Roy Heather: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8520] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand on the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. As the only actively serving Territorial Force soldier in this Parliament I find myself in the unique position of being the only member who may be directly affected by this bill. I say to the member who spoke before me Peter Brown that he presented a somewhat skewed view of modern involvement in the military. It may have entertained the House but I can say categorically that things are somewhat different in reality. 
This bill is well overdue and in many respects it is just a formality. It is an amendment to the Human Rights Act to correct an anomaly. For some time now New Zealand women in the Defence Force have been serving in active combat roles. This bill is long overdue in correcting that anomaly. 
Some members have spoken about the number of women who are currently serving. At the moment the percentage of females in the Navy is 22 percent in the Army it is 14 percent and in the Air Force it is 17 percent. The total percentage of women in the New Zealand Defence Force is 23 percent but that number is bolstered somewhat by the heavy predominance of women employed in a civilian capacity which is 48 percent. The numbers however are somewhat immaterial. It is the principle of the matter that we are debating here today which is to correct as I say the anomaly that exists. 
There are also however very good practical reasons for putting this legislation forward and I congratulate and thank Lynne Pillay who brought this bill to the House originally as a member’s bill. It has more latterly been transferred to the Minister Lianne Dalziel as Minister of Women’s Affairs. 
There are good practical reasons for this legislation also. The first is that of competency. Women are all judged as in fact are men on their competency in the defence forces in each of the three services—the Army the Navy and the Air Force. In fact before someone can join any of the services that person has to pass a fitness test and a number of competency tests. Until those tests are passed that person will not be allowed to join. As someone moves further and further down the track—and some people move up the chain; some become officers—and before anybody is deployed that person needs to pass further competency tests. Those females who have gone on to serve in combat positions have passed those competency tests in exactly the same way that their male counterparts have. 
I have to say that I personally have enjoyed seeing the Territorial Force presence in the Solomon Islands. It had a very positive spin-off for the Territorial Force itself. Everyone is now expected to train at the level of those wishing to be deployed. Therefore the training levels for many soldiers have been increased and that as I say has been a very positive experience for those in the forces. 
Competency is the first thing. Nobody whether male or female goes off to the front line—although the words “at the front line.” have very sensibly now been deleted from clause 4 of the amendment bill and changed to “in an active combat role.”—unless he or she passes those fitness tests which are of a very high standard and other competency tests that happen periodically. 
The second practical reason for this bill is that it brings us into line with international laws of war that our counterparts overseas the Australians the Canadians the Brits and in fact the United States soldiers sailors and airmen are also subject to so that is a very positive move. 
The other area that has been of concern is the eligibility for war disablement pensions. There have been cases and some not long ago where some service people who have been injured but not killed in combat or some partners whose other half has been killed in combat have found themselves ineligible for a war disablement pension because those service people were women. The definition of combatant—until this bill is passed—technically in a legal sense is male so those people have found themselves ineligible. This obviously is an area of great unfairness and one that should have been addressed a long time before now. It is only right and proper that this bill comes before the House so that we will not see this situation arise again; we will fix this. Given too that the number of women in the armed forces is increasing had this amendment bill not come before the House to rectify the situation this scenario would have become more of a problem as time went on. 
ACT supports this bill and I thank those members who have stood up in the House and given illustrations of women who have served and particularly of those women who have served in combat positions with distinction. I thank those members on behalf of the women involved in the Defence Force. We will be supporting this bill but I can reassure members who may have had some concerns initially about women who serve in combat positions that competency is alive and well in the Defence Force and it is tested rigorously. The time is long overdue for us to meet the standards of international laws of war and to address the difficulties that some sadly have experienced with war disablement pensions and eligibility because of gender. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.