Mark Ron: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10256] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 This matter should be relatively simple. If I am correct I do not think anyone will be opposing this bill. Certainly New Zealand First will not be. However I would be interested to hear the view of Ken Shirley and the ACT party. It is interesting because I could sit here and go through the bill page by page—as the honourable member Lindsay Tisch has done—and highlight parts of it but I think that he and the Minister between them have covered the need for the bill and its aims quite well. 
I guess we all need to consider for a moment that there used to be a time when New Zealand had lots of visiting troops. In my time in the New Zealand military I remember that not only were we exercising in Fiji under the Tropic Dawn exercises but we used to have some friends called Americans who would come to New Zealand every year to take part in the Tropic Lightning joint exercises in Waiouru. For a lot of reasons we do not have those people visiting any more. Some would say that given the length of time—and Steve Chadwick said it was 64 years or so since the Visiting Forces Act was passed—a lot of things have changed. 
There is probably less need for this sort of legislation now than there was then and that is probably one of the great ironies. In those days we used to have the Brits here in huge numbers the Americans in good numbers and the Australians. I guess that was because we were all part of an Anzac and an ANZUK arrangement. We had lots of friends and people who wanted to exercise and train with us and take the opportunity to enjoy the sights scenery and pleasures that New Zealand had to offer them whilst they were taking their “liberty”—as some Americans called it—or R and R as others did. That was a most enjoyable time in the New Zealand military because we got to operate alongside those people and give ourselves the opportunity to test our mettle. 
The Gurkhas visited in those days as well. The Queen’s Gurkhas were out from the UK and I think we have had a recent visit from those chaps. In most recent times a larger number of French servicemen have visited New Zealand than have Americans. I hear that for the last exercise they participated in we were not allowed to acknowledge that they were here because no one wanted to talk about them being here. I really do not understand that because this is a time when New Zealand needs friends and needs to acknowledge that they are present. 
All sorts of things happen in the military that can result in legislation like this being needed. 
Jill Pettis 
: Be careful! 
RON MARK 
: Yes I will be very careful. I am thinking of little things like the New Zealand service personnel who were always poorly equipped and envious of what other people had and how they used to obtain stores and equipment from their visiting friends and allies. In so doing we were able to re-equip the army to a better stage than it had been by our Government. Some of the favourite stores that were obtained—and some might interpret this as being a breach of civil law—were American overboots American combat jackets and all sorts of things. 
This bill does not relate to those activities because the Americans did not commit any criminal acts in New Zealand. If anyone were to be accused of committing criminal acts it was the New Zealanders who were committing them on our visiting friends because they had better gear and lots of it. They could replace it really quickly because their Governments gave them bigger budgets. In my 20 years’ service—15 years in the New Zealand military service and 5 years with the Brits—I do not recall any real serious crimes being committed by visiting troops. In fact they were often more in danger from anti-Vietnam protesters and the like than they were— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about Oman? 
RON MARK 
: No I do not remember any crimes being committed in Oman other than the work of terrorist organisations and insurgent forces. We did not classify those things as crimes; they were operations and were dealt with accordingly. 
When the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was looking at the insertion of New Zealand forces into Afghanistan Iraq and other places around the world Mr Locke questioned most vigorously on status-of-forces agreements that have been signed. He wanted to know what the status of those forces was in terms of their operational liability. We talked about that but now I guess that this legislation will bring some things into line so that we are all singing off the same song sheet. The fact that we are now formalising standard NATO policies that have been accepted is a good thing. 
However we just need to go a little further and extend our level of cooperation with our friends and allies in a far more meaningful way operationally. I have witnessed defence personnel from the United Kingdom operating in other parts of the world at the invitation of the Governments of those nations and having to undertake difficult tasks that were never talked about publicly. I guess one always worries about the status of one’s troops and how they might be treated should they fall foul of the law in participating in some of those operations. I guess that when we get to the select committee and start to talk about it—or maybe not talk about it because we cannot talk about the SAS operations or some of those areas if we can go to closed sessions and maybe even have them in private. We just need to be sure that those reciprocal agreements provide our personnel with absolute guarantees. 
What I would not like to see—and legislation has gone through this House before that I believe jeopardises some of our troops—is a situation where our people go about performing their duty as instructed either as part of a coalition or a multinational force and then find themselves facing some international kangaroo court for supposed war crimes because someone else’s interpretation of that operation is that it was a crime. I note that the Americans have signalled their concern about such treaties and agreements at the United Nations level. 
On the face of it this bill seems harmless so on that basis New Zealand First will support it going to a select committee. If there are areas of concern—and I will be listening to the speakers who come after me who might have seen something I have not—then New Zealand First will definitely look at those issues. 
 It gives me great comfort and satisfaction to be able to reflect that on very few occasions have visiting forces to this country run foul of the law and on very few occasions did we run foul of the law in the time we were deployed in Singapore. If this bill tidies up the legalities of how to deal with those contingencies—should they occur—then that is fine; let us have that. My only suggestion in this area of cooperation and determination to work more closely with our allies and traditional friends is that maybe we as a nation should be looking to extend those things and take the same view operationally. Let us start working a little more closely with the United States and Australia in the South Pacific in the manner that Australia is working. 
In closing I just say that there are many advantages in doing such a thing. I note that one of them was reported in the paper recently. Whereas New Zealand is having to spend $750 million on some armoured vehicles Australia—because of its good relationship with the United States—is in the process of being offered 100 M1 Abrams main battle tanks for the price of 50. That is the sort of deal one gets when one has friends in the United States.