van de Molen Tim; Little AndrewTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Appreciate that insight. But that's an area that I want to delve into as well because under clause 8(b) the functions of the inspector-general are to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to defence force policies and procedures". That is a very broad statement and I think it picks up on the issue Mr Brownlee was raising around how far can this go. What limits are there on the inspector-general and indeed effectively then if they make a decision around something but that is in conflict with what CDF Chief of Defence Force is saying for example—or indeed might have a different set of priorities or a different risk assessment from the inspector-general's perspective which may or may not align with the training objectives of the Chief of Defence Force which may be looking to align with international areas where we're trying to improve our interoperability for example. How do we get that balance right? Do you have any examples of the sorts of things that would come under that paragraph (b) around those powers and can you really give the committee some confidence that there isn't going to be continued creep and that we don't see this office merge into something much more than I believe it is intended to be?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. As the member will know there is an extraordinary array of procedures and protocols and policies that govern all manner of things within the New Zealand Defence Force across the three forces—guidelines and rules that are specific to each force.This is in the context too where the conduct of defence activities is changing. It is becoming more—for want of a better phrase—digitally involved or engaged. There is more activity now that is done at a desk that previously wasn't done that makes a direct contribution to combat or peacekeeping activities. I think we're going to start to see as we move in to the realms of outer space and the use of satellite technology that that will become a critical feature of the work of front-line defence force personnel. There will be another set of procedures and protocols developed for all of that sort of work.My expectation is that where this will come into play is where there is a breakdown or a failure or—for want of a better phrase; I hope people know what this is—a snafu that therefore requires interrogation. Now the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) and the office of the CDF may well be able to provide a remedy to some of those sorts of failures but the CDF may well benefit from an independent investigation into a particular process or procedural failing.The only analogy I can draw upon is what happens in the intelligence space with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Admittedly that inspector-general has very broad powers on a proactive basis to know everything and see everything that those agencies are doing. But typically what happens is where there is a lack of understanding about the application of a particular protocol or even the law—the powers in their legislation—it is often the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that will play a role in assisting the agencies and sometimes with further assistance of the Solicitor-General to clarify the limits or the extents of powers that the front-line personnel have in that respect.I expect that with appropriate modifications that's how the Inspector-General of Defence will operate under this bill."