Flavell Te Ururoa: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8072] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou. At the centre of this bill is the assertion that an effective and a fair military justice service is essential in peace and war. The same associations between hope and despair discipline and punishment and justice and violence have been played out as we know in Parliament over the last 24 hours. That made me think about how those dichotomies are played out in the system of military law—and the context of human rights which Mr Locke has just talked about—for those employed in the naval armed and air forces. In talking about the armed forces members need to know that I never heard any of my uncles my koroua and my cousins who went to war say they were proud they had killed someone. Rather they disliked war and its effects both on those with whom they were in conflict and combat and on the civilian population including women and children. Those same relations of mine talked about the injustices they saw in the heat of battle. They said however that discipline had to be maintained. 
So I come to this bill thinking about the context of justice of discipline and of human rights and in doing so I understand that the connection between human rights and warfare can be tracked back to our very origins as a country. Six years into the birth of the nation in 1846 the first armed regular force of the settler Government was raised. Its focus was “to preserve the peace”. Twenty years later that commitment to peace was tested in Taranaki and the place of its failure became the scene for prolonged combat and the site for two major wars. There ensued a remarkable history of passive resistance as we know at Parihaka on the one side and the playing out of violence rape and retribution on the other side. Land confiscation and peppercorn rentals for Maori land were the price of so-called civil disobedience. 
That history that sets the scene for the operations of the military justice system in Aotearoa. As the Waitangi Tribunal commented in 1996: “the initial military action against Maori was an unlawful attack by armed forces of the Government on Maori subjects”. Further it said: “If war is the absence of peace the war has never ended in Taranaki”. Those beginnings of our military justice system influence our discussion today as we look to create a new and more just military justice system. 
Having lived for many years in Taranaki and having a wife of Taranaki descent I am only too familiar with the catastrophic and long-lasting effects of the armed forces’ unlawful attacks on Taranaki Maori. In the decade of the 1860s there was no such luxury as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to build on. In a war waged by the country on its Maori citizens in the interests of its settler citizens the question of whether the military system was effective and fair with regard to the brutalities that occurred was never raised or addressed. That history on which this nation is based a history of unlawful and violent attack on Maori subjects is a very compelling rationale for why we should support a reform of the military justice system in line with developments in human rights laws. 
But other factors have also convinced us of the significance of this legislation. We know of the strong representation of Maori in the Army and Navy but there is an under-representation of Maori at officer level across the board. In terms of real numbers that equates to a massive 1104 Maori in the Army just 66 of whom have reached the rank of officer. There are 162 Maori in the Air Force 16 of whom are officers. There are 462 Maori in the Navy and again a mere 17 have officer status. So when one in four in those services are tangata whenua and when there appears to be a glass ceiling operating it is only appropriate that the Maori Party takes up the issue of Maori representation in this bill. 
Another issue that has arisen in our reading of this bill is one that is a prevailing concern for the Maori Party—that is due access to justice. In August 1999 the then Chief of General Staff Maurice Dodson said he was concerned about slipping standards of behaviour occurring in the armed forces: “Recent events at Linton and in other camps have caused me serious concern about the current standards of discipline. There are disturbing trends emerging … offences involving dishonesty morality and those of a sexual nature are becoming more prevalent within the army. These types of offences would not be tolerated.” The opportunity to promote basic human rights and the entitlement that fairness and justice be extended to the employees of the armed forces as much as to civilians must be uppermost in the reform of the military justice system. 
 But it is not just a matter of being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and international instruments. The issue is also about the promotion of essential values such as manaakitanga and the aspiration to promote a fair and just society to work for the elimination of poverty and injustice and to create an environment where collective care and responsibility are important. In terms of indigenous justice such a kaupapa of collective responsibility is articulated worldwide—for instance in the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 28 of that declaration states: “Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples unless justified by a significant threat to relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned. … States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned … prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.” That is another part of the puzzle in understanding the rationale for this bill. 
The objective of this bill is to improve the system in order to achieve amongst other things consistency fairness and simplicity. Was it fair that the Muriwhenua people had their lands appropriated in 1941 for the purposes of building an aerodrome at Kaitaia? The return of that land is still under negotiation in the Waitangi Tribunal. Was it fair that land taken at Raglan for an emergency aerodrome was never returned to its people when it was no longer going to be used as an airfield in 1953? Twenty-five hectares by Raglan harbour were taken by the Crown for defence purposes during the Second World War and later converted into a golf course. It was not until 1978 and subsequent to the arrests of 17 people that the land was returned finally to the people of Tainui Awhiro. 
Finally I want to refer to the issue of court martial dismissals referred to by Mr Mark that occurred in the armed forces and are referred to in this bill. In 2003-04 the Army made 33 court martial dismissals the Navy discharged five people and the Air Force dismissed four. We would be interested in learning the ethnic breakdown of those dismissed and we hope that information will be available to the select committee. The regulatory impact statement for the bill suggests that approximately 10 courts martial are held per year. In view of that we look to the Minister to provide a rationale to explain the blip that obviously occurred when 42 court martial dismissals occurred in the 2003-04 year. We know that for those 42 individuals the convening officer of the court martial system was a member of the executive was responsible for the prosecution and indeed appointed all of the court members. We know also that no appeal system was in place. That was hardly fair. It was not impartial and it was certainly not independent. At the same time as those courts martial were proceeding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act specified that anyone charged with an offence has the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. Although the provisions of this bill propose to address those anomalies for the future we would ask that the select committee gives some consideration to compensation mechanisms or redress for those individuals who have suffered the injustice of those inconsistencies subsequent to the introduction of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
We will be supporting this bill with as always the challenge that Tamati Kruger made when he reminded us of the importance of the pursuit of justice to attain human rights and to achieve our own self-determination: ka warea te ware ka area te rangatira; hongi hongi te whewheia hongi hongi te manehurangi; kei a au te rangatiratanga. 
[ 
Ignorance is the oppressor vigilance is the liberator; know the enemy know the destiny; determine our own destiny. 
] 
Kia ora tatou.