Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : Part 1 is the core part of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. National is supporting the bill. I want to acknowledge the members of the defence forces. Indeed, I think all members of Parliament who spoke yesterday on this bill acknowledged that both Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs did sterling work for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I suspect that they may well have thought some of the questions were rather more complex than they had been expecting, because after all this legislation is essentially non-contentious, in the sense of a political contest. But this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this legislation right. So it was important that the select committee went through the bill pretty carefully, using the legal knowledge of various members plus some experience of the armed forces themselves. We applied that carefully to the situation.

I note, given that the Minister, Phil Goff, is in the chair, that the process on this bill was bipartisan. My colleague Mr Tim Groser has reflected very carefully on the bipartisan nature of many aspects of foreign affairs and defence. One would think the Minister would take that on board a little more.

One would also think the Minister could take just a little bit of time and trouble to understand history. I am certain that this Government has issued medals with the word “Iraq” on them, to recognise the service of New Zealand service people in Iraq. I wonder what that was for. Do members think service people were just handing out milk sachets or were they defence personnel? What were those television pictures I saw with heavily armed soldiers, I guess, going in to nail up schools and things like that? Do they need heavy machine guns for that sort of job? Do they need rocket launchers for that sort of job? That is how the New Zealand Defence Force operated in Iraq. So when the Government pretends we were there only for post-reconstruction—

Hon Phil Goff: That is exactly what they were there for, and the member knows it.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: So why were the soldiers so heavily armed? Why did they have rocket launchers? Why did they have machine guns? The Minister needs to get off his high horse on this thing and recognise that the Government is on a bit of a loser on this one.

Bipartisanship is actually quite important in defence and foreign affairs. I am pleased to say that National has taken a rigorous, bipartisan approach to this bill. I acknowledge all members of the select committee and its chair, Dianne Yates. We had a full opportunity to discuss the issues raised by this bill carefully. I acknowledge the role of the advisers, who carefully went through the material.

I want to say that this bill was very much initiated within the Defence Force itself. It is not one of those cases where the Government came along and said the bill set out what it wanted to do; this was the other way round. This was a case of the Defence Force saying it needed to update our armed forces law and this was the bill to do that.

Nevertheless, the bill raises a number of questions. Part 1 is quite complex; it covers many, many different provisions. One of the issues that concerned us was the role and nature of the director of military prosecutions, as outlined in new Part 4A inserted by clause 36 of the bill. The director is stated in the legislation as being primarily responsible to the Solicitor-General. That is obviously correct in terms of the legal aspects of that role. A bit like the Solicitor-General, the director has to have an independent sense. But, of course, as we can see in this Committee today, the director is a senior officer of the New Zealand Defence Force and therefore has all of the obligations in relation to command functions. So we thought it important to separate out those two points in the legislation and to make it crystal clear that the director is not, so to speak, completely divorced from the chain of command. The legislation had to reflect the dual role that the director necessarily takes.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I regard it as a privilege to be involved in this debate and I regret that I am not currently a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which is chaired by Dianne Yates. I was previously a member of the committee and I know that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp, who has just finished speaking, is one who takes a keen interest in legal matters, having a doctorate in law. I am not legally qualified, at all, but I see the need for this legislation.

Hon Phil Goff: You’re a bush lawyer.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: As the Minister says, I have pretty good qualifications as a bush lawyer, though.

To be fair, in looking at this legislation, I see that it is absolutely clear that it is due. It is absolutely clear that the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill, which is shortly to be split up into other bills, is one that the military establishment in New Zealand has certainly wanted. The military establishment has wanted modernisation of its statutes and of the law under which its criminal and military justice system work.

The purpose of the bill is to establish or enhance an effective and fair system of military justice. Dr Mapp was quite right when he said we have the opportunity to look at these issues perhaps only once in a parliamentary career—maybe a couple of times, if that. I have a few years under my belt as a member of Parliament now, and there have been only three occasions that I can recall when bills involving the military and defence arrangements for our country, the structure of the military, and issues surrounding justice within the military have ever been brought to the attention of Parliament. One of those occasions was the Act of Parliament that provided a pardon for the officers and men—particularly New Zealand soldiers—who were court-martialled during the Great War and executed. That legislation was very trying for the families involved, for the descendants of those soldiers, and for Parliament to deal with. With the benefit of hindsight, I guess—and several generations of families have gone since—we looked back and saw that perhaps the military justice system of the time was pretty harsh.

This legislation is timely, in that it brings the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 up to date and acknowledges the developments that have taken place in human rights laws, both internationally and domestically, as well as the passage in our Parliament some years ago—I think about 15 or 16 years now; maybe longer—of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Those developments have really meant that our legislation governing military jurisprudence has become a bit out of date. So it is very good that the select committee has worked through the issues in this legislation, and that this bill, when it is split up into its key components and becomes separate bills later, will amend much of the legislation—the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953, and the Defence Act 1990—that was the last substantive legislation involving our defence structure to deliver an enhanced military justice system for the New Zealand armed forces.

The legislation, which will be debated in the Committee part by part, and perhaps even by individual clauses, brings into effect many more modern provisions that are in line with the Human Rights Act changes and with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Our out-of-date legislation will be brought up to date in order to ensure that the same sorts of rights that we expect for the general public will also be applied to military personnel who, for whatever reason, have fallen foul of the law. The legislation will better serve our servicemen and women by applying the same rights that civilians enjoy, in terms of the right to have advice and defence counsel, etc. Those sorts of things will make a big difference to justice within the military.

TIM GROSER (National) : I rise to make a few points on Part 1, but before doing so, like other speakers I recall the rather bigger picture involved here. Although the New Zealand public is hardly likely to be enthralled at this debate, or even aware generally that it is taking place, I think we are all very conscious of the fact that military discipline can become intensely controversial. As the previous speaker Harry Duynhoven has pointed out, when it is perceived by the public that a major miscarriage of justice has taken place, the public anguish can last 100 years.

Once again, I want to pay tribute to the professional staff of the New Zealand Defence Force, who have been fantastic advisers to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Although this has been a deeply technical exercise of great complexity and sophistication, I think the members of the select committee were very conscious that rooted behind this complexity is very clear evidence of deep-seated public concern that military justice must be seen to be done in a scrupulously fair manner, or otherwise, watch out! We spent a lot of time trying to get this bill right. We tried to bring it up to date with changes in society—not just in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in respect of broader societal changes in our community. I think with the aid of our advisers we have done, I hope, a job that will serve this country for at least the next 20 years, when no doubt another generation of people will need to take a look at the same issues and reinterpret them in the light of changes.

There is a very strong theme here, and it is fairness. Fairness, as we all know, is hard-wired into the New Zealand DNA. Fairness has been the key hallmark of the examination of the amendments to the 1971 Act, as this legislation has proceeded through the stages of the select committee process. I would like, in a fairly mechanical sense, to go through a couple of those issues to make that point. First of all, with respect to giving greater clarity around the old issue of the commanding officer, I think we have a much clearer definition here, both in respect of summary proceedings and courts martial. It is quite clear that we are not going to tolerate a situation where people of the same rank or near rank will investigate each other’s misdemeanours. We know enough about human nature to know how dangerous that would be. The amendments to section 2(1), inserted by clause 4(11), particularly with respect to the superior commander and the issue of delegated authority to commanders down the rank, should give the men and women in the armed forces a fair degree of assurance that fairness will be part of that process.

There is also another theme, I think, that has underlain a lot of the work that has been done on this bill. We understand that there have to be special procedures in place to deal with the very challenging and specific characteristics of serving literally under fire at times, and dealing with discipline that has a different order of importance from that in any other realm of life, professional or personal, in our country or in any country for that matter. Notwithstanding that qualification we have tried to ensure that we follow, wherever possible, civil procedures. For example, I turn to the issue of time limits, which is a very important issue in domestic law. Clause 12 deals with the elimination of time within which charges may be dealt with and covers a whole series of amendments to the 1971 Act, which I think give greater clarity. In particular, the prosecution of a charge that may be tried either summarily or by the more serious avenue of court martial has to take place within 3 years after the alleged commission of the offence. It is again a paralleling of a fundamental procedural point in civil law. Another extension of that philosophy or theme would be, as in civil procedures, that people may not be tried in respect of the same act or omission, and there is some quite complicated drafting reinforcing that point.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) : First, can I join with other members who have spoken in this debate in acknowledging the work done by the New Zealand Defence Force legal staff—in particular, Brigadier Kevin Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Chris Griggs—to put together first of all the review and then, in essence, the bill that we have before us now. It was a huge task that took something over 4 years. We hope that it will outlast current members in the House. It is a bill that should stand the test of time. It is a bill that I think, as Wayne Mapp has said, is supported in a bipartisan way and I have tried to encourage that. The member will recall that right at the beginning I brought in members of each of the parties to have a chance to be briefed at firsthand by the New Zealand Defence Force, and I think what we have seen at each stage of this bill is an effort by all members of the House to come out with whatever improvements might have been able to be made to the bill, and a number of changes have come out of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. But there has been a wide-ranging endorsement of this bill and I am pleased that the Parliament has acted in a bipartisan way.

I am, however, obliged to respond to Wayne Mapp’s wider comments of a political nature, as he might expect me to do. Yes, of course, I say to Dr Mapp that I would welcome a bipartisan policy on defence, but he should not pretend to this Committee that defence policy has been bipartisan over recent years. For heaven’s sake! That member, amongst others on his side of the Chamber, was saying that the scrapping of the air combat wing, now so warmly endorsed by the National Party, was going to leave us absolutely defenceless and bludging off our mates. That was the bipartisanship of the National Party up to a month ago. I welcome the miraculous transformation of those members and their sudden support for the sensible change in defence policy that this Government has introduced. But I remind that member too that through the 9 long years of the 1990s bipartisanship on defence policy was not possible as the National Government ran down the New Zealand Defence Force, reduced its funding, reduced its personnel, sent our people out into the field in places like Bosnia with obsolete equipment, and put their lives at risk. How could we have bipartisanship on defence policy when the National Government did that to the people who fought in the battles that are commemorated around this Chamber? It was a disgraceful policy.

I am proud of the fact that this Government, first of all, put $3.4 billion into the long-term development plan, so that we have decent equipment for our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force, and then put $4.4 billion into the Defence Sustainability Initiative. If the National Party had nowhere to go at that point and had to come around to back the New Zealand Labour - led Government, then I am not surprised and I welcome that, but I hope that that bipartisanship is not like it has been shown to be in the past—simply a shallow disguise for a lack of policy, a lack of commitment, and an embarrassment at a track record that National was not able to defend. So much for bipartisanship. Yes, this bill has been treated in a bipartisan way and I welcome that. I think that is very good.

Mr Groser raised a number of points. I heard the comments he made on defence at the end of the last debate. He made the point that Helen Clark had changed her views over the last 22 years. I seem to recall a younger Tim Groser who had far more radical left-wing Trotskyist views than I have ever held in the course of my career. From Trotskyite to National Party member—talk about flip-flops! That is absolutely extraordinary. I welcome Tim’s conversion to the parliamentary path. But it is not just 22 years ago, I say to Mr Groser. I seem to recall that 2 years ago his views were somewhat different, and miraculously changed on being offered a list position on the National Party. But so much for the politics of the issue.

I agree with the points that Tim Groser made about fairness. He may recall that yesterday in the second reading of the bill I referred to the seven vital elements of a decent military justice system. Those elements, in addition to fairness, of course, include the maintenance of discipline, consistency in all strategic environments, portability, expedition, efficiency, and simplicity. I think those elements by and large have been incorporated in an effective way into this bill, and that is why I mentioned before that I think this bill will, indeed, stand the test of time.

I think there are a number of reasons why we had to have this reform before the Parliament. We need to have an effective and fair system of military justice, just as we need to have an effective and fair system of justice right across the board in New Zealand. It was clear that because of the age of the legislation we had under the previous Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 we were vulnerable to being challenged on those principles of fairness, impartiality, and the independence of the process that was operated. In 1990 we passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Our military justice legislation, in effect, had elements that were open to be challenged on the basis of being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Fundamentally, the principle that we have followed in this bill is, I think, the appropriate principle, and that is that the military justice system today should apply to our armed forces personnel basically the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system to the greatest extent possible consistent with an efficient and disciplined operation of the armed forces.

