Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. What to say about the Inspector-General of Defence Bill? Well our defence forces face huge problems right now—my colleague and friend Tim van de Molen has enumerated these very well in his own contribution—personnel challenges in relation to employment conditions huge attrition rates and a quixotic attempt to force out and to keep forced out those personnel who have a different view about the requirement of the COVID-19 vaccination. A quixotic waste of time and resources energy and morale that is doing no good whatsoever to our defence forces. These are the problems of the defence force today in addition to platform problems hardware and software alike; training and deployment problems including as a result of the Op Protect commitment which as my colleague and friend again Tim van de Molen has noted very clearly in his own contribution went on for far too long. There's a huge opportunity cost in passing this legislation and appropriating this funding and indeed to spending it on solving a problem that does not really exist.So what isn't a problem is that in the bases and defence force establishments of this country no one is saying You know what would make things better? We just need another couple of extra lanyard-wearing bureaucrats to somehow contribute to making the boat go faster."—literally if we're talking about the senior service of course. Our international reputation is not harmed by the lack of someone performing this role—or roles if we include the deputy of course.Our international reputation in defence terms is at serious risk at the moment but it's for the reasons that we've outlined already—again Tim van de Molen—and to which I would add difficulties of interoperability; relationships in defence in terms of exercises training with other defence forces and so on; defence diplomacy—limited opportunities by a Government that does not have any vision for defence other than conducting endless reviews making meaningless appointments and frankly missing the entire point of everything that is needed and most important in the defence realm.So this bill is a missed opportunity—an opportunity to spend those resources in a much more meaningful way. Even more importantly than that while the principle of civilian control of the military is of course important and the Attorney-General was right to highlight that in his own contribution what we have seen is a lack of trust a divide and conquer mentality being displayed by the Government whereas they should of course acknowledge that civilian control of the military exists through the Minister of Defence himself or herself as the case may be—of course the whole Ministry of Defence the Secretary of Defence and various other opportunities to exert civilian control of the military. It is not of course just the New Zealand Defence Force itself that is running the show.It is right in a democracy one that is subject to the rule of law both internally—that is to say domestically—and also in our international relations that we have checks and balances of a democratic nature. But to suggest that we don't have those now and therefore we need to insert them by way of creating these particular positions just seems a fallacy and clearly a red herring in terms of the real issues faced by our defence force at the moment. I can only imagine that the average sailor soldier and aircraft personnel will be watching on with bemusement not only at the fact that the current speaker doesn't seem to have a voice to deliver his remarks but actually more importantly that Parliament's occupying its time with this piece of legislation in the first place.Much has been made of course of the genesis of the idea which was the review conducted into the activities of some decade and a bit ago. Others have rightly praised the professionalism of the report conducted by those gentlemen of great repute. We do not of course second guess that. We note indeed with gratitude that in the activities conducted by our defence force—keeping separate from the question of the conduct of other nations' defence forces—Operation Burnham no New Zealand troops were found to have conducted themselves improperly in that according to international law. Indeed the rules of engagement were internally determined by the New Zealand Defence Force so that the law of armed conflicts could be observed.So it's difficult to understand why the Government would think that this is the most urgent priority within the defence space unless simply to be seen to do something relatively readily. Of course the inquiry that was conducted into Operation Burnham could be replicated at any time in a number of different ways. And again my colleague and friend on this side of the House our defence spokesperson Tim van de Molen has made that tolerably clear. Also significant of course is that one of the other recommendations of the review conducted by those worthy gentlemen talked about improving internal processes. And so the DFO 35—that is the Defence Force Order that indeed does lay out guidelines in better channels and processes—is already in place as Mr van de Molen has noted and it's not clear at all from the legislation or indeed the underlying concept of what's being proposed by the Government initially announced and now being executed somewhat that an Inspector-General of Defence would have made any difference at the time or subsequently in relation to that matter.I do want to thank before I finish my contribution—at which point we'll all be very grateful no doubt and you can unmute your TV at that point. I'd do it in sign language but that would probably go badly wrong. But I do want to take the opportunity before I conclude—for all those who do take an active concern and interest in what is really needed for our Defence Force. I actually want to acknowledge the former Minister of Defence in the current Government the Hon Ron Mark. I do acknowledge the current Minister Peeni Henare as well. I've enjoyed having the opportunity to interact with defence matters through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in my time in this Parliament and I watch the matters that are discussed in this place with interest. I acknowledge Mr Rosewarne across the House as well as my colleagues Tim van de Molen and other speakers on this bill Joseph Mooney Penny Simmonds and not that they're speaking on this bill Dr Shane Reti and Andrew Bayly who have a background in defence also.Most importantly though of course I thank our current troops and also those who've served in the past. Thank you for the service you have provided. Thank you for your courage comradeship commitment and indeed integrity. We do not question your integrity. We think that—within the existing parameters of course—it is always possible and indeed necessary to embark on a process of continuous improvement. Things can and should always be done better where that is possible. But to impose upon the defence force one thing among the many things that they do desperately need right now—those tangible improvements in relation to personnel equipment and so on but most importantly leadership greater leadership than merely conducting a review into the parlous state of the defence force as we saw announced recently. We actually need some action. There won't be much of a defence force left to review to inspect or to otherwise scrutinise. The problems are urgent. This is not a solution. And so I join others on this side of the House at least speaking for the National Party in saying we do not support this bill or indeed the concept that underlies it."