Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I must say it was with some interest that I sat on the select committee which considered this bill the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I was of course somewhat familiar with military justice but only in a very cursory manner. Whilst the Minister of Defence refers to those instances where soldiers have perhaps been pulled up for not having their shoes shined and the like that of course is very much at the summary end where the commanding officer will no doubt take the steps that he or she feels is appropriate and mete out some disciplinary measure. What we're really concerned with here though is much more serious offending.It is absolutely appropriate that soldiers and other military personnel have exactly the same rights as any other citizen when they are accused of what are essentially crimes. Having said that it's also important to recognise that we do need courts martial; we need separate courts to deal with these matters for a number of reasons. Some of the crimes themselves will be military crimes—crimes like desertion—and in other situations the crimes will occur in circumstances where the ordinary courts don't really have jurisdiction such as where the matter occurs overseas. Similarly the context of these crimes makes it appropriate that in most instances they should be dealt with by military court. Having said that there is provision within the framework for these matters to be dealt with within the ordinary courts.One of the things that came out of this examination was the importance of the commanding officer in this overall framework in respect of the accused having a prosecutorial role—essentially acting as a police officer would in recognising the potential offending and making sure that due process was accorded that prosecution was taken only proportionately and appropriately. But also what came out was the fact that commanding officers have an important part to play in respect of victims of crime and as we've just heard the victims of crime in the armed forces are often armed force personnel themselves. So the commanding officer clearly has a very important function to play in protecting the welfare of those victims.One of the really good things about this legislation this bill is that it brings the rights of victims into the military justice arena. So we have a framework where the commanding officer is usually the person appointed as the representative of the victim and is also able to receive information on behalf of the victim of this crime. Now the Privacy Commissioner did raise some issues there—they were carefully considered by the committee—in terms of the victim being notified of that information before the commanding officer was but on balance it was considered that the framework as set out in the legislation was appropriate. But it's important to recognise that what this does is it makes sure that if the offender is imprisoned then the victim has the right to be notified of things like the release on bail or release after sentence or indeed escape or even the death of the convicted offender. So that runs parallel as it should with the civilian framework.We've also heard about the onus question. The onus question is an important one because in the civilian system it's become very clear through case law that when a defence is raised the defendant does not have to prove the defence. They have to raise it they have to point to facts which may give rise to it but the onus does not fall on them to prove on balance of probabilities or otherwise the elements of that defence. Rather the onus falls on the prosecution to prove all aspects of the offending including that there is no defence on the facts as presented.Now simply by dint I guess of history that had diverged from military law. Military law had not kept pace with it and it wasn't really appropriate for that kind of uncertainty to exist in this framework. So what we have here is a tidying up of that a making clear that the civilian law in respect of onus and defences applies as well and hand in hand goes as Mr Simon O'Connor was pointing out the question of fitness to stand trial. It's interesting to see these two pieces of legislation going through the House and the coordination that's been necessary to make sure. But I think the outcome is a sensible one that once Supplementary Order Paper 37 is taken note of both pieces of legislation would have an inquiry into fitness to stand trial—first whether or not that person is mentally capable or not and only after that occurs would you get into the question of the facts themselves.The other thing that this legislation does is tidy up a whole lot of other bits and pieces. It is another piece of maintenance in that regard. Notice of appointments of judges: the Chief of Defence Force doesn't have to notify those. They're not even appointed by the Chief of Defence so that's a useful tidy-up. Also military members of tribunals—the ability to object to military members is also here in this legislation and the ability to substitute military members to those tribunals a little bit like a jury but I was informed at committee not quite—much smaller—so a few more stringent rules perhaps around these military tribunals. So that also is a very useful tidy-up. But it's good to see that we do have here the two pieces of legislation coming into alignment the two systems in alignment. I commend this bill to the House.