There are other changes that really did require new legislation. The Defence Force has changed quite radically over recent years, and one of the critical principles of the New Zealand Defence Force today is the principle of jointness, yet we had a military justice system that operated differently for those in the navy in a number of respects from those in the air force and the army. It is important that we have a justice system that is common to all three services. That means that our military justice system, with the passage of this bill, will be consistent with the proper exercise of the joint command system within the New Zealand Defence Force.

We went through this process very thoroughly in the New Zealand Defence Force. We looked at the experience of other States—in particular, those States that we would most often compare ourselves with, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. I think we have learnt from the experiences there. We have come down with a system of military justice that has two critical components, one being summary discipline, and the other being courts martial. Summary discipline is, of course, the area that deals with the more minor charges, and I welcome particularly the fact that now it will not be necessary to prosecute an officer under the courts martial system. He or she can be dealt with, I think, right up to the level of brigadier and brigadier equivalent under the summary justice system. I think that that is very appropriate.

I welcome the fact that we now have a permanent and independent Court Martial of New Zealand in place of the rather ad hoc system that went before it. I welcome the fact that we have focused on the independence and impartiality of the key person who sits in that court—the Judge Advocate General. He, or potentially she, will now have the same security of tenure and retirement age as the Supreme Court judges. I think that is particularly appropriate.

This bill has been carefully worked through. It did not attract a lot of submissions at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; I think there were only four. Some of those submissions, including one from the Law Society, were, however, very well informed. The bill has undergone some, though not major, structural changes in the select committee, and I anticipate it will have the support and endorsement of all parties in the House.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : My father, who saw active service from 1940 to 1945, served in both North Africa and Italy. He went to his grave really resentful about a statement that had been made by a Governor-General in addressing defence forces. He started off by saying “Gentlemen of the air force, men of the navy, boys of the army”. Dad never ever forgave him for that.

I mention that little anecdote because it demonstrates that we have moved on from archaic attitudes and, therefore, we have to move our structures and our legal procedures on a regular basis as a result of that. For example, we no longer would even consider tolerating things like keelhauling or using cat-o`-nine-tails and those sorts of things. I think they have gone. Some people might advocate using them from time to time, but even the gentleman beside me, Ron Mark, would not go as far as that. Nevertheless, this is really what this Armed Forces Law Reform Bill does.

It is worthwhile noting the age of some of the Acts that this bill amends and updates, such as the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953—in other words, it is 54 years old. So it is certainly timely that Parliament has relooked at how these things are worked out in terms of the modern world view. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 was also put in place quite some years ago, and society has moved on enormously from that particular time in the way we consider how our citizens should be treated, be they those on the main street or within the armed forces.

I refer to the fact that comment has been made by a number of members about how the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee worked very much in a bipartisan way on this bill. The bill is, of course, non-controversial, although one can see from the report back—and I was not on the select committee—that a lot of technical work and really considered thinking was done around getting the bill back to the House in the form it is in.

I must admit the first select committee I ever served on was the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, in fact, Dr Mapp was on that committee at that time. I can say, if nothing else, that he took the role extremely seriously in terms of trying to make sure the select committee came up with appropriate decisions. It really does beg the question that was raised by the Hon Phil Goff. If a select committee such as this one can work in such a bipartisan way in terms of getting the law around military discipline correct, then why is it not possible to get the same sort of bipartisanship in terms of our defence policy?

Dr Wayne Mapp will recall that at the time Derek Quigley was the chair of the select committee, and we did a very, very good report on the Defence Force, the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. The select committee concurred with most of that, and I do not think members will find much in the way of minority reports, but that was very much a bipartisan inquiry. It is disappointing that the two old parties, particularly, cannot put aside the adversarial nature of the first past the post system and be able to sit down and ask what the most important thing is that this country actually needs. It is to ensure the security of its citizens, and I would say that we should work together on that. Members can still play games around public-private partnerships and agree to differ on those sorts of things. I applaud the members of the select committee, because we can certainly see that they have done a very, very good job in working on this bill to get it where it is and to achieve the ends of what the bill set out to do.

I will bring up one or two other points. One is about media freedom. The bill still allows for the exclusion of the media where there is any potential danger of harm to New Zealand or where the information might be directly or indirectly useful to any enemy of New Zealand, and that is how it should be.

I conclude my remarks on this call by saying this. Although things have changed, and I have referred to some of those changes in attitudes and ideas, one thing has not changed over all that time—that is, the quality and bravery of our Defence Force members. I refer back to the very, very appropriate awarding of the VC to Willy Apiata. His bravery would have earned a VC at any time in the past.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call at this point. I want to refer specifically to a particular point that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff, raised about the whole issue of bipartisanship. We could bluff and bluster in this Chamber, as various members are wont to do from time to time, but there are some serious points to be made here.

We need to understand why a certain level of bipartisanship, which has taken a long period of time, has emerged. I will not bear too much on this, because I am conscious of the nature of the debate, but the Cold War, in essence, ended 17 years ago. I think most people who were associated or connected with the armed forces understood the problems that the armed forces had in the deployment of Bosnia. They were well recorded by both the Government of the day and, indeed, the Opposition of the day.

In 1996 when I was first elected, I, along with Derek Quigley, who had been elected for ACT, put together a proposal for the Minister Paul East. The proposal was that the select committee would conduct an inquiry called Defence Beyond 2000, and we did that for a very particular reason. We could see that world conditions had changed and we could see that some new thinking was required in defence.

As has been well noted by Mr Donnelly, the select committee worked very diligently on that project. In essence, we came up with a structure of the defence force based on utility, and it went something like this: a deployable army, then aerial patrol and surveillance, and naval patrol and surveillance, so including an air component. A deployable army, or land force, obviously involves elements of all three services to achieve that outcome, so one of the key recommendations made was for a joint service approach. We had looked at the 1997 review that had been done in the United Kingdom, which talked about this a great deal. So the elements of a new approach to defence thinking were being formed and established in that select committee from 1997 onwards, to rectify some of the transparently obvious problems that the Defence Force was having in being able to fulfil all the tasks that were being put to it at that stage.

The current Government picked that up—and I ask members to bear in mind that this was before September 11—and used almost pacifist language whereby it saw a defence force as something akin to a constabulary and defence force personnel as, really, just police officers who happened to be in camouflage uniforms. After September 11, it became very obvious to the current Government that the role of the Defence Force and, let us say, an armed constabulary were very, very different. I think the Minister would do the House and, indeed, the nation a service if there was some level of acknowledgement that the Government itself had to shift, as well.

So there has been a degree of convergence, if you will, of the parties in this House when faced with the contemporary challenges. As I said, it is very easy to bluff and bluster on this to score political points, but we need to look a bit more deeply at these issues and see why, fundamentally, this change has occurred. It is not only because different political parties have been elected or not. Rather, it is because there have been some fundamental changes in circumstances: the end of the Cold War; a much greater use of expeditionary forces in nation-building, or working in failed States; and the contemporary challenges around terrorism and so forth. Both parties have had to shift in their respective ways. The National Party has certainly understood this well, and we have been working on this for quite some time.

I remind the Minister that by 2005 we had certainly formed the view that it was unrealistic to re-establish the air combat force in the way it had been established previously. That was actually clear in our policy from 2005. So it is simply wrong for the Minister to suggest that there has been some late discovery by National on the virtue of bipartisanship. This is something that has been emerging over a decade or so, and that is an important point that I want to place on the record.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will call the member again, but before I call him I have to tell him that he really has strayed from the bill. We have had a fair bit of leniency, but he needs to come back to the bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair. The point has been fairly made. I just wanted to put some points on the record as to how the debate has evolved.

I want to speak briefly to two points. The first point concerns the new charges—essentially a modification of the charge of conduct prejudicial. This was designed in part to provide a better way of dealing with offences around unauthorised discharges. It is related to the way that summary proceedings can now be undertaken in relation to officers. This came about through a specific instance where an officer had committed an unauthorised discharge overseas. That is normally something that is dealt with in a pretty summary way, but with an officer that was not possible. We understood that that person had to be brought back to New Zealand and tried by court martial, which, I think, everyone thought was, frankly, an absurd process.

So we were pleased to see that there has been a much more coherent way of dealing with that. I might just note that there was a reason why the proceedings did have to take place, and that was that otherwise there was the risk that people who were not commissioned would be charged, and if officers who did the same thing were not charged, that would create serious disharmony within the military forces. So I certainly see that the Defence Force had no choice but to have the court martial, but clearly it was a clumsy procedure to have to go down that path, and I am pleased to see that we have provided a much more sensible approach to that.

The other point I also want to bear on is the appeals from the summary proceedings. Most disciplinary issues that most service people will come across will be dealt with through what is known as the orderly room process. These issues range from soldiers not having their boots clean to, I guess, unauthorised discharges and the like, and, as Mr Mark—Major Mark, I should say—indicated yesterday, sometimes more serious things than those. One of the difficulties with this process—and it is inherent in a disciplined force—is that there are often tremendous pressures on individuals to plead guilty.

Now, I understand the reasons why those pressures exist, but it does require a mechanism of review, and National was very concerned about this. So one of the things we effectively put into section 128 is the ability for an independent entity—the Judge Advocate General—to refer a guilty plea to the Summary Appeal Court. This was because the individuals themselves may, for one reason of another, feel they just have to take it on the chin even though they feel unjustly dealt with. People might say that New Zealanders are not like that, but I know for a fact that service people often feel put upon. I can see Mr Mark nodding his head to that effect. He has seen exactly the same thing both as a non-commissioned officer and as a commissioned officer, so we know what we are talking about on this issue.

So we felt it was very important that there had to be a mechanism so that if the individuals themselves felt they could not act—for whatever reason—then someone else could effectively act on their behalf. I was pleased that it was well understood by our advisers, Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs, that this was a change to enable that fairness and that ability for someone else to act for someone who may feel disempowered. It was essential in the way we dealt with this legislation to provide a full measure of fairness in our armed forces law, because we know the impact that disparity of rank can have on the way that people act within our armed forces. Actually, there is not just the question of disparity of rank. There is also the importance of unity within an armed forces unit—be it a battalion, or a company, or a ship’s company, or a squadron. There are enormous pressures for people to play their part and not create waves. That can, of course, sometimes—not always—run counter to giving justice in individual cases.

So we spent a lot of time at the select committee trying to tease out these issues and amend the law where appropriate so those sorts of things would get proper consideration. I might add that the Sentencing Council was very much in that as well, and my colleague, no doubt, will be talking about that.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I join my colleagues in speaking this afternoon on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. It is complicated legislation, and I think the media will find absolutely nothing noteworthy in it, but it is fundamentally important to the operation of our military services—army, navy, and air force—and it brings the military judicial system into line with our civilian law.

The select committee process was, as various speakers have said, particularly rigorous. We had very useful input, I particularly want to record, from the Judge Advocate General’s committee. Two of the members came along, spoke privately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and had a significant impact on our final deliberations. I join with those who have commended the service of Brigadier Riordan, and his assistant naval commander Chris Griggs. They did a very, very fine job.

If we take a slightly wider picture, I think we can see the impact of having inadequate laws around the management of our military. We see the consequences of this in our region when people step outside the law. I am thinking now particularly of Fiji, and of the situation a couple of weeks ago in Burma. While the opportunity presents itself, I say that I am quite sure many people in this Committee are appalled at the actions of the Burmese military in shooting unarmed civilians. I hope that this legislation will prevent any of those sorts of circumstances getting out of hand in New Zealand.

In respect of the bill, I draw attention to the proposed Armed Forces Discipline Committee described in Part 1. The select committee made a contribution to this part of the bill in encouraging for it to be amended to provide for an Armed Forces Discipline Committee. That committee is provided for in a new section 160 in Part 8A, which is to be inserted into the Armed Forces Discipline Act by clause 45 of the bill.

