Mark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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 theMāori 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 inthose 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 theUnimogs and who bought theSteyr 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 HMNZSCharles 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 againstInquiry Into Defence Beyond 2000 was National. It came out with a counter-report and rejected our recommendation that it not upgrade theCharles Upham 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 isconvenient 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 andoverridingly 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 inWaiōuru 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.