Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to speak during the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill as we discuss Part 1. As chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I regret that I missed the report back on the bill. I particularly want to thank the committee for the work that was done on the bill. For all members of the committee as has been mentioned by Ron Mark it was not so much a bipartisan as a multiparty committee because we have a Green member and an Independent member and Ron Mark from New Zealand First sits on that committee from time to time when we are discussing military matters. I thank him for his contribution to that select committee.I want to thank Brigadier Riordan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs for the work that has been done not only on the bill but on the review. The review itself is a doorstopper an enormous piece of work that was done over a long period of time. Their names do not appear on this legislation and that is a pity because of the work that has gone into it. A tremendous amount of interviewing study and legal review has gone into not only the review but also the legislation itself. I also want to thank them for the way they worked with the select committee. I found them extremely receptive to suggestions made by members of the committee and very thorough in the way they followed up those suggestions came back with changes and worked with the committee on producing the legislation with changes that we have before the Committee today.As has been said the bill makes amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990. As has also been mentioned by others changes are happening in the military in countries very much akin to New Zealand and there was a significant influence from the United Kingdom on this legislation.What is important as has also been mentioned by others is the balance between the modern way of looking at human rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the maintenance of discipline within our armed forces. Compliments have been paid today about the discipline of the New Zealand armed forces and I think it is largely because of the attitude of those who are in command in our forces that there has been not only through the legislation but also on the ground a good balance between humanrights and the maintenance of discipline in our forces. Our forces are held in respect by other forces throughout the world.I remind people that we are talking about Part 1. The debate has wandered over a whole range of issues from New Zealand’s military engagement in other countries to New Zealand’s military equipment but we are actually talking here about the law within the armed forces in New Zealand.Once again I thank all of those who were involved with this bill not only fellow members of the select committee but also BrigadierRoirdan and Lieutenant Commander Griggs. I also thank those who made submissions. It can be very very difficult to get submissions. One of the things the committee was concerned about was the level of consultation. Although public submissions were called for this is not a bill that members of the public feel highly involved in. Very few submissions were received—in fact there were four. We received submissions from the Law Society and we also considered a paper from the Legislation Advisory Committee. The select committee itself was concerned to ensure that through the review and the advertising processes people in the military forces were able to comment and that there had been thorough consultation throughout the process. As I have said this is not the type of legislation where large numbers of the public are involved in making submissions.Once again as has been mentioned by members I say a number of changes were made to the bill particularly in Part 1—some minor and some quite major—and particularly in relation to the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We were very pleased that that matter was able to be worked through with our advisers and that we have come up with an amicable solution that all members agree with.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.