In the select committee we also recommended that the Chief of Defence Force be required to cause notice of every sentencing guideline to be promulgated by defence orders. We recommended that in sentencing an offender under the Armed Forces Discipline Act, the Court Martial should be required to impose a sentence consistent with sentencing guidelines relevant to the offender’s case, unless the court was satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

We envisaged that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee would consider command issues arising from trials by courts martial. Every report submitted by a senior military member of the Court Martial under clause 38 of the bill would have to be laid before the committee at its next meeting. We required that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee meet at least every 6 months. That committee will be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force, and assisting him will be the Vice Chief of Defence Force; the three chiefs of the individual services; the Commander, Joint Forces New Zealand; the Judge Advocate General; the director of military prosecutions; and a representative of the defence counsel.

I think as members of a bipartisan select committee, with the process that has resulted in this bill, but I was rather astonished by the comments made by Minister of Defence Phil Goff recently in respect of his claims about Iraq. I draw attention to Saturday’s newspaper, to an article written by Fran O’Sullivan in which she said—

Hon Phil Goff: A well-known independent commentator.

JOHN HAYES: The Minister may laugh at that, but he might remember that I worked very closely in the ministry on these issues around the same period, so I have some direct knowledge of what actually happened. As Fran O’Sullivan said—and I happen to agree with her—the Minister ought to be put out to pasture if the full-blown case of Alzheimer’s he has conveniently developed on Iraq exists for his other previous political positions. I am sure that would not be the case, I say to the Minister. I remind the Minister that in 2003 he issued a number of statements foreshadowing that de-mining was one of a range of options that the Government was considering, to ensure that New Zealand played its part in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in close conflict in Iraq.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) : I am afraid I cannot let that sort of rubbish go unchallenged, as the member probably expected when he made those comments. The Labour-led Government had a very clear position at the time of the invasion of Iraq: we were against it. National had a very clear position: it was in favour of it. Mr Hayes was not here then, but Dr Mapp was, and all members of the National Party, including Dr Mapp, voted for all practical support to be given to the coalition of the willing. So there is no suggestion at all that the Labour-led Government has been anything other than consistent—and, history will demonstrate, also right—in terms of the stance we took in respect of Iraq.

Of course, we welcomed the fact that the conflict at the time of the invasion was relatively short. We welcomed UN Resolution 1483, which stated that countries should try to help with reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq. We took that seriously and we committed our Defence Force engineers. But Dr Mapp made this point before: it is nonsense to suggest that those members of the Defence Force went there for any purpose other than for the reconstruction and humanitarian work that they carried out so effectively—rebuilding health clinics and rebuilding schools. They were not there as part of the coalition of the willing. It is not the Labour Government that has members who are guilty of hypocrisy in regard to their stance on Iraq. What the member has told the House, frankly, is totally wrong.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry; the member cannot use that word. Withdraw the word.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy”, and replace it with the words “double standards” and “deliberate efforts to mislead and confuse the public”, because that is exactly what that speech was.

I pick up on something that the member said that is rather more sensible—he tries to say something sensible, but then cannot help himself—in regard to the question of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We have repealed in this bill, and I think rightly so, the current provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act that would have allowed officers to interfere with or overturn the decisions of the Court Martial, and that includes the abolition of the board of review. That was a very sensible thing to do, because those powers should rest with the proper appellate body, such as the Courts Martial Appeal Court. In our military justice system we have to reflect internationally recognised standards of independence and impartiality. That, in fact, is a requirement of section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

One of the members who spoke—and I cannot remember which of the two members it was—mentioned that the Judge Advocate General and, I think, the deputy had very helpfully appeared before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to have their comments heard in private. One of the comments made was that senior members of the Defence Force could and should, however, still have the opportunity to make valid and useful contributions to the maintenance of service discipline in the new legal environment. To address that issue—and I support the committee in this regard—the committee recommended the establishment of an Armed Forces Discipline Committee, to be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and to include senior commanders, the Judge Advocate General, the director of military prosecutions, and a representative of the military defence counsel. They will consider reports and issues that arise out of the cases that are heard. I think that will be quite important in dealing with the wider issues so that this is not seen purely as a legal matter, and we can learn the lessons from difficulties that might have arisen on disciplinary matters.

I also say that I think one of the really important aspects of this new legislation is to ensure that New Zealand continues to have a well-trained and also a well-disciplined New Zealand Defence Force. We have seen in some of the deployments where we have worked alongside other defence forces how ill-discipline can create huge problems. Ill-discipline amongst defence forces can actually make a situation on the ground much worse—it can lose the potential support of the local community—and we do need to have provisions that allow our military structure to impose discipline where it is needed. I have to say that one of the things I have been really proud of in terms of the New Zealand Defence Force is that because of pre-deployment training and a good system of discipline and a good system of leadership, our armed services personnel on the ground have generally done a superb job.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next speaker—the Minister responded to a previous statement, which I had not called the member up for. I remind members that this bill is about the military justice system.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I guess, though, having opened the gate and allowed debate, it would be disappointing if New Zealand First was to be treated differently and was unable to make some comment. I need to make a couple of comments.

The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill seeks to modernise the Armed Forces Discipline Act. It seeks to modify the processes by which justice is delivered and discipline is maintained in the defence forces. That is in recognition of the changing circumstances in which our defence forces are operating, the changing nature of our defence forces, and the changing culture of New Zealanders in general. There are some things that people rightfully have an expectation of. It is good to see that the bill is delivering on those things, particularly in respect of human rights issues, which is one of the items the bill set out to address.

I sit here as a member of New Zealand First—one of a number of minor parties that are represented in the House; parties like the Greens, United Future, Progressive, the Independents, the ACT party, and the Māori Party. They should be here somewhere. Are they here? I cannot see anyone. Labour and National are here and it is a little bit galling to hear parties talking about bipartisan relationships. I did not go to university, but the last time I checked the dictionary, bi meant two, unless it was referring to transsexuals or something like that—one of those sexual things that the Labour Party focuses a lot of legislation on. Being bi is the other meaning. But in this sense bi means two, does it not?

I say to Labour and National that there are more than two parties in the House. They need to take that message on board. No legislation gets passed through this place without the support of other parties—end of story. Indeed, Government members are in those seats, enjoying the salaries and driving the cars they drive today, only because other parties made it possible.

Mr Cunliffe sits there and winds up his finger, signalling to me that he is bored and that he finds this speech tedious. I have a message to him from New Zealand First: “You enjoy the job you’ve got and the privileges of office you hold, because we put you there—end of story. Say ‘Thank you’ some time; don’t give me the ‘I’m bored’ hand signal.” Such contempt has repercussions. If he wants them then he should carry on.

I say to National members that they should not go slapping the Labour Government around the head about its defence policies. If we want to go back down that path, I remind the National Party that I was a soldier in the ranks in the army. We were running around saying “Bang, bang.”, because the National Government did not buy us blanks to fire out of our rifles. We played the classic old “Cowboys and Indian” game, in reality, as regular force soldiers, shouting “Bang, bang; you’re dead.” and “No, I’m not; I got you first.”

That happened because the National Government’s defence budget was so abysmal that we did not have ammunition to go to the rifle ranges and we did not have enough grenades to complete our qualifications at the end of each year. Each and every soldier was required to throw two grenades, not one—this is where the word “bi” comes up again; a bi-grenade throw. I am not saying 22, 52, or 102; all we had to do was each throw two grenades in 365 days. But we could not do that. We were so well funded that, when I was deployed as an attached mechanic to Lieutenant Colonel David Maloney’s 1st infantry battalion to Australia, I ended up unable to support my battalion in the field and unable to give them the mobility they needed, because we could not get the spare parts. So what did I do? Well, I swapped things, I borrowed things, I acquired things, and at night I snuck into the Aussies’ bases and I stole them.

Hon Member: What?

RON MARK: I stole them—well, acquired them; obtained them. We did whatever we had to do, such was the lousy funding that the National Government was giving the defence forces. So National members should not give this House claptrap about how well National performs when it is in Government. If members want some real reminders, they should check out who bought the Scorpions, who bought the Unimogs, and who bought the Steyr rifles—although we do not want to go there. Members should ask who made most of the major purchases and then ask who gave us the HMNZS Charles Upham.

When National members want to talk about cross-party consensus, let us talk about the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. That was an inquiry that most parties in this House signed up to, whether or not around the fringes we disagreed that it was an issue. The one party that came out vehemently against Inquiry Into Defence Beyond 2000 was National. It came out with a counter-report and rejected our recommendation that it not upgrade the and that it buy a logistics vessel. I say that National members should give us less of the claptrap, because the history books do not lie. The history books are quite accurate.

At the end of the day, despite New Zealand First’s agreement with the Labour Government over some aspects of the defence policy, we say that most of the major procurements that have advantaged the defence forces over the decades—and some that Labour does not like to admit to, like purchasing frigates—actually occurred during the Labour Government’s tenure.

It is good to see that the bill has come forward at this point in time. Again, it is part of the modernisation process. I do not think that it is deliberate that everything is going to be modified at the same time or that there is a deliberate modernisation plan. But it is convenient and appropriate that the bill has come to the fore to modernise our legal processes and the development within the military.

There is an interesting point to make here. I am very confused about National’s support for the bill, given that it contains a clause to establish the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. Why would Mr Mark be confused? I did not sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee but I have been reading the bill. As I read the bill I saw that it requires the Armed Forces Discipline Committee to do very similar things to the Sentencing Council. Do members recall the Sentencing Council? It is a newly formed body set up by the Criminal Law Reform Bill, which was passed by the House recently. The National Party, despite its members saying now that they objected to the bail provisions in the bill—which they did not; no objection was in the minority report—vehemently stood against the establishment of a Sentencing Council. But if I go through the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and look at the reasons for the establishment of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee, one of the things I read—and I will leave it for the Minister to clarify and ensure that I am not misinterpreting this—is that the committee will promote consistency, review sentences, and give guidelines so that sentences will be consistent and there will be parity, uniformity, and, overridingly, justice. I ask the Minister to confirm that, because I think that is what the committee is for.

Hon Phil Goff: That’s correct.

RON MARK: That is what the Sentencing Council was for under the Criminal Law Reform Bill put up by the Government recently, which the National Party decried, bemoaned, attacked, vilified, and voted against. But now it is OK. Well, that tells me that something is a little shallow or possibly a little hollow. “Hollow” is a word that springs to mind. I say it is hollow criticism. It is hollow and feigned anger, anguish, and derision. It is opposition for the sake of opposition. There is no substance and no filling; it is simply hollow rhetoric from hollow men and women.

In this bill there is a lot of ground to go over, and I think the debate will be interesting as we go along. But I would prefer it if people stuck to the bill, as opposed to straying into general issues of defence, because let me tell members that for every shot there is a counter-shot. National needs to really go back and look at history, before it goes down that path. I suggest it does not go down it.

This bill is good, in the sense that it brings some surety and refinement. Let me say to the House that I have been a private soldier in the Defence Force. I have been charged and have been in orderly rooms. I have been an NCO. I have charged people and put them into orderly rooms. I have been a subordinate commander. I have heard charges and delivered justice. I have also represented soldiers who I believe were served poorly by the military law. It is pleasing to see that such things as the right to have a court martial and the right to have legal representation will be cemented into the Act.

Last night I started recounting a case of three soldiers who I believe were abysmally and poorly treated by the military justice system in Waiōuru in 1983. I could recount other instances where soldiers were ramrodded through. As a serviceman, an officer, and an NCO, I understand—and New Zealand First knows intimately—the need for a robust, expeditious military justice system to maintain discipline and standards. The standards demanded of the military are so much higher than the public would expect—so much higher than that—and that places extra constraints and requirements on the military. But justice must always be fair, and injustice must always be able to be redressed.

TIM GROSER (National) : Madam Chair, I am mindful of your directive that we must at least at some point in our speeches come back to Part 1—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think everybody has had a fair go.

TIM GROSER: —but I cannot entirely miss the Minister’s rather simplistic characterisation of my earlier political views.

Hon Phil Goff: I think you should give us 10 minutes on that, Tim.

TIM GROSER: I might just take the member up on that. I just want to say that I am disappointed that the member did not go back to when I was 6, when, for reasons both of principle and self-interest, I used to believe in Father Christmas. I understand that the Minister could not possibly have grasped the complexity of student politics at Victoria University in 1969, which would, by contrast, make the internal politics of the Princes Street branch of the Labour Party at the same time look like a lightweight bunch of teenage socialites. We could perhaps discuss the complexities of that period on another occasion.

