O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I acknowledge the Minister of Defence who has just resumed his seat for taking this bill through the House and here tonight as we discuss the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I acknowledge his support and work and will actually acknowledge a bit further the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which has been I understand tabled a couple of days ago around the involvement clause. I'll talk a little about that because it was probably—well not necessarily the most critical—the element within the select committee which took up most of our time with how we rightly align this justice legislation with wider justice activities. So thanks to that Minister and to Mark Mitchell as well his predecessor who had begun work on this. I think this sort of legislation shows the cooperation that moves across the House and I think that's a positive thing not only for the House but certainly for the men and women of our armed forces who deserve our support.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked hard on this. It was quite a small piece of legislation per se but one that did occupy quite a bit of time of the committee. As the Minister of Defence noted there were four submissions but they were quite involved submissions themselves. So I just want to acknowledge those who took the opportunity to present to us the advisers from the Defence Force who worked with us and of course everyone else involved—the likes of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I'm always very conscious as the chair of the committee that I stand alongside excellent members of Parliament and if I might even more excellent advisers who give us that assistance so thanks to them.It's no surprise that National supports this bill. Ultimately what it does is align military justice with what we're familiar with in the civilian justice context obviously allowing for some points of difference but fundamentally trying to bring them into line. One of the most critical elements is around victims' rights to make sure that those who are victims of a crime within the military justice setting enjoy—if that's the right word—the same opportunities as one would in a civilian jurisdiction. So something as simple—simple as a concept not in the nature of what's happened to someone—as if something's happened within the military justice system that someone who's about to go on to bail or the like will be informed of that. In other words the victim will get to know about it and I think that's quite important. The victim will have the right to be consulted and so forth.So again these are things which in the civilian context we've taken for granted arguably and now through this bill we're modernising the Armed Forces Discipline Act and the Court Martial Act to make this possible—also the Court Martial Appeals Act. Importantly this is an omnibus bill so the changes in this particular legislation flow through to at least three of those.Small other elements have gone through. One of them is around the notice of judicial appointments. At the moment the notices have to be advertised by the Chief of Defence Force but he or she doesn't actually have any say in that—they're not the one doing the appointments. It's a bit of an anomaly so we're updating the law there so that whoever makes the appointment actually does the gazetting. It's a small thing but a relative one.The area where probably most of the discussion has occurred is around the fitness to stand trial and as the Minister noted it's usually around some sort of impairment—primarily mental but it could be physical but if someone's not able to stand trial. The select committee took quite a bit of time around this not because of the essence of what had to occur but what was to be the right and proper procedure for ourselves as a committee to update and amend this piece of legislation correctly—to do what was our responsible job. But we were also very conscious that simultaneously the Justice Committee was looking at changes in this exact same area which had effects in the civilian side of things. To put it really simply the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did not want to make changes around the fitness to stand trial that may end up contradicting what the Justice Committee came back with. To put it in a different way the changes that the Justice Committee was going to do in its domain flow into this military space. That's the whole point of this amendment bill. So the committee decided not to propose a change in the legislation when we reported back. Instead we wrote in our report a fairly fulsome explanation of the dynamics and where we had landed and encouraged the Minister to—I suppose in good faith but also I think we know his character enough that he would listen to what we had to say—put at the committee of the whole House stage a Supplementary Order Paper which I'm pleased to see has happened.The long and the short around this fitness to stand trial is just to get the process ordering correct. The Minister elaborated on this but the first element is if someone is accused of a crime within the military space decisions have to be made whether or not—not whether they are able to stand trial but whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. I think that was noted as the involvement inquiry". So basically we're asking if all of this passes through the House that a person accused of a crime is judged first and foremost—or initial judgments the prima facie elements. Did they commit the crime? Is there enough evidence for this to proceed? If that is the case then the question of a person's impairment—physical mental or otherwise—can be judged not the other way around.In other words if someone's accused of something simply claiming a mental impairment and someone saying "Oh yes you do. We're not going to have you stand trial" has not been seen as fair and particularly not fair to the victims who are saying "Well hold on a moment. Could there at least be some acknowledgment that there was at least a case here?" So we're following in line with what the Justice Committee's come in with or rather the SOP that the Minister's tabled that a person will in effect be accused; those making the decision the judges or the tribunal will decide whether there's sufficient evidence to continue; and if there is then the competency or the fitness of the person will be decided.Look a couple of other very small things that have been introduced. Someone now can object to a military member. In other words if there's someone who's going to be doing the trial that actually there's an opportunity to say "Hold on they shouldn't for X Y and Z reasons." Obviously it's up to the Courts Martial to decide but there's now a provision for an objection. The onus of proof as well has changed a little bit. So it's ultimately now for the prosecution to prove that a person's guilty not so much that the person being accused has to prove that they are innocent.So these are good changes. As I say they are relatively simple only in so far as they reflect what we've become used to in the civilian space. So I think it's a positive step forward. So can I end by returning to where I started which is thanking all of those involved particularly our officials and advisers those who took the opportunity to engage the committee and to then thank the Minister for honouring the spirit of what the committee asked—that a Supplementary Order Paper be tabled and make this well in line with other legislation. With that I commend this bill to the House."