2. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
Has the New Zealand Defence Force selected a successful tenderer for the provision of security guard services at Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand for the New Zealand Defence Force?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
Yes, though no contract has yet been signed. As a result of information I now have about a serious lapse by the company concerned when contracted with another Government department, I have asked the New Zealand Defence Force to reconsider whether granting the tender to the company is appropriate, and whether the tenderer is still compliant with the terms of the contract.
Can the Minister confirm from his very recent investigations that the directors of the successful tenderer are the same directors who headed Specialised Guard Services, which last year provided two unlicensed guards, one of whom was a gang member with convictions for rape and serious assault, and the other of whom had convictions for dishonesty, to work at the Wellington Central Police Station, supervising a suicidal female inmate?
I can confirm that, and it is the seriousness of that lapse by the company on that occasion that has led me to ask the Defence Force to reconsider the tender. I am advised that the overall reputation of the company concerned is generally reasonably good, but that lapse was clearly a very serious lapse. The same thing would not apply with the Defence Force, of course, with regard to its headquarters, in that a subsequent police vetting is required, followed by an SIS vetting. The vetting process within the Defence Force ensures that inappropriate people do not end up in jobs like that.
Can the Minister therefore confirm to the House that he is now aware that Defence Force tenders required that the tenderers describe in their applications their experience and expertise in providing appropriate personnel, and to detail the security, vetting, and clearance procedures they use for assessing the staff they employ; and why, despite that clear requirement, was the Defence Force on the verge of signing up this company to a Defence Force contract to provide security at joint force headquarters?
I am advised by the Defence Force that at the time the tender process was conducted it was not aware of that lapse, notwithstanding the fact that it had been discussed in this House and was public knowledge. The Defence Force is now going back to look at the overall record of the company. In fact, I would have expected that, given the public nature of that incident, the company would have volunteered that information to the Defence Force, if it had been totally upfront.
Would it, then, surprise the Minister to learn that, indeed, the Defence Force has known about this lapse in security, it has sought to defend it against inquiring individuals, and it has not disclosed those facts to him?
I am not aware of the material the member has just presented to the House. What I do know is that the contract will be re-examined. It has not yet been signed, so the Defence Force is able to re-examine it. Hard questions need to be asked of the company concerned, notwithstanding its having a generally quite good reputation around the country. This matter is something it should have disclosed to the Defence Force in its tender.
Would it therefore concern the Minister to know that inquiring individuals were asking questions of the Defence Force at least, I think, 4 weeks ago about its intentions to give this contract to this company, a company that has changed its name and has operated under three different company names, that is still led by the same former National Party candidate for Parliament, Dale Stephens, and that was on the verge of getting that contract until the Minister made his inquiries this morning as a result of New Zealand First laying down an oral question about the matter?