I want to take up one point where there has been some debate between Mr Goff and Dr Mapp in relation to the strike force. I think the position here is pretty obvious, is it not? There was room for a debate—where I might have stood is another matter—on whether we should have abandoned the strike force at the time the decision was taken. There was a range of arguments either way, but I think the position that the National Party sketched out in its recent external strategy paper is based on one simple reality, which is that it is impossible in any meaningful sense, either technologically in terms of reassembling the human skills, or in terms of the capital cost, to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. It is utterly unrealistic to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. That is the basic reality.

However, as those who have read the paper with a little more care will have appreciated, we still think there are some residual issues that need to be addressed, and the recent debate over the future role of the Aermacchis, I think, is a case in point. There are some issues about the training of our troops in relation to the lack of a strike force that I think do deserve some serious consideration. That, I think, is the context of the change in position of the National Party. I think it is explained by simple realities. There was a case to debate at the time. Frankly, to try to put Humpty-Dumpty together again now is just not a realistic position. National has accepted that, and it has made its position very clear in this paper.

In terms of the other theme of the discussion tonight by various speakers in relation to the role of discipline, I just want to reinforce my own view about the absolute importance of maintaining discipline in this much more sophisticated role that the men and women in our armed services are increasingly playing in theatres of the world. They are exercising what I and others have called almost a quasi-political role. They are operating at the margin of politics, one might say, in societies that could not quite be described as failed States—although Afghanistan at a certain point certainly deserved that title—but where, as in the South Pacific, fundamental governance structures have broken down. Australian and New Zealand troops are working together in a very productive way and are playing, one might say, not just a stabilisation role in terms of law and order but a quasi-political role in that sense.

I think our soldiers do a magnificent job. The National Party explicitly recognises that the multicultural nature of our army in particular is a huge asset. I was over in Sydney a few months ago speaking with some senior Australian foreign policy people who were absolutely explicit in their acknowledgment of the added positive dimension that the New Zealand defence forces play in these, as I say, quasi-political roles because of the multicultural character of our army in particular. Quite clearly, maintaining discipline in this situation is a role that is not purely internal to the discipline processes of our armed forces but is crucial in maintaining the confidence of the local peoples in this situation. We know that there have been some appalling lapses—fortunately, not involving our people—on this issue in other areas of the world, which have raised question marks about the whole suitability of having peacekeepers in certain roles. So we are asking a lot of our young men and women and our perhaps rather more mature commanding officers in very, very murky situations sometimes, and I think that military discipline is absolutely central to that. I hope our armed services will see this bill, which brings up to date the internal procedures, as fair and as reinforcing them in the right way.

I have just a couple of minor points. I return to the theme of trying wherever possible to use civil procedures. I referred earlier to the provisions on time limitation for offences, which principally model the philosophy of the civil process whereby one cannot be charged twice for the same offence. There is some very complicated drafting there about how to define the same offence given that in the course of proceedings additional charges may be laid. Some quite sophisticated thinking was done by the legal services of the New Zealand defence forces, which I hope and trust will serve the test of time. Again, on this theme, there are provisions to deal with situations where personal interests have come in. That, I think, is in section 108, inserted by clause 37. There are some very careful words to recognise the difficulties that could arise. Members of the family may be involved. In a small community such as ours, that may indeed be the case, particularly where individual families have a proud and long tradition of service. There is a whole series of other consequential changes in Part 1, which are very much consistent with that philosophy.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : It gives me great pleasure to speak during the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill, as we discuss Part 1. As chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I regret that I missed the report back on the bill. I particularly want to thank the committee for the work that was done on the bill. For all members of the committee, as has been mentioned by Ron Mark, it was not so much a bipartisan as a multiparty committee, because we have a Green member and an Independent member, and Ron Mark from New Zealand First sits on that committee from time to time, when we are discussing military matters. I thank him for his contribution to that select committee.

I want to thank Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs for the work that has been done not only on the bill but on the review. The review itself is a doorstopper, an enormous piece of work that was done over a long period of time. Their names do not appear on this legislation, and that is a pity because of the work that has gone into it. A tremendous amount of interviewing, study, and legal review has gone into not only the review but also the legislation itself. I also want to thank them for the way they worked with the select committee. I found them extremely receptive to suggestions made by members of the committee, and very thorough in the way they followed up those suggestions, came back with changes, and worked with the committee on producing the legislation, with changes, that we have before the Committee today.

As has been said, the bill makes amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953, and the Defence Act 1990. As has also been mentioned by others, changes are happening in the military in countries very much akin to New Zealand, and there was a significant influence from the United Kingdom on this legislation.

What is important, as has also been mentioned by others, is the balance between the modern way of looking at human rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the maintenance of discipline within our armed forces. Compliments have been paid today about the discipline of the New Zealand armed forces, and I think it is largely because of the attitude of those who are in command in our forces that there has been, not only through the legislation but also on the ground, a good balance between human rights and the maintenance of discipline in our forces. Our forces are held in respect by other forces throughout the world.

I remind people that we are talking about Part 1. The debate has wandered over a whole range of issues, from New Zealand’s military engagement in other countries to New Zealand’s military equipment, but we are actually talking here about the law within the armed forces in New Zealand.

Once again, I thank all of those who were involved with this bill, not only fellow members of the select committee but also Brigadier Roirdan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs. I also thank those who made submissions. It can be very, very difficult to get submissions. One of the things the committee was concerned about was the level of consultation. Although public submissions were called for, this is not a bill that members of the public feel highly involved in. Very few submissions were received—in fact, there were four. We received submissions from the Law Society, and we also considered a paper from the Legislation Advisory Committee. The select committee itself was concerned to ensure that through the review and the advertising processes, people in the military forces were able to comment, and that there had been thorough consultation throughout the process. As I have said, this is not the type of legislation where large numbers of the public are involved in making submissions.

Once again, as has been mentioned by members, I say a number of changes were made to the bill, particularly in Part 1—some minor and some quite major—and particularly in relation to the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We were very pleased that that matter was able to be worked through with our advisers, and that we have come up with an amicable solution that all members agree with.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : This part relates to courts martial appeals. One of the important changes in this legislation, which I think has been very well done, is to change the very nature of courts martial. It is also referred to in Parts 4 and 5, and we will speak on it briefly at that point as well. Essentially, the change is to shift a court martial from the traditional approach whereby the “judge” was merely acting in the role of an adviser and the presiding officer was a senior military officer. The new approach, which I think is a much better approach, is to have the judge acting as the presiding officer. I think that is very important.

This is a legal process. It is very formally constituted. It is not rushed; it is not done under the stress and heat of battle or in operational circumstances. These things are done in a formal and considered way, and therefore we expect the full proprieties around the legal observance of rights and duties, and the rights of the accused, to be properly protected. We know, from deep experience, extending over literally centuries, that there is right way to do that: by having an independent judge, and then, in a sense, by having a jury of the accused person’s peers to determine the finding on the facts. We will have as the presiding officer a judge from the Judge Advocates General, all of whom are District Court judges, or indeed High Court judges at the appellate level. Then we will have commissioned officers and senior non-commissioned officers acting as the board—or as the jury, to use that analogy. It is not a perfect analogy, but it is robust enough to enable us to see the importance of the change.

I think this is a very important change. A court martial deals with serious offences. Many of those offences are also breaches of the civil law. Without going into the details of any particular trial, there was a whole series of cases in the navy, in particular, several years ago relating to sexual harassment and the like, that were very difficult for the navy to deal with, and they were also very difficult for the court martial process to deal with. I think this new procedure will be much fairer both for the accused and for the complainant. In that situation the offence was not so much against service discipline but actually against particular fellow service people—mostly women, obviously—so the complainant has rights and expectations as well as the accused. There has been a careful balancing of that and a new structuring of both the appellate system and, under Part 5, the new court martial procedure.

In legislative terms we have essentially borrowed the approach of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, but in principle terms we have really dug deep into the civil system. That is the real reference point, as it was for those other Commonwealth jurisdictions. I believe this is a very important and significant change. It will be one that I think will give people in the defence forces a great deal more confidence in the process, whether they find themselves in the role of the accused, or the complainant, or, for that matter, whether the service itself is the complainant. This is an important change.

We heard some very, very good submissions from the Judge Advocates General on these points, all of whom are highly experienced people with roles as defence counsel, as civil prosecutors, or, indeed, as judges. I think that the legal services directorate has put a great deal of work into getting this part right. Members will note that this was not an area that we needed to change very much at all. In fact, to be fair, we did not have to change much of the bill, but we did focus on some important parts. I commend the directorate for stepping back, getting a much better system, and gaining the confidence of people from other parts of the services who, I suspect, might have been a little wary of the new approach. I am sure that it was hard work to convince them that this procedure was a necessary thing, but I commend the director of the legal service for achieving this outcome.

National is pleased to support these new changes.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I was taking the opportunity to talk about Part 2, which is on courts martial appeals, and I was setting out why in this whole area of courts martial we have made important changes. I think these changes are fundamentally for the good, because they provide a much fairer procedure, and I think they will be transparently seen as providing a much fairer procedure by both the accused and the complainant, whether that be, effectively, an individual complainant within the defence forces or, if it is a broader offence against service discipline, then the service itself. There is an important balancing of rights.

As the Minister noted, members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—perhaps more particularly those from the National Party—have taken a bit of an opportunity to talk about broader issues around foreign affairs policy and bipartisanship, and I guess one would say that the Minister joined robustly in that kind of debate. I know that strictly speaking we are meant to stick to the part of the bill that is being debated, but the truth is that we get very few opportunities in the House to discuss these things. In fact, one of the recommendations made several years ago by the select committee was that there ought to be an annual 3-hour debate in the House on foreign affairs matters, so that those issues could be properly discussed.

Darren Hughes: We would welcome that.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am very pleased to hear that the Labour junior whip welcomes that.

I will take a minute or so just to set out a little more detail on how National arrived at the paper that it distributed last week. It has had a long gestation.

Darren Hughes: It will take only 1 minute.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I just inform the member, who was probably about 10 at the time when the Cold War ended in 1990, that that really is the genesis of the changes around foreign policy in New Zealand. The period 1984-90 was a difficult period for New Zealand; Labour members well know that. But after the end of the Cold War we had a new opportunity to look at these things again. In particular, we had the issues of the deployment to Bosnia, the ageing of defence equipment, and the defence beyond 2000 investigation in the select committee from 1996-99, very much encouraged by the Hon Paul East and undertaken very much by Derek Quigley and myself. That, I think, laid the groundwork. The other crucial element was September 11, which I think was really a wake-up call, in particular for Labour, which realised—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come to the bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I will be coming back to the bill, because it does—and this is important—talk about bipartisanship. This is a bipartisan bill. I am sure that you, Madam Chairperson, will indulge me for another 30 seconds, when my speech will be over. Essentially, there has been a convergence. Both sides had to shift, and that is actually the strength of bipartisanship. Both sides recognise the interests of the other side and incorporate them in their thinking. I think other nations have started to see those values and those strengths.

I return now to courts martial appeals, and I might just conclude on this point. New Zealand Defence Force personnel are incredibly well trusted. One of the reasons they are trusted is the fairness and the openness of our disciplinary procedures. When we are deployed internationally—Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is going to stick to the bill?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, I am. One of the important values when one is deployed internationally is that it is not just justice within the particular defence force that is important—it is obviously important to the individuals within that defence force—but it is actually hugely important for the people with whom one is deployed. They have to have confidence that the disciplinary procedures in place will ensure that if there are transgressions by members of the defence force or, I guess, by civilian contractors—and all defence forces use those, I might add, these days—there is a robust justice system that they can rely on to hold people to account.

