Goff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12242. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): First can I join with other members who have spoken in this debate in acknowledging the work done by the New Zealand Defence Force legal staff—in particular Brigadier Kevin Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Chris Griggs—to put together first of all the review and then in essence the bill that we have before us now. It was a huge task that took something over 4 years. We hope that it will outlast current members in the House. It is a bill that should stand the test of time. It is a bill that I think as Wayne Mapp has said is supported in a bipartisan way and I have tried to encourage that. The member will recall that right at the beginning I brought in members of each of the parties to have a chance to be briefed at firsthand by the New Zealand Defence Force and I think what we have seen at each stage of this bill is an effort by all members of the House to come out with whatever improvements might have been able to be made to the bill and a number of changes have come out of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. But there has been a wide-ranging endorsement of this bill and I am pleased that the Parliament has acted in a bipartisan way.I am however obliged to respond to WayneMapp’s wider comments of a political nature as he might expect me to do. Yes of course I say to Dr Mapp that I would welcome a bipartisan policy on defence but he should not pretend to this Committee that defence policy has been bipartisan over recent years. For heaven’s sake! That member amongst others on his side of the Chamber was saying that the scrapping of the air combat wing now so warmly endorsed by the National Party was going to leave us absolutely defenceless and bludging off our mates. That was the bipartisanship of the National Party up to a month ago. I welcome the miraculous transformation of those members and their sudden support for the sensible change in defence policy that this Government has introduced. But I remind that member too that through the 9 long years of the 1990s bipartisanship on defence policy was not possible as the National Government ran down the New Zealand Defence Force reduced its funding reduced its personnel sent our people out into the field in places like Bosnia with obsolete equipment and put their lives at risk. How could we have bipartisanship on defence policy when the National Government did that to the people who fought in the battles that are commemorated around this Chamber? It was a disgraceful policy.I am proud of the fact that this Government first of all put $3.4 billion into the long-term development plan so that we have decent equipment for our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force and then put $4.4 billion into the Defence Sustainability Initiative. If the National Party had nowhere to go at that point and had to come around to back the New Zealand Labour - led Government then I am not surprised and I welcome that but I hope that that bipartisanship is not like it has been shown to be in the past—simply a shallow disguise for a lack of policy a lack of commitment and an embarrassment at a track record that National was not able to defend. So much for bipartisanship. Yes this bill has been treated in a bipartisan way and I welcome that. I think that is very good.Mr Groser raised a number of points. I heard the comments he made on defence at the end of the last debate. He made the point that Helen Clark had changed her views over the last 22 years. I seem to recall a younger Tim Groser who had far more radical left-wing Trotskyist views than I have ever held in the course of my career. From Trotskyite to National Party member—talk about flip-flops! That is absolutelyextraordinary. I welcome Tim’s conversion to the parliamentary path. But it is not just 22 years ago I say to Mr Groser. I seem to recall that 2 years ago his views were somewhat different and miraculously changed on being offered a list position on the National Party. But so much for the politics of the issue.I agree with the points that Tim Groser made about fairness. He may recall that yesterday in the second reading of the bill I referred to the seven vital elements of a decent military justice system. Those elements in addition to fairness of course include the maintenance of discipline consistency in all strategic environments portability expedition efficiency and simplicity. I think those elements by and large have been incorporated in an effective way into this bill and that is why I mentioned before that I think this bill will indeed stand the test of time.I think there are a number of reasons why we had to have this reform before the Parliament. We need to have an effective and fair system of military justice just as we need to have an effective and fair system of justice right across the board in New Zealand. It was clear that because of the age of the legislation we had under the previous Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 we were vulnerable to being challenged on those principles of fairness impartiality and the independence of the process that was operated. In 1990 we passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Our military justice legislation in effect had elements that were open to be challenged on the basis of being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Fundamentally the principle that we have followed in this bill is I think the appropriate principle and that is that the military justice system today should apply to our armed forces personnel basically the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system to the greatest extent possible consistent with an efficient and disciplined operation of the armed forces.There are other changes that really did require new legislation. The Defence Force has changed quite radically over recent years and one of the critical principles of the New Zealand Defence Force today is the principle ofjointness yet we had a military justice system that operated differently for those in the navy in a number of respects from those in the air force and the army. It is important that we have a justice system that is common to all three services. That means that our military justice system with the passage of this bill will be consistent with the proper exercise of the joint command system within the New Zealand Defence Force.We went through this process very thoroughly in the New Zealand Defence Force. We looked at the experience of other States—in particular those States that we would most often compare ourselves with Australia Canada and the United Kingdom. I think we have learnt from the experiences there. We have come down with a system of military justice that has two critical components one being summary discipline and the other being courts martial. Summary discipline is of course the area that deals with the more minor charges and I welcome particularly the fact that now it will not be necessary to prosecute an officer under the courts martial system. He or she can be dealt with I think right up to the level of brigadier and brigadier equivalent under the summary justice system. I think that that is very appropriate.I welcome the fact that we now have a permanent and independent Court Martial of New Zealand in place of the rather ad hoc system that went before it. I welcome the fact that we have focused on the independence and impartiality of the key person who sits in that court—the Judge Advocate General. He or potentially she will now have the same security of tenure and retirement age as the Supreme Court judges. I think that is particularly appropriate.This bill has been carefully worked through. It did not attract a lot of submissions at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; I think there were only four. Some of those submissions including one from the Law Society were however very wellinformed. The bill has undergone some though not major structural changes in the select committee and I anticipate it will have the support and endorsement of all parties in the House.