van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the first reading of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Can I start by saying that on this side of the House we absolutely value support and acknowledge the magnificent work undertaken by our defence personnel. And can I personally thank all of those currently serving for the amazing work they do and indeed for those who have finished their service thank them for what they did as well.Now the Minister's outlined the details of what he's proposing here in the Inspector-General of Defence Bill and ultimately it comes back to an incident some 12-odd years ago that was the subject of a book five-odd years ago which then led to this Government commencing an inquiry in 2018. I think for me the biggest thing to note here is that the inquiry found no illegal behaviour from our SAS. They are professional disciplined and widely respected and I think it was quite clear to see that throughout their actions on Operation Burnham they demonstrated their core values—3CI as it's called: courage commitment comradeship and integrity—throughout the conduct of their operations. Indeed the inspector-general the Hon David Parker said that New Zealanders should have confidence in the fact that the New Zealand SAS on the ground did the right thing acted completely lawfully did nothing that was a revenge attack acted in accordance with international law and did nothing wrong on the night. So I think that is an absolutely critical aspect to keep in mind as we consider the importance or the need for an Inspector-General of Defence Bill.Now part of the recommendations that came out of the inquiry noted that one of the issues was that indeed there had been some problems with the process of communicating the risk or the perception or the possibility of civilian casualties through the chain of command up to the Minister of the day. Indeed that is a concern but what we have seen since that inquiry came out is that in my mind NZDF have moved quite quickly to implement a new series of processes to look at ensuring that there can be no issues arising. Obviously minimising the risk of any impropriety is incredibly important but of course any time we're on operations our NZDF personnel are operating by the laws of armed conflict and indeed the rules of engagement for the particular operation or theatre they may be in. I think that's one of the critical aspects here as well. We have safeguards already in place. Off the back of this inquiry that found no wrongdoing from our personnel on the ground but some issues within the senior leadership of NZDF—and I will acknowledge that—there have been subsequent changes made. I think the Defence Force Order put out by the Chief of Defence DFO 35 the NZDF response to civilian harm outlining a very detailed and standardised procedure for responding to any reports of civilian casualties which in the first instance requires notification to joint forces headquarters—basically irrespective of whether there's any substance to the claims—to at least get that reported and acknowledged and noticed. Because of course this is a concern and to the Minister's comments maintaining the integrity of our defence force is absolutely critical. Our personnel should—and in my mind do—have the trust of the New Zealand public. They are supported. They have consistently demonstrated their ability to operate professionally regardless of the challenges they may face wherever they may be deployed.On that basis we have decided—in the National Party—not to support this bill because actually we don't see that there is a strong enough need for an Inspector-General of Defence at a time like we are facing right now. I touch on that particular aspect because in defence we are currently seeing some massive challenges particularly around the attrition rates. The Minister made the comment that they were able to work through and have been working on this and were able to secure a budget bid to secure that additional funding of course to implement this. Actually personally I would have much rather seen additional funding secured for any number of other priorities within Defence. Because at the moment as I said attrition is through the roof and you can look across a whole variety of trades and ranks and units and they are really struggling with attrition rates—in some cases at some ranks hitting 100 percent.Now that speaks to some fundamental challenges within our defence force. For me it is disappointing to see—at a time of such substantial challenges in defence—that the biggest priority is implementing more cost and bureaucracy via an Inspector-General of Defence. Indeed what we're seeing here is that it seems to be the default mechanism for this Government where they fall back on the continual approach of adding more cost adding more bureaucrats and more oversight will presumably provide a better outcome. And that is not always the case; that does not necessarily logically flow. Our very clear view is that in this instance this is an unnecessary piece of legislation that does not provide a meaningful improvement for the defence force and actually that money—that $5.6 million-odd that's been spent on this—could far better be allocated in any number of areas; perhaps around trying to recruit additional personnel or better yet retaining those we have so that the defence force is able to be effective when called upon by the Government of the day.Indeed we have seen them operate in a range of capacities. Most notably close to home here most members of the public I think would appreciate Operation Protect—the managed isolation and quarantine role that the defence force carried out—which was not a core function for them but actually was an important role to play particularly during the initial stage of COVID. In my mind they should have been phased out of that quite promptly. Six-odd months in should have been sufficient time to have made a transition to a civilian response because that is part of the reason why we have seen such high attrition rates. Those attrition rates are particularly I think important when we look at some of the signals that have been sent from the leadership within NZDF but particularly at Government level when we are seeing this sort of legislation put forward as the biggest solution or the biggest priority for the Government of the day when as I said we are seeing those attrition rates so worryingly high.I think it is particularly disappointing as we are only a couple of days away now from commemorating Armistice Day an important day to acknowledge a significant sacrifice made by many New Zealanders through World War I—ending of course 104 years ago now; the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. And here we are with a Government that is prioritising cost and bureaucracy over actually enabling our defence force to prioritise its deliverable outcomes in terms of maintaining the security and defence of New Zealand protecting its interests and supporting our like-minded countries.So on that basis we do not support this bill. We do not think it is necessary at this time and certainly is not the biggest priority in defence when alongside those attrition issues that have also seen the cancellation more recently of a patrol vessel some $300 million-odd commitment that was meant to have been made simply hasn't been done. And we're here instead with a situation where we're putting forward a piece of legislation that's effectively a solution looking for a problem when we have seen significant change made by NZDF post that inquiry.I think it's important to note that inquiry was launched by the Government. The Government of the day can still do that at any point. So in the future if there were concerns around the manner in which NZDF had conducted itself in operations the Government of the day could again conduct an inquiry if it saw fit. Establishing an Inspector-General of Defence is not necessary to ensure the integrity of our defence force. As I say we have a fantastic reputation internationally; it was clearly outlined through this inquiry that there was no wrongdoing by our personnel on the ground.You can also look at Australia for example. They have an Inspector-General of Defence over there and members may be aware of some of the media issues they have had around some of the concerns raised in Afghanistan around how their defence force operated. Having had this inspector-general throughout that period of time it clearly hasn't resolved or stopped those issues from happening. This is not a preventative measure as such and in my mind it's clear that we need to ensure we have a strong focus on maintaining that integrity within the defence force which can be managed in-house. We have clear processes for doing that.So as I said we do not support this bill. It is unnecessary at this time and we should instead be focusing on just getting our defence force back up to an operational readiness state that it wants to be at—or was at pre-COVID—and actually supporting our personnel. Thank you Madam Speaker.