I note that the directorate of legal services is especially mindful of that in places like East Timor, Bougainville, and the Solomons. Part of the confidence building amongst the people with whom we are deployed—which, I must say, the New Zealand Defence Force truly excels at—is knowing that if there are transgressions within our own Defence Force, we have a high-quality legal procedure that brings people to justice. It is an interest process. In a sense, it works in two ways, does it not? Those people have to know that transgressors will be brought to justice. They then have to see that the justice system that we apply is actually fair—not just fair to them but also fair to the accused, because part of what we are doing, part of the role of peacekeeping, is inculcating the values of fairness and justice, and those values need to be seen primarily in the justice system that we ourselves apply. It needs to be seen that there are no issues of favouritism, no issues of bias, and no issues of the offender knowing he or she will possibly get an easy ride for the sake of service unity, or something of that nature. There has to be sufficient independence in the system for it to speak to people in the places where we are deployed that we have a fair system, which is fair for everyone concerned.

This bill is part and parcel of modern contemporary operations. Right from the summary proceedings through to the courts martial and through to the courts martial appeals system, we are building into the system that sense of fairness. And fairness is, essentially, built by having an independent judiciary. The old court martial system, and the appeal system related to it, was always subject to the criticism that it was overly influenced by issues of command and did not take into enough account issues of judicial independence. The new system essentially rectifies those defects. We now have a system at the level of courts martial and courts martial appeals that is transparently independent. The judicial officers are independent from the military chain of command. The director of legal services, who is present in the Chamber as we speak, is in fact accountable in his legal capacity, not his command capacity, to the Solicitor-General, and that is actually part of the strength of this new system.

I want to close on this point. I do congratulate the defence forces, and in particular the director of legal services—but also actually the superior command system—who could see the importance and value of this new system in building the approach that now is so integral to the quality of the defence forces that New Zealand provides. We are best at providing high-quality, focused contributions, and they are built very much around specialised patrol and surveillance. They are built around the special forces. I just want to share this point. In Afghanistan our special forces expressed their own concerns about the way the people whom they were capturing in the field were being treated. I think it is a tremendously important attribute of our defence forces that they have placed justice at the centre of the whole way they conduct business.

RON MARK (NZ First) : Again, we get into the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill, and I thank Dr Mapp, or should I say Captain Wayne Mapp, formerly of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment, for again expanding the debate just a little bit. In coming back to the bill, I will follow that same pattern briefly and just comment on some of those expansions.

My partner and I had an interesting discussion over the dinner break, as we often do, about what is happening, and I commented on this bill. I was reflecting on the discussions that had happened in the Chamber prior to the break, and on how some of the debate had sort of moved outside of the bill to talk about the modernisation of defence forces, bipartisanship, and all those wonderful things—and an agreed defence policy.

I reflected on my comments and it gave me cause to remember something else from when I was serving in the New Zealand Army. It is very pertinent, because when the two old parties start slagging and bagging each other as to who did the most for whom, where, and at what time, it is often those who are serving in uniform at the time who know best. Well, it is generally the case that they know best the reality of what is actually happening at the coalface of the defence forces.

I recall a time when I was a corporal in the armoured regiment up at Waiōuru. I was going into a Q store and looking on the floor. There was an object that looked as if it were made out of plywood, covered in camouflage net. I wandered over and looked at it, and I saw that it had a big tube sticking out of the front of it. I wondered what it was. It did not look like military hardware. It had all the appearances of being the turret of a tank, except that it was made out of wood. Then it was explained to me: “These are the tanks that we have when we don’t have tanks, because we don’t have tanks that go.”! It reminded me—

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The discussion we are having at the moment bears absolutely no relationship to the bill under consideration, particularly to Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right, but as the member knows he spent a good deal of his speech doing the same thing, and so did Wayne Mapp. I do detect a certain enthusiasm for what we are discussing, but I just ask the member to wrap it up and come back to the bill as soon as he can.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I know that part of that interchange was light-hearted, but during the course of it the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, interjected directly on you, and then made an incredibly unparliamentary remark about your office. I think despite the debate’s light-hearted nature—and he is now interjecting on me during my point of order, as well—there does have to be lines that we do not cross. I think that member did and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise if the remark was unparliamentary.

John Hayes: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bob Clarkson: Tell us the end of the story.

RON MARK: Does the member want me to go right back to the start? Well, there was a time when our New Zealand army was so well funded that we had to dress up armoured personnel carriers with plywood mock-ups of turrets and pretend they were tanks. That was at a time when I was posted to the armoured regiment, in 1977, and I am trying to think of who was in Government in 1977.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many syllables?

RON MARK: How many syllables? Well, I think it is easy, is it not? It was National, I tell John Hayes, which is probably why he took that rather spurious point of order and tried to intercept me and interdict me. But we need to be realistic, and that is why I think it is welcoming to see the new philosophy of the National Party. It has simply given up trying to have defence policy and has decided to copy Labour, just as it copied from New Zealand First’s manifesto all the way through the last election.

It was nice to have that slight diversion in the debate, as Captain Mapp did before coming back to the bill. We can keep taking these diversions as long as we like because the night is long and it is quite entertaining—like the time when an umpire was telling a soldier “You are dead—lie down.” This was at the time that we did not have blanks because the Government was not paying the Defence Force enough money, and soldiers had to go “Bang, bang! You’re dead.” An umpire was telling a soldier to lie down because he was dead, but the soldier kept coming. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!”, and the soldier who had shot him was saying “Sir, I shot him; I said ‘Bang, bang!’ ”. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!”, but the soldier kept coming and said “No sir—clank, clank; I’m a tank.” I think that was in National’s time in Government, as well.

We can throw accusations at each other all night long as to who spent more, and when, and what for defence, or who did the most, but I seriously have to say that legislation like this, on the back of a long-term development plan, and on the back of a range of things that have happened, indicates that in actual fact the Government has not done too badly. We do have serious differences over some aspects, such as the combat air support—which National has now rolled over on, as well—and we do have serious differences over pay and salary. But at least the Labour Government has addressed that, unlike National, which would not do so when Jenny Shipley was here.

This legislation is important to New Zealand First, and it is important to me personally, because it is only when people are actually serving in the military and get to be subjected to military law, and get to administer military law, that they realise things and find themselves questioning the rather archaic nature of some of the procedures, systems, and customs, and the relevancy of those to the modern situation.

It is always useful to go back to the very first briefing we received from the military. I am holding it right here—this colour print-out on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. When I look at it I can see the principles they strive to adhere to. It states that everyone charged with an offence has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, and that everyone who is charged with an offence has in relation to the determination of the charge the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. One of the difficulties with the legal system, which I witnessed in my time in defence, was that often there were rights bestowed on people, or available to service personnel, that were never taken advantage of, or were reluctantly tried, or applied for, or sought. Sometimes the fear of the repercussions deterred and intimidated service personnel from taking some of those options.

I will give members an example. As a junior officer based at Linton Camp and second in command of a unit, I had occasion to find myself, rather interestingly, on a charge. I was on a charge in front of the camp commander—Colonel Wedde, I think his name was—and the charge had been laid against me by the officer commanding me. It was a rather curious situation, because very, very rarely does a commanding officer ever charge another officer, but there I was. I was marched up in front of the commanding officer, and the standard question was put: “Will you accept my punishment?”. A lot of defence force personnel will say yes even though they know they should say no. But the fear of an elevated set of repercussions coming down upon them will often intimidate them into saying yes. The fear that they are unable to articulate their case and the mitigating factors, and the fear that they will be overawed by the circumstance, will often lead them to plead guilty, say “Yes, I will take the punishment”, and move on from there. Being the sort of chap I am—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Probably less likely to be court-martialled.

RON MARK: Right—but being the sort of chap I am, I said no. The consequences of a captain in the army telling the camp commander “No” are quite severe. That immediately elevates to a court martial. So I was promptly advised of the consequences of my decision and asked whether I would like to reconsider. I said “No.” The matter was adjourned for a moment and I was taken outside and counselled, and I was promised and assured that if I just accepted my punishment it would be easy going—it would go away. It was a bit of a nonsense situation. I said “No. I am fully aware of the implications, and I want a general court martial.” Well, matters were adjourned from there, and we ended up with a court of inquiry, which suited me down to the ground because it enabled me then to put my officer commanding in the witness box and question him, and to call witnesses.

The result of that court of inquiry was that all charges were dismissed, and a certain officer was made to look a bit of an idiot, which pretty much fitted the reputation he had garnered for himself, anyway. And we moved on, and lessons were learnt. But it has always troubled me that on occasions when soldiers and defence force personnel had options available to them, they were often more prepared to stand firm, keep their heels together, bite the bullet, say “Yes, sir!”, accept the punishment, and march out. It was done, dusted, and gone, and they got over it.

Bob Clarkson: Why don’t you do that right now?

RON MARK: I say to “Bob the Builder”, “Mr What’s-his-name” from Tauranga, that it is because I see things that are wrong and I challenge them. I see things that are not right, that are improper and lack justice, and I do not accept them. I see things as they could be, and I strive for that. If the day comes when I lose that passion and that drive, then I might as well lie down and die like that member has already, and my contribution to the nation will be equivalent to what he is providing right now. No! Some people have the strength, determination, understanding, and confidence to go forward, but some people do not. I see in this legislation a degree of empowerment and recognition that might not necessarily have been available to people in the past.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I am interested in the comments of the previous speaker, Ron Mark, which I think reflect the fact that the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill has not been read by him.

I rise to speak on Part 2, “Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953”. First, I would like to explain that one of the reasons the select committee had to address this issue was that there were different systems of disposal. Disposal means getting rid of a charge or dealing with a charge and the navy had a different system to the army and the air force. The system was far too complex and provided no consistency in all strategic environments.

The second problem was that as summary disposals were conducted by officers in command, rather than in the courts, it was not contemplated that an accused be legally represented, and there would be no appeal from a finding or punishment to a higher court. That provision was questioned by a number of people in my electorate who are retired military personnel. They were concerned that we would get a de-linkage between a person committing an offence and the officer imposing a penalty for whatever the offence was. Amongst some of the, shall we say, older guard there were some reservations about this.

We also felt that there was no ability to deal summarily with minor charges against senior officers. The resulting requirement to convene a general court martial to try those officers for minor offences was considered to be both inefficient and unwarranted, and an unnecessary amount of public expenditure was involved. Up until the enactment of this legislation that we are now passing, including today, the courts martial are convened by senior officers in command, who approve the charges and also appoint the prosecutor and members of the court—that is, the military officers who perform as a judge and jury might in a civilian court. In the minds of the select committee members, this structure raised doubts about the independence of the court, given the status of the convening officer as a member of the executive, combined with the responsibility for the prosecution and the appointment of court members.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the military system is affected by the fact that the Judge Advocates—read that in terms of being a military judge—have no power, first of all, to determine evidential and procedural matters or to grant bail. In a situation where a person was awaiting either a judgment or verdict, or even charges, he or she could not be offered bail. That was all pretty unreasonable. For the first time in our New Zealand military law, this bill provides a common system of summary discipline that is far more efficient than the status quo, and which at the same time complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will promote measures that should enhance public confidence in the disciplinary regimes of the army, navy, and air force.

I think also that the proposed disciplinary system in Part 2 will maximise efficiencies in the trial process while complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and will promote measures that should enhance everybody’s view of military justice. The bill will also establish a permanent Court Martial here in New Zealand to replace the current ad hoc courts martial. The Court Martial will try those cases that are far too difficult for just passing off to summary trial.

Finally, Part 2 will make a number of reforms to military law that, first of all, will improve compliance of courts of inquiry with commonly understood principles of justice. Part 2 will also close the gaps in the application of military law to modern operational circumstances. Finally, it will produce a modern military justice system that in all respects is efficient, effective, and fair to New Zealanders who serve in the armed forces. Our men and women who do that deserve that situation as a very minimum. I particularly want to thank Minister Goff for arrangements he made in a bipartisan way for members of our select committee to visit HMNZS Philomel last week. Thank you.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I thank the previous speaker, John Hayes, for actually addressing Part 2 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill, which is what this part of the Committee stage of the bill is about. As he said, the bill is very adequately explained in its explanatory note: “The Bill will, for the first time in New Zealand military law, provide for a common system of summary discipline that is more efficient than the status quo, while complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and combining the best elements of the current naval, army, and air force disciplinary regimes. Following developments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the Bill will also establish a permanent Court Martial of New Zealand to replace the current ad hoc courts-martial. The Court Martial will try those cases that are too serious for summary trial.”

