van de Molen TimTIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. So we're now a couple of hours further along and we still haven't been able to utilise the House's time appropriately. This is still a waste of time as it was before of both the committee and the House and is not fundamentally achieving a significant improvement for the defence force or for the confidence the public can have in the defence force.I want to start on their piece because the Minister of Defence has talked about the intent being to provide greater confidence to the public of New Zealand that there is civilian oversight of the military. But this doesn't achieve it in a manner that can't be achieved through an inquiry into Operation Burnham which is exactly what happened right? So in that instance we saw the Government seek to provide confidence that the military was acting appropriately. They used the mechanisms available to them conducted an inquiry and got an outcome that as I said in my previous contribution but I will reiterate demonstrated that there had been no illegal behaviour from our defence personnel.Our NZSAS had acted lawfully and that whilst there had been some issues within the senior leadership in terms of their ability to communicate information indeed there were no illegal activities by our personnel. And that is the key thing to highlight here because what we're seeing is I believe a knee-jerk reaction to an area where concern was raised. It was found there was not a concern and yet now we have a piece of legislation adding more cost and bureaucracy to a defence force that has many other priorities than this and yet that cost and bureaucracy is not outweighed by the benefit it provides. It will not provide a significant increase in the confidence that the public will have in defence which as I mentioned earlier as well is very high domestically and internationally. Our defence personnel are very well regarded for their professionalism and the manner in which they conduct themselves with integrity throughout their taskings. This won't change that.I think that is the key issue that we have here and it's been touched in the previous stages of this bill as well. But when we go into any operational theatre our troops are deployed and they operate by the laws of armed conflict their specific rules of engagement based on wherever they are and what has been set in place there. Those are the frameworks that guide them as well it should be and that is the mechanism to ensure that actions are appropriate.Any function this inspector-general might carry out would be retrospective in terms of investigating potential behaviour anyway and so it would not change a situation where something may have happened. But as I've said Operation Burnham found that nothing had happened inappropriately. So on that basis we are simply not seeing value for money. This is something that is happening across numerous pieces of legislation put forward by this Government. The cost and the bureaucracy is not outweighed by the benefit it provides. Any time that legislation has been put forward that should be the fundamental test. Is the cost of putting this in place less than the benefit we will derive from putting it in place? The answer clearly in this case is no it is not.Alongside that and we traversed this through the committee of the whole House stage is the concern around some of the potential for creep within the role. And I mention that in the context of the functions of the inspector-general being not only to investigate incidences that have occurred within the defence force but also the secondary or the assessment function as it's called which allows for the inspector-general to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures. That is a real area of concern because to me that is incredibly broad. That is one of the reasons we're opposing this bill as well—that there are not sufficient checks in place to limit the scope the powers or the breadth of what this inspector-general may do.When we look at that alongside the need to empower our defence personnel to act to perform the duties they are expected to carry out in whatever location they are and with whatever mission they have been given this has the potential to overshadow that. As Mr Mitchell raised during the committee of the whole House stage the concern around potentially the inspector-general significantly overreaching and ending up giving directives as Mr Brownlee pointed out as well or being sought out for advice on how to act—that for me would be a major concern but is one that hasn't been alleviated through the readings we've had to date.So look we will continue to oppose this bill at its final reading. It simply isn't fit for purpose. The Government hasn't demonstrated a sufficient case for bringing this piece of legislation before the House and implementing it so we would rather continue to back our defence personnel. As I've said there are many other priorities that I would love to see the Government focusing on in defence that are much more meaningful for our defence personnel primarily but for New Zealand as a whole over and above this proposal to implement an Inspector-General of Defence.Can I end by thanking all of our current and past defence personnel because it is a tough role. They do a fantastic job on behalf of all New Zealanders and I do want to acknowledge their service. That is what's being put under the spotlight here. There have been some concerns raised through the inquiry and this process around their integrity and their ability to perform. It has been shown they are professional they maintain that high level of those high standards that we expect of them and I am very proud of them and they should well be proud of themselves. So I thank them for their service. And as mentioned we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.