force regular force today is less than 17 percent—well below the 19 percent high reached in 2001. Army attrition is less than the level in 2005 and air force attrition is less than half of the 24 percent reached in February 2002. On capability to quote the Chief of Defence Force’s last report to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on recent events there has been no “effect on our ability to generate immediate capability … no reduction in our … ability to respond to any contingencies … or our ability to sustain operations.” Finally morale has been on the rise for the last three quarters and four out of five people do not have an issue with their morale. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Since the Minister’s answer was no I seek the leave of the House to table documents authenticating each of the statements in the question as factual and accepted as such by the Clerk’s Office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of those documents? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: There are three documents. One is the Office of the Auditor-General financial review another is a document—let me just find it for you—the Vote Defence Force estimates for Vote Defence— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At this stage all of these are readily available to members. What is the third document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I am making the point— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The third document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: —that the Minister denied these reports were factual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not purpose of tabling a document. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Well actually not all of these— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has further supplementary questions. I have not heard what the third document is. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to answer your question I do not believe that the document from the Office of the Auditor-General the financial review is a public document. It sets out clearly that the attrition rate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a fair call. What is the third document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The third document—let me find it once again—is a document that was actually given to the select committee this morning showing that satisfaction rates had declined from 65 percent in the Defence Force in 2010— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The easiest way to sort this out is to put the request for leave that those two documents be tabled. Is there any objection to that? 








Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Chief of Defence Force right in saying that the Government required the Defence Force to implement the civilianisation project which caused such low morale and soaring attrition rates and that he as Chief of Defence Force could not avoid it and does that not place the responsibility for the failure of that project squarely on the Minister’s shoulders and those of his Government? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I refute the assertion in that question that the civilianisation has failed; in fact it has been extremely successful. The point that I made to the member on his original question is that the data that he is using is out of date. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from the Chief of Defence Force—and I can assure the House this is not in the public arena—where the Chief of Defence Force makes it absolutely clear that civilianisation was the responsibility of the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member is asking for clarification on the date of that memo. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 30 January 2013. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the memo. Is there any objection? There is none. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was it a deliberate policy by the National Government last year to slash Defence Force numbers by over 1000 to the lowest level in at least 11 years and probably longer or was it an inadvertent response to the failed and disastrous policies of the Government that led to a quarter of the Defence Force leaving and another 40 percent in the Defence Force survey saying they intended to leave? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say again to that member there has been high attrition in the past. However the figure today is less than 17 percent—less than 17 percent. That is well below the 19 percent reached in 2001. If we want to talk about cuts then the biggest cut to the Defence Force was the cut of the air combat part by the former Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister ignore clear warnings from the army in 2011 that the policy of cutting numbers as I have pointed out would “significantly impact on their ability to sustain operations” and warnings from the navy that the cuts would mean it could not put its ships to sea something that has been borne out this year in practice? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Again I refute the assertions made in that question. The Chief of Defence— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to challenge assertions that I have quoted from the Auditor-General’s report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is certainly in order for the Minister to do that. 
Hon Member 
: Does it have credibility? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the House to determine. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. I have not even said which assertions I was challenging. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Continuing from the comments you and my colleague Phil Goff have made my understanding is that certainly the convention of the House is that you do not bring the word of the Auditor-General who is an Officer of Parliament into doubt either in debate or in question time and the Minister did. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: If that were the case then the member should never have used those comments in questions without making it very clear where they had come from which he did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it would be an odd situation where every comment ever written by the Auditor-General was accepted as gospel by every member of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Minister justify over 300 staff who were made redundant solely because the Government needed to cut numbers being told that they were being made redundant because they were not up to their job—something refuted by the New Zealand Defence Force staff itself and by the Auditor-General who said that that was effectively telling good people they were bad? How does he justify that slur on the character of people he dismissed? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I think it is fair to say that the New Zealand Defence Force acknowledged over a year ago that the civilianisation project could have been handled better. It acknowledged that publicly. However the important thing is that attrition is falling morale is improving and we have an outstanding Defence Force in New Zealand.