When we look at Part 2 we see that just one letter is changed in clauses 87, 88, and 89. We have moved from “Courts Martial” to the “Court Martial”. It is a very simple change but very significant. The other points of Part 2 that we are concerned with are that we have moved to the “Chief High Court Judge” rather than the “Chief Justice” in section 4 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, through an amendment made by clause 92, and matters relating to bail and bail conditions and matters relating to appeal are outlined in new provisions listed in clause 93. We also have provisions on the rights of appeal against conviction or sentence. Part 2 is quite detailed and very significant in terms of the changes made.

There are also provisions on the powers and supplementary powers of the court. Very few changes were made by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in that regard. Part 2 gives the details that are significant in the establishment of the Court Martial of New Zealand as opposed to the ad hoc courts martial, which is the major change and is very significant in terms of the bill as a whole. The details are there. I say for the benefit of those who are listening that one of the important things to know about legislation is that, quite often, a very small change in the wording has a very significant change in terms of how justice is actually carried out.

Once again, we thank those who worked on the bill. We thank the committee for its unanimity in its approach to this particular area. The fact is that this is not bipartisan legislation. As Mr Mark pointed out, we are now in an MMP environment. We have multi-parties on the select committee, including an independent member, and for the sake of legislation around this area we have also co-opted New Zealand First, whose members have contributed although they are not voting in matters dealing with the armed forces. I keep reiterating that we are in an MMP environment. It is a multiparty decision. Thank you.

• Part 2 agreed to.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : Part 3 is a very, very small part of the bill, and it is basically about the redress of complaints. It is barely half a page long, but once again it is one of those things that is very important in terms of the working of the bill. It amends the Defence Act of 1990. That is a significant change; it is a very small one, but nevertheless it is significant.

• Part 3 agreed to.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : As I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that considered this bill, it has been interesting to sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate concerning the provisions that have been reported back from the select committee. Clearly this is desirable legislation. The justice system in New Zealand’s armed forces is currently governed by legislation that is patently out of date. The armed forces’ justice system needs to be updated and made consistent with international developments in human rights law as well as, of course, with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It seems clear from the comments in previous speeches—and as Dianne Yates said earlier—from the evidence of the multiparty support that exists for the legislation that it will better serve our servicemen and servicewomen by applying to them as many of the same rights enjoyed by civilians as are compatible with the military environment.

Mr Hayes described the regime relating to the summary procedure on the one hand, and the court martial procedure on the other. I would like to speak about some of the significant provisions that appear in Part 4 that set out the preliminary provisions relating to courts martial. Subpart 1 sets out the purposes of Parts 4 to 6. It provides an overview of those parts, defines the terms used in those parts, and settles the relationship between them and the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. Supplementary Order Paper 151 recommends that Parts 4 to 6 be a separate bill, the Court Martial Bill, the purpose being, as we have heard, to establish the Court Martial of New Zealand as a permanent court of record and to deal with associated matters in stand-alone legislation.

Subpart 2 establishes the Court Martial of New Zealand. It can be seen that the Court Martial will be a court of record. It will have all the powers inherent in such a court for the purposes of any proceedings. The Court Martial will sit in divisions, each comprising one judge of the court. Each division of the court will be able to exercise all the powers of the court, even though its other divisions are exercising any of those powers at the same time. The Court Martial is to comprise the Chief Judge and at least six other judges. The Governor-General is to appoint all the judges, including any deputy chief judges. The status of the court is established clearly and consistently, with its status as a court of record.

Subpart 3 sets out the constitution of the Court Martial for proceedings for the purpose of any trial. It must consist of one judge and either five military members if the proceeding is in respect of an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment of 20 years or more, or in any other case, three military members. The Chief Judge is to assign a judge for the proceedings. The registrar is to assign the military members in accordance with certain specified eligibility criteria and in light of certain other factors—for example, the seniority of the accused and the seriousness of the charge facing the accused. The accused may object to the registrar about the assignment of any person as a military member on the ground that the person might not act impartially or is not in a position to act impartially, or is disqualified from membership as a military member. If in that case the registrar accepts the objection made, the registrar may assign a substitute military member to fill a vacancy in the military membership of the Court Martial.

Subpart 4 is of interest because it specifies the duties of the members of the Court Martial. For the judge, those duties include responsibility for ensuring that the trial is conducted in accordance with the bill, the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, and the rules of procedure in a manner that is appropriate for a court of justice. For the military members, those duties include responsibility to consider all the evidence admitted by the judge at the trial and to vote impartially on the finding and, if necessary, on the sentence.

Just briefly, and to complete the call on this part, I draw the attention of the Committee of the whole House to clause 146, which provides that the senior military member must report any command issues that arise during the proceedings to the superior commander who referred the charges to the director of military prosecutions. Clause 147 goes on to prohibit the taking into account of the manner in which a military member performed his or her judicial duties in that person’s career management. It is clear that this part contributes in a significant way by setting out the preliminary matters relating to the constitution of the Court Martial in this way, so as to ensure that it is a properly constituted court of record in accordance with the general objectives of the bill.

TIM GROSER (National) : I will take just a brief call on Part 4 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Obviously, in dealing with the procedural provisions of the Court Martial, we are dealing with the more serious offences. I always recall a very experienced European negotiator saying to me years ago: “Those who decry the importance of arguments about procedure do not understand that behind every procedural argument lies a fundamental point of substance.”

When we look at the procedures here, the first point is that we are moving from a relatively ad hoc process to a permanent court of record. If we look through the other clauses we can see that in clause 122 there are minimum credentials set down for the members of the Court Martial. There are quite clear provisions, indicating that a high level of expertise is required. Clause 123 indicates that the judge must have been a practising barrister or solicitor for 7 years, or is a District Court judge.

The independence of the judiciary here is crucial. I think a lot of members were quite interested in the personal story of Mr Mark. The dangers of what I would call a closed-loop system were very nicely illustrated by his personal story, and I think it is very important that we are moving in this direction to end the closed loop. So we are in a situation where the independence of the accused and the independence of the process have a higher level of independence, and I think that is highly desirable. The Chief Judge, of course, is appointed by the Governor-General and therefore does not owe his or her position directly to the military.

There are important protections built into Part 4 concerning the security of tenure for the judge. In clause 128 we see that a judge may not be removed except by the Sovereign or the Governor-General acting upon the address of the House of Representatives, and there is a specific set of criteria relating to that. That is quite important in terms of securing the independence of the process and procedure.

Equally if we look at the constitution of the Court Martial we can see a gradation of the process, depending on the seriousness of the offence. We have a situation where there is the one judge and then the serving officers. The serving officers, from memory, have to have served for a minimum of 3 years so they have to have at least some experience, and in the case of more serious indictable offences carrying potentially very significant prison sentences—I forget the number of the clause concerned—there have to be five military officers of the Court Martial. For lesser offences I recall the figure is three.

In Part 4 we have these protections built in for the more serious offences. Parallel to this we have the default option of civil procedure except where the special circumstance of the military require it to be varied in accordance with realities facing the military process. We also have in clause 139 provision whereby the accuser may object against the assignment of a person as a military member, and there are various provisions set down. That is quite a rigorous process. The objection has to be lodged in writing and it has to be quite specific. It cannot be just some generalised “I don’t like the look of her or him.”

We have, in Part 4, the setting down of the procedures for the more serious offences that will be governed by the Court Martial, a lot of additional precision, and a lot of protection for the process, and I think it will give rise in due course to something that is more independent, something more rigorous, and something that I trust will serve the test of time.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I wish to speak to Part 4, “Preliminary provisions relating to Court Martial”, which contains the interpretation and the definitions. I want to refer to clause 146(1), which states: “The senior military member must submit a written report on any command issues that arise in the course of any proceedings before the Court Martial to the superior commander who referred the charges that are the subject of those proceedings to the Director of Military Prosecutions.”

Also very important is clause 147, which prohibits the taking into account of the manner in which a military member performed his or her judicial duties in that person’s career management. Clause 147 is a very, very important clause that relates to the promotion of people involved in the forces. So I just draw the attention of the Committee to the provision on taking into account information about the conduct of military members, and that aspect relating to conditions of service and promotion in clauses 146 and 147.

• Part 4 agreed to.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I wish to take a call on Part 5, which relates to particular provisions in the legislation on courts martial. The issue I want to specifically turn my mind to is the issue of the open court and excluding personnel, clauses 149 to 151. As a general rule, and as should be the case, a court martial will be open, and that is in accordance with justice being seen to be done. That, of course, was unexceptional, and we naturally expected that. The interest, however, was the circumstances under clause 151 where the judge may limit the scope of open court. This is clearly around the extent to which the press can report proceedings, and I should just make this perfectly clear. An open court is one that can be freely reported in the press, and, indeed, these days I guess one would expect to find television cameras in the court in much the same way as one would see in the District Court and the High Court. After all, the judge is the presiding officer and will apply, in essence, the same rules as exist in civil jurisdictions. But unlike a civil court, a military court can be dealing with issues that bear on national security.

As the bill was originally presented to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, the scope in which the judge could limit open court was quite broad, and, we considered on the select committee, overly broad. So we sought reports in which that could be narrowed. We clearly recognised there were cases where, for matters of national security, the court should be closed. We, in essence, limited it and they are to be, in a sense, read together here.

The first rule is if the information that would be disclosed would be “directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or any foreign country;”. That is clearly quite a tight set of rules. It is quite a high threshold to say that something must be of assistance to the enemy, as opposed to, say, general issues of national security, which is a much broader concept. National security covers things where there is no enemy. For instance, it could be terrorism, it could be operations of the intelligence service, it could be just internal operations of the Defence Force, which do not necessarily assist the enemy or the foreign country.

The second test is “be otherwise harmful to New Zealand;”. I know that some people will say that that is a very broad exception—

Tim Groser: Air New Zealand flights, for example!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: It could be Air New Zealand flights, for example, but, in fact, it is really intended to be limited, at least to some extent—and I want to state this on the record—by the first test. The fact that we have a limitation that is useful to the enemy or a foreign country is supposed to be some level of guide to what might be harmful to New Zealand. I know that these things are not capable of perfect precision, and if there ever were a test on this, it is the sort of case one could imagine going to very high levels of our courts to deal with, and they would obviously look very deeply into the questions and how other jurisdictions and so forth have dealt with it. But I just want to place the matter on record, because Hansard can be read into this, as, indeed, can the report of the select committee, and we turned our minds directly to this issue under the heading “Media freedom” in the commentary on the bill. The second paragraph under that heading recommends that a new clause 151 be inserted, providing that news media can be excluded only on specific grounds, and then we actually set them out. They are tied together in a single sentence in our commentary. That was deliberate.

So I want to put in a formal way, in concluding this point, that this is intended to be acted upon in interpreting this legislation. The intent of passing this legislation today is to put a high test on excluding the media, and it is intended, broadly speaking, to be related to assisting the enemy or a foreign country. It is not only that, because we do have the second test. But the point I am making here is that it is a high test, and it is intended to be a high test.

The select committee had several reports on this. We asked numerous questions on it, and we changed the bill as presented to this higher threshold test so that in virtually all circumstances there will be an open court. But we recognise in the military circumstance that from time to time, depending on the operational situation or depending on the defence situation of the nation, the media will need to be excluded.

It is important that we place these sorts of things on the record. And this, I conclude for the benefit of those people who might be listening, is one of the reasons we hold these Committee debates—to put things like this into the formal record as part of Hansard, and as an assistance to the judges when they come to apply a provision such as this.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I want to re-emphasise the points that have been made by Dr Mapp and refer to the importance of the commentary on the bill. Under the heading “Media freedom” the commentary states: “We were concerned that the bill as introduced removed the current provision in the Armed Forces Discipline Act that allows media access to courts-martial under section 131(4). We”—that is the committee—“therefore recommend that this right be included in the bill. We recommend that a new clause 151”—which is in the part we are discussing—“be inserted, providing that an order to exclude an accredited news media reporter under clause 151(2)(c) may be made only on the grounds set out in clause 151(1)(a), specifically, that the disclosure of the information would or might be ‘directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or any foreign country’ or ‘might otherwise be harmful to New Zealand’.”

