van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look happy to take a call on the second reading here of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill a bill the Government deems so urgent and critical to get passed that we are going through the remaining stages here at 9.30 p.m. under urgency. This is a total waste of the House's time and indeed the committee's time. The committee went back and forward over a number of aspects of this bill—and the Minister has outlined some of those just now as well—but this derives from the Operation Burnham inquiry that was conducted and indeed that began or was first requested under the previous Government and the Government at the time didn't pursue an inquiry. They chose not to having confidence in the professionalism of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) to have carried out their duties and indeed that was borne out and proven to be the case. There was no illegal behaviour from the NZSAS on operations. There were some process deficiencies in the senior leadership and how that was reported through to the Minister but a new matrix has been put in place since that time via Defence Force Order 35 around their requirement to report civilian harm. Ultimately what we're looking at here is when we saw that change in Government the new Government of the day decided we did need an inquiry and that's their call to make. They went down that path and carried out exactly the sort of function that is now being proposed under this Inspector-General of Defence Bill. There is no need for this bill because the Government already has the ability to conduct an inquiry if they have concerns around a particular aspect of behaviour or a process or a system or deployment that has been carried out by NZDF that they can look into.What's being proposed here is certainly not the biggest priority in defence at the moment. We have a defence force going through significant issues. Attrition has been a big part of that and we've seen 30 percent of uniformed personnel leave over the last two years and yet we're seeing now a response via an additional oversight function more bureaucracy and cost at a time when frankly we need a Government to demonstrate that they trust and back the Defence Force.Now some of the changes that are being proposed through the select committee—there were four key changes there around the scope of the inspector-general's function: the independence of the inspector-general notification of civilian deaths and injuries and greater transparency. Generally those changes I believe are an improvement on the original bill as it was presented particularly around the independence taking out the Minister's input to effectively lead some of the work that the inspector-general of the day may be doing based on what the Minister of the day can direct. So taking that out was a good move. Having the additional oversight from the Official Information Act (OIA) appeared to make sense.I'm interested though—and I'll come to this in a second as well—when we look now at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) from the Minister which is effectively unwinding the key changes that were made by the select committee so back to my earlier statement about the waste of time being spent on a piece of legislation that is simply not the biggest priority in defence and is not adding sufficient value for the cost it will bring. We've seen that now when the Minister has tabled an amendment which is proposing to totally change what had been put forward by the select committee's amendments their consideration of clauses 36 in particular around the duty of confidentiality where most of that part—subclauses (4) (5) (6); most of subclause (2) rewritten as well—has been struck out around the Minister's certifying what can be disclosed. That has now reappeared in the SOP put forward by the Minister. Likewise over clause 39; amendments proposed there around investigations being conducted in private versus public was the consideration of the committee and that's now been unwound as well by the Minister. So we can look through at some of the changes that have been made that were fiddling with what was already an unnecessary piece of legislation that were potentially going to make it somewhat better but still unnecessary and now we're seeing those major changes being unwound via the SOP that the Minister has talked to and we will be debating in short order given that we are as I say in urgency talking through what is clearly a big issue for the Government of the day but frankly is not a big issue for the Defence Force.There are much bigger issues as I say around addressing their operational readiness ensuring they are fit for purpose and can deliver on the needs and expectations of the Government of the day on behalf of the people of New Zealand. We've seen concerns around their ability to do that. They are strained they are under pressure and this is a clear example of something that is actually not going to help alleviate that. You know when you are under pressure when morale is impacted when attrition is through the roof when there are any number of other issues around conditions of service and frustrations within the system this is not a solution that is going to shift the dial on that.Obviously we have the view on this side of the House that this is an unnecessary piece of legislation. The Government holds a different view; I can accept that is the case. Either way though this is not a strong indication of addressing the key issues in the defence sector at the moment and that is one of the areas that I find most disappointing about this when we are in such an area of need within the NZDF we are not seeing the solutions delivered via this legislation certainly to address that. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister did make through the last Budget an increase in the wage allocation which had been a major issue within Defence and that has been well received. Of course it would have been well received two years ago as well but nevertheless we've seen that 30 percent loss of uniformed personnel in the interim.But as I say I come back to the point that we are now debating under urgency a piece of legislation that is simply not going to shift the dial in a meaningful way for our Defence Force. It is not going to significantly increase the transparency or the oversight that the Minister alluded to as well because as I said the Government of the day as we have seen has the ability to carry out an investigation in its own right if they have concerns. That's exactly what happened in this instance. Creating this mechanism is unnecessary it adds more bureaucracy and cost at a time when we see a Government adding bureaucracy and cost across just about every sector and frankly it's unnecessary. So on that basis we do not support it and we will be debating the Minister's SOP more in due course as well but the proposals he's made in there—amending or reverting back to some of the initial aspects touched on or outlined rather in the first reading bill—simply don't give us any confidence to support at future stages either. So I will leave my contribution there and look forward to continuing this debate over the next hour or two as we proceed what is clearly a big issue for the Government. Thank you very much.