I think Dr Mapp is perfectly correct in the way in which he has spelt out the importance of that particular clause that the committee had included. Once again, we thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its attention to that matter in relation to the media.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : It was interesting to hear the two previous speakers speak about the provisions of clause 148, and why the rationale for the exemptions they propose should apply to the jurisdiction of the Court Martial concerning the principle of open justice. We heard from both previous speakers about the exemptions that might apply in respect of disclosure of information that would or might be useful to the enemy or to any foreign country, or otherwise be harmful to New Zealand. There is, of course, another exemption proposed in the legislation, and it does seem to be a sensible one—that is, if the judge considers that the reputation of the victim of an alleged sexual offence or an offence of extortion needs to be protected, or if the order is desirable in the interests of public morality, then an exemption to the principle of open justice will be permitted, given the unique circumstances of the military environment. It seems to be an appropriate exemption. That really deals with Subpart 1 of Part 5.

Subpart 2 is restricted largely to machinery provisions empowering the registrar in certain matters, allowing the administration of oaths, and covering other such issues. Subpart 3 is interesting, though, because as a previous speaker indicated, the issue of bail in the military environment is not one that has been previously been dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. Under Subpart 3, the bill provides that a judge may grant bail to an accused pending trial in a court martial or to a person pending that person’s appeal, in the event there is an appeal against sentence or conviction, or both, to the Summary Appeal Court or to the Court Martial Appeal Court. It is interesting to note that the provisions relating to bail appear to be aligned quite closely to those in the Bail Act 2000, with obviously the modifications necessary to take account of the different legal framework, and of the seven vital elements of the military justice system the Minister referred to in his second reading speech in the House.

To conclude my remarks on this part, I tell members that Subpart 4 relates to the findings of the Court Martial. This reflects the interesting division between the judges on the one hand and the military members on the other. The judge is responsible for ruling on every question of law or procedure that arises during any trial in the court martial, but the military members are responsible for determining the finding of the Court Martial on a charge, by unanimous vote—and that is an important point—between themselves. The sentence of the Court Martial must be passed by the majority of the votes being counted together of the judge and the military members. So it seems there are very sensible machinery provisions relating to the Court Martial, and the Committee will agree that the select committee has done a good job of aligning the requisite procedures with those applicable in the civil jurisdiction.

• Part 5 agreed to.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I rise to speak briefly on Part 6, which once again deals with rather miscellaneous and administrative matters. It deals with some of the powers of the Chief Justice to delegate matters to the registrar. It deals with the responsibility of the registrar in the role of inspector to service penal establishments, and points out that in that role he or she will be responsible for ensuring there is no potential for torture or ill treatment to occur or go undetected in New Zealand’s service penal establishments. The matters that are included in Part 6 deal once again with fairness, justice, and administrative matters, and clear up matters around delegation. Thank you.

• Part 6 agreed to.

TIM GROSER (National) : I rise to speak to the title of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. This debate provides National with an opportunity to reflect on the context within which this very detailed, elaborate, and sophisticated process has taken place. I think it is quite convenient, particularly from our perspective, given that we have put out for discussion to New Zealand a paper covering the three main areas of external strategy.

In this context, I would like to focus just on defence. There has been a lot of discussion from various parties in the course of the proceedings of this bill on how we have arrived at a situation where there is essentially a bipartisan—or multiparty, perhaps, with some exceptions—basis to proceed, and how important that is when it comes to vital strategic interests of New Zealand that clearly do not fit into any electoral phase. I do not think any member of this House could put hand on heart and say that this has been easy to achieve, but I think we are in that space now.

There are a couple of themes that I would like to focus on. First of all, I think one of the difficulties we have had historically in coming to this—I would say, new—consensus, was because, like everything in New Zealand, the dominant culture was to try to set up a mini-British system here across all fronts. When it came to defence forces, this meant setting up a mini - balanced force, as is entirely appropriate for a major military power such as the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the time we were trying to replicate British military culture here in New Zealand, in the late 19th century, the United Kingdom was the world’s largest military power.

As the decades have rolled on I think it has become slowly apparent to people across the spectrum of political views that such a system is becoming less tenable and, indeed, less useful for New Zealand. So we are moving—partly by design, partly by hazard—towards niche armed forces, in which the principle is quite clear: we do some things, historically, extremely well, even though I acknowledge that in some cases we have not given the men and women in the field all the tools to do it. Like other New Zealanders, I recall Rommel saying that with two more battalions of Kiwi troops, he could have won the war in Africa. That was praise indeed from our enemy.

I believe that there are other things that New Zealand troops have historically shown an extraordinary aptitude for, but it is quite clear as the revolution in military affairs has progressed that the difficulties of a small country like ours will be a drop in the bucket by world standards, no matter what figure we finally settle on politically for defence. It is becoming immensely difficult for our New Zealand armed forces to play in all games across the front of military activities. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate we have had over the strike force. Even the Australians, with their far greater resources—and, in some respects, one could say greater public acceptance of the need for defence expenditure—are struggling to keep up with the implications of the revolution in military affairs.

This is the background behind National Party thinking. We have borrowed ideas over the years and tried to put them down in some fairly general terms in this paper, foreshadowing, if we become the Government, a defence white paper that will be used as a basis for a consultation process both within the country and with countries we have worked closely with historically, starting, obviously, with Australia.

We also think we need some fresh thinking. The roles our defence forces are playing are increasingly sophisticated. They are closely enmeshed with key foreign policy interests in the Pacific. I think it is going far too far to describe the Pacific as a train wreck, but quite clearly there are some fundamental problems that have grown in intensity over the years. In a number of cases New Zealand, along with our Australian friends, has been called reluctantly to play a stabilisation role in an increasing number of these States. That is a very sophisticated demand on our armed forces.

It is a new environment that we are describing, although it has not come around in just a year or two. It is a slow evolution of opinion in New Zealand, as we have broken free from, essentially, a colonial mentality of trying to replicate the entire British imperial system in miniature, to where we are today. I think it is a good basis for coming forward.

We in the National Party of today want to see—very much taking account of the point that Mr Mark made about the absurdity of his two-grenade experiment—that in the areas where we have superb New Zealanders, we give them the capacity to do their job superbly. I suspect that is where we all want to go, and we want to concentrate our expertise and our spending in those areas where we know we are good and where it actually matters to material New Zealand interests.

The military justice system is a component of that. We clearly need to have a such a system, given the extraordinary demands that we make on people who are prepared literally to put their lives on the line for their country. The discipline process for the armed forces, which is essential to their effectiveness, has to be backed up by a highly credible military justice system. I think we have had a good basis in the past, but the strengthening of the procedures that takes place through this bill, bringing the system up to date with contemporary thinking and with both formal provisions, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and informal changes, such as the greater role of women in the armed forces, should give our men and women a feeling that this Parliament values them, that it knows they are a vital part even of a small society like ours, and that it is ready to back them in the future, perhaps, I would hope, in a more rational and consistent way. We will have a military justice system that is cutting edge, up to date, and, above all, irreproachable in terms of the fairness, integrity, and coherence of the judicial system.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : This closing debate in the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill is an opportunity to reflect upon not only the military justice system but also broader issues. This legislation is intended to endure for, let us say, 30 years—one generation. That is why the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, knowing that fact, took the time and trouble to do a detailed and thorough job in developing the legislation. We realised that the legislation was unlikely to be revisited any time soon, except perhaps by way of technical amendments through statutes amendment legislation.

I will reflect on that point about this being a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We do not get many opportunities in the House to talk about foreign and defence policy.

Darren Hughes: Lucky for National.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: My colleague Tim Groser has been expanding a bit as to why we have arrived at a more bipartisan approach. I say to the junior Labour whip that that has involved a degree of convergence by both the major parties. I know that from experience, having been involved in the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 process. The select committee members, including Major Mark, worked very hard on that report, and I think we laid the groundwork to get us to the current position. There have been a few jigs and jags, if you will, to get to that position, but that report laid the groundwork. I can say to members on the other side that various members of the National Party took an extremely active role in developing that paper, including the sense of priorities within it.

I should note that I was on that select committee with Derek Quigley. We discussed these things at length and we discussed with the Minister at the time, Paul East, why we were doing the project. We needed his support for the project. Things perhaps got slightly more fractious thereafter.

September 11 was a little bit of a wake-up call for everyone in this Parliament. As Mr Anderton noted at the RSA conference, he actually lost his party on the issue. He took a realistic view, as a senior Minister at the time, as to what New Zealand’s interests actually were. That was a very important point of principle. It is extremely important, not only for our own country but also for our partners, to know where we stand as a nation, what kinds of relationships we believe in, and where we can add our best value.

We make it very clear in our report—which builds on work done by a number of others, including, most recently, Mr Jim Rolfe for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute—that, in essence, New Zealand has two prime interests. The first is built around the South Pacific and extends essentially out to East Timor. With Australia, we are the two most capable nations in the region economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

We always want to act in a way whereby the other nations in the region that have deep contacts with us trust us. They should trust us to provide the right set of skills, the right development assistance, and the right support when they are in difficulties, as some of those nations have been. The Solomons, Bougainville, and Tonga are cases in point. They should trust us that our interventions will be beneficial and to their advantage. That has taken a lot of skill.

It may be of interest to some members that in the paper we make specific reference to New Zealand’s Māori and Polynesian heritage, to the particular insights that that gives us in the South Pacific region, and to the way it helps us to build trust with other cultures. The New Zealand defence forces are particularly good, I might add, at interacting with other cultures. Because we are small, in part, and because we cannot rely on firepower or anything like that, we actually have to rely on human skills in order to build trust with the people whom we are dealing with. The era of great power conflict, I think for the foreseeable future, is past, but there is still a great deal of conflict in the world. New Zealand has a challenging role to play in that respect.

The second component of our paper talks about New Zealand’s role outside of our immediate region, which I might add is an immense region. It covers one-fifth of the globe. We sometimes forget just how big the Pacific Ocean is and what a tremendous demand that that places on the shape and nature of the defence forces. Of course, I understand the value of Project Protector in that respect.

We are a country of 4.5 million people. We are not a large country, but we bring certain types of expertise, which are well respected. It is also true, and it is self-evident, I think, to every member, certainly every major party—all parties, actually—in the House, that we have a particular set of relationships with nations, which have been built up over many, many decades. To a very large extent they still flavour the way we do things. For instance, we are in Afghanistan essentially on a multiparty basis, I guess. I think everyone accepts the importance of the work we are doing in the Bagram province, and people understand also the vital importance of the work of the special forces. We have only to reflect on the courage and heroism of Corporal Willy Apiata VC to know the value we bring.

These demands are not placed on a country like Uruguay or Chile, because countries like that do not have our history and traditions. We are an internationally engaged country. We have international interests. We have had a long tradition of being active in bringing peacekeeping and stability to the world’s trouble spots. We are increasingly recognising—and this is the point about bipartisanship—that we need to be a little bit selective about that. We are a country of 4.5 million people, so there is no point offering a complete smorgasbord of skills; that is better left to larger countries. But in the things that we are going to do—and they need to be selective—we must do them well, and we must do them with excellence. Only in that way can we get respect and appreciation from other members of the international community.

I suppose one of the reasons why there has been a bit of a shift by National is a recognition that continuing on the traditional path was not going to build that level of expertise and quality that, frankly, we expect of ourselves and that other countries expect of us. There is no point going in internationally if we end up being a burden. We must add value and skill to an international deployment for it to be worthwhile.

I conclude on this point: the bill is a long-term project. The development of defence policy and foreign policy is a long-term project. It should not swing sharply and abruptly on a 3-year cycle. I note that there has been an important point of convergence of both the major parties and, indeed, some of the other parties in Parliament in bringing us—

Ron Mark: Yes.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: —yes, the other parties in Parliament—to a more sensible approach to defence and foreign policy.

RON MARK (NZ First) : The reason I laughed out loud at the end of that speech by Dr Mapp—please forgive me—was that although I agreed with everything he said about the National Party, I thought he was absolutely ludicrous to suggest that some other parties in the House might agree with this bipartisan, bisexual relationship that now seems to be going on between National and Labour. Accepting that there is this sort of love-in between National and Labour on defence policy, some of us were at this point 10 years ago. I tell Dr Mapp that it just so happens that I keep in my House box the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report—

Sandra Goudie: But have you read it?

RON MARK: There goes the fishmonger’s wife again down the back. Someone should hang on to the varnish on the walls; Sandra Goudie has something to say. The children in the gallery should block their ears. This lady is pretty caustic. She has not got a lot of intelligence and does not have a lot to say of any value, but if one wants to hear a parrot screech—

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member knows full well not to address members of the audience. It is inappropriate, and I suspect it is leading to his rather overblown rhetoric in this speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point has been made. The member knows he should not address the gallery.

RON MARK: The Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report, which Dr Mapp seems now to embrace to the very bosom of his being, makes clear that most of the parties in the House—ACT, New Zealand First, and Labour—signed up to this view and philosophy a long time ago. I know that the Māori Party, had it been here, would have signed up. In fact, Tariana Turia was a Minister in the Labour Government around that time.

It is great, it is endearing, and it is wonderful to hear Dr Mapp speaking. I respect Dr Mapp because he has worn the uniform. Dr Mapp does not just talk the talk; he has done the walk. I respect him immensely, and I know he has played a huge part in swinging his party to take up the position it has now. But for him to suggest that the National Party now realises that New Zealand punches above its weight and that we are more effective in this niche role, and that this is something new, is ridiculous. Some of us have known for years, and have pointed out, the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the New Zealand Defence Force, due to the heavy contribution to it by Māori and Pacific Islanders. Hello! Some of us knew that a long time ago.

I remember being in the desert in 1982 in the Sinai peninsula. We were performing the haka. We were distinctly Kiwi, but what was interesting was that, being an Anzac unit, and as an officer put in charge of organising the kapahaka group, I actually brought in Australians because we had to make up the numbers. They were only too pleased to be Kiwis, for kapahaka purposes. It evolved into a stronger relationship.

We know that we work well with indigenous people from other nations. We have known that for a long time. I embrace and welcome National’s new-found position on our independence, which National now recognises as being valuable. Some of us have known about it for a while.

I could go on and address these issues blow by blow. This bill, in the final wrap-up, has greater consequences than simply just the purpose for which it was brought to the House. I would like to round off on a couple of those points, if I may.

The calibre of a defence force and the way it is viewed internationally when it is operating offshore and amongst other nations in a tri-service environment, with people of different ethnicities, cultures, and religious beliefs, is so often determined by the manner in which it conducts itself. It is so often determined by the way in which the defence force treats other people, and by the way in which it monitors and holds itself accountable for transgressions that may occur.

It is clear and understood by the military that if it is to uphold the traditions and values that give it the core base from which it can then lead, then it must have robust legal systems. If young men and women are to put on a uniform, pick up a rifle, go to war, and follow their officers and NCOs, then they need to know a number of things. They need to feel confident themselves that their best interests are catered for. They need to firmly believe that their leaders truly are professional, that their leaders would not put them in situations that were untenable, that their leaders will do their level best to put them into situations in the most fully prepared position they could be in and resourced as best as possible to do the task, and that their leaders will stand by them and lead them through to the completion of that mission. Those needs require a whole range of new considerations in a peacekeeping and peacemaking environment.

I noted some time ago when I was in the New Zealand Defence Force that the legal fraternity was considered a little bit like the chalkies, the whip-wingers—educationalists. The chalkies were over there. They were the education officers. They were not real soldiers. They had different badges on, but they were teachers, primarily—specialist officers. Legal beagles were sometimes viewed in that way.

That is not the situation today. We now understand the complexities of peacekeeping and peacemaking and the interaction between sovereign nations. Before soldiers go into a mission and take on a task, those complexities have to be very clearly understood. They have to be very clearly understood before anyone embarks from these shores.

That work so often falls at the feet of the legal officers in the New Zealand Defence Force. If that work is in any way tardy or deficient, the repercussions can be huge. If our troops are not adequately prepared, not fully briefed, and are not fully understanding, and if our officers and junior leaders are not fully understanding of the boundaries and limitations of their mission and their responsibilities and powers, then there can be huge political repercussions that would leave a Government in an embarrassing position, having to fight rearguard political actions to justify or rectify a problem that has arisen.

So much of the standards of leadership demonstrated by our officer corps across all services, and so much of the standards of leadership and the expectations placed on our junior NCOs at the corporal level down at the section, are set and predetermined by the professional standards we set ourselves at the higher level. This document, this bill, is very much part and parcel of that.

Many of us who have participated in operations offshore have seen unruly defence forces and have worked alongside defence forces that were known to be corrupt. I will not name them, but I have been on some peacekeeping missions in parts of the world where we would not turn our backs on certain officers of certain ethnicities unless someone else was watching our backs for us. One would be very hesitant about accepting certain people’s word as to what they had done or what they had not done, because one knew the nature of the defence force from which they came, its levels of professionalism and expertise, the culture that underpins their ministry, and the reflected culture upon which their military is derived in the civil circumstances of their homeland, as a result of the type of Government and governance they have.

New Zealand has set very high standards for itself. New Zealand has consistently demonstrated a commitment to those high standards. That, I guess, is why we sometimes hear funny stories coming out of places like Iraq, where security operators are operating. New Zealanders who have left the New Zealand Defence Force but who are now engaged with security companies have told us of things they have seen that they absolutely abhor, do not tolerate, and do not accept. Where does that culture come from? Where does that ethos come from? Where does that standard come from? It comes from the men and women who command and lead our defence forces here at home and is embodied in those young men and women who have since chosen to leave our defence forces and go to work for other people.

The pleasing thing, the satisfying thing, is that we know they still carry that ethos, that culture, those sets of values with them, and that is precisely what we are trying to encourage with this legislation in the Chamber tonight. We are trying to modify, upgrade, rationalise, and improve, and we are cementing in some very firm values, which New Zealand First is pleased to see cemented in.

I am starting to sound like I am making a third reading speech, but I say to the committee: “Well done; thank you for your work.” I saw the recommendations, and I see that the Minister has picked up on them. I say well done to the defence forces for their work. Let us get moving on.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am looking at Speaker’s ruling 36/4. I want to correct a claim made by the previous speaker, Ron Mark. My husband is a dairy farmer, not a fisherman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I just remind the Committee that we are discussing the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill.

Dr Wayne Mapp: An opportunity to think more broadly, Dianne.

DIANNE YATES: I thank Dr Mapp, and I notice that he has been speaking very broadly on what he seems to define as bipartisan foreign and defence policy. As has been said, we have seen the road to Damascus conversion of the National Party. I think it is almost a little bit sad that Keith Locke has not taken part in this debate. I think he suggested that the National Party might achieve world peace by lunchtime.

Darren Hughes: Now that Tim Groser’s in Parliament that’s possible, I guess.

DIANNE YATES: Did the member say that with Mr Groser in Parliament that might be achievable?

Darren Hughes: Oh yes.

DIANNE YATES: Especially as he has changed over the last 20 years, as he has confessed to doing during the debate.

We are here to discuss clauses 1 and 2. The purpose of the bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. There has been a 4-year review before this legislation came through the House, and the whole legislative process has taken a year. So the bill is the culmination of 5 years’ work. It is the modernisation of the justice system within the military in New Zealand.

I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this bill. We note that the Supplementary Order Paper will divide the bill into four bills: the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2), the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill, the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Court Martial Bill. That will be done as we progress through to the final reading of the bill.

Once again, I thank all parties and the Independent member on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work on the bill. I thank everybody for working on the close detail, which, as I said, was about the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and not about the foreign policy of New Zealand. I commend the committee for concentrating very much on the detailed content of the bill, and I thank the committee for the way in which everybody worked so well together.

Once again, we look forward to the legislation coming into force once it has been signed by the Governor-General.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I want to take just a brief call on the title and commencement clauses, clauses 1 and 2, of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill, in response to some of the comments made by Dr Mapp. It was not my intention to do so, but Dr Mapp made a number of points that I think are worthy of consideration, reflection, and maybe a brief response if he is so minded.

Bob Clarkson: Sit down!

DARREN HUGHES: Bob Clarkson will learn a lot because I will talk about some of the history of defence policy on both sides of the House. I suspect that Mr Clarkson does not know a lot about that, so I think he should get out his pencil and his pad and take down as much of it—

John Hayes: What are you filibustering for?

DARREN HUGHES: I do not think it is filibustering; I think it is very, very important to reply to some of the points Dr Mapp made.

Dr Mapp said there had been some convergence between Labour and National on defence issues. He implied that somehow Labour had moved closer to National’s position in terms of defence policy. Nothing could be further from the truth in that regard. In his speech he made it sound as though he had made some great gesture towards the Government on defence policy, but he did not tell the Committee about all the positions he personally had taken on defence policy over the years. He had spoken vociferously and with great and absolute conviction about the terrible direction that Labour’s policy on defence was taking, but he managed to miss out that part when he talked of the convergence that was going on.

We remember the history. We remember Bill English coming down to the Chamber and saying that the SAS should be withdrawn from Afghanistan after the invasion that was part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Do National members recall that their defence policy was that the SAS should be brought home? The morning statement was that they should be brought down under, but that policy was gone by lunchtime too, actually, because by lunchtime the then foreign affairs spokesperson had shaken some sense into Bill English in that regard and that policy was gone.

Then there is National’s defence policy in relation to Iraq. The National Party leader at the time—again, Mr English, the defence and foreign policy expert—said that National had voted in Parliament to support the coalition of the willing and to commit New Zealand Defence Force troops to that operation. Then during the election campaign Dr Brash was not sure what National’s defence policy was in regard to that, and he could not answer a question on it.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member is getting carried away. As interesting as it might be for the junior Government whip to expound history, I ask that he relate some of his speech to the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just say to the senior Opposition whip that the National Party had four wrap-up speeches that had very little to do with the bill. Members had requested that—[Interruption] I am on my feet. This has gone on throughout the debate on the bill, with some agreement of the wider Committee. All speakers have done that. The member who is speaking now is making a wrap-up speech, and I think that is quite fair in relation to the debate we have had on this in the last few hours. I am going to allow him to continue. I also ask that the level of interjection be kept down. We have had a very good debate over the last few hours. I ask Mr Hughes to continue.

DARREN HUGHES: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. The only point I make is that I welcome the interjections, because they are nothing more than embarrassed people trying to scream their way out of their misery. The point I am making is in direct response to the views put to the Committee by National’s own defence spokesperson, whom the senior Opposition whip is trying to bail out. He cannot argue that this part of the bill is a convergence between Labour and National. It is National that has abandoned its own previous statements—all the various forms of them—to adopt Labour’s position on these defence issues. That is fair enough, those members can do that, but the member should not then try to argue that somehow Labour is moving its position.

As to whether the New Zealand Air Force should have a strike capacity, Dr Mapp argued very strongly for that and it was National’s policy at one point. National said that Labour was really letting down the country by not having a strike capability in the air force, but that is now National’s policy, as well. That is welcomed by Labour, but it is hardly a convergence caused by Labour’s shifting.

The debate has been an opportunity to put some of those differences directly on the record, to make sure that members are aware of them. As members have said, the bill has been worked on well by the select committee—[Interruption] David Bennett pipes away the entire time. I wonder what he knows at all about these kinds of issues, particularly with reference to his own party. He is now being silenced by his own side. [] Mrs Goudie is piping up, as well. It is good to have a little bit of silence, because every time those members interject they show the folly of their own policy position on these matters. That is absolutely correct. I see that David Bennett is again being told off for the fact that he cannot control himself in the Chamber. National members do not have any discipline, whether it comes to sitting in the Chamber or to coming up with decent, consistent defence policy. Maybe a stint in the army or any of our armed forces would do some of them good in terms of getting some discipline.

Labour supports the title and commencement of this bill. It has been a thorough debate and a good debate. I think that the work that has gone on to bring the bill to this point will be welcomed by all those whom it has a direct effect on. Thank you.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• The Committee divided the bill into the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2), the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill, the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Court Martial Bill, divided into Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2)| Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill| Defence Amendment Bill (No 3)| Court Martial Bill| pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper151.

Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.