O'Connor Greg; Williams PotoGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Assistant Speaker this is an extremely significant piece of legislation and it's probably a shame that it's being dealt with sort of late on a Thursday because it's something that really the significance of which I think will sink home not only to members of this House those watching but certainly to the armed forces. And I too acknowledge those who are out there now: some of them are on active service but many of them will be going about the business of keeping those who are in the field out there because the military is a great machine and like many machines the bits at the front line are kept going only by those behind.The significance of what I'm going to talk about is that I've seen the evolution in my own previous organisation in the police. That went from a quasi - military-style organisation where when you were asked to jump you asked How high?" without too much thought being given to ultimately a situation where once those members of that organisation were given the right to understand democracy themselves they actually were able to implement it much better. Now the role of the New Zealand military more and more is becoming one of peacekeeping which means that more and more we will be deployed to places where the rule of law has broken down and where those basic tenets of democracy which we rely on will not be present.Now it's quite ironic that we put members of an organisation that doesn't enjoy democratic rights themselves into those very situations and expect them to be examples in that field or in those environments of democracy in action. So this change whereby members of the armed forces are going to be given what are essentially some basic democratic rights is extremely significant.In the past what's been used is the fact that—I mentioned before—much of what the armed forces do is in a conflict situation. In the past that's where many of these rules are set. And previous speakers particularly those with military service have spoken about that. However what does happen is that that is used as an excuse in peacetime and where the majority of the work of the armed forces is done to deprive those people of basic democratic rights. And if we want to look at some basic democratic rights such as the onus of proof we only have to look at that. I mean who can believe—and I have to say I was aware before I read this bill that members of the armed forces had very few rights but even I was unaware that the onus of proof rested on the defendant the person charged to prove their innocence. Well ladies and gentlemen I mean fellow parliamentarians—I'm sorry the term of address escapes me now perhaps such is my passion for this—that any group in today's world can be denied something as basic as the right to have those who assert prove is quite incredible. So that that's just being fixed only now says much: that it has been ignored.I know myself again from a previous life that I've been involved in discussions with members of the armed forces often quite senior members who have realised that issues not only like this but also just around basic rights of speech to negotiate have been denied. But as soon as any discussion comes up it is immediately stifled for fear that—how can we possibly have soldiers going to war who have a right or have any rights? Well as I've talked about before about where we put people into peacekeeping situations this is more and more the role of our military. Those rules were enforced at a time when we did need perhaps the blind discipline to send people over the top at the Somme knowing that nine out of 10 of them would be killed. Madam I think those days we would say have passed.I think even just looking at some of the—as an amateur military historian I look back and often when we think of strict discipline in the military we think of the Prussian machine the Prussian military. And even when we look back as to why that discipline was imposed on the unification of Germany in the 1860s—around the time of Frederick the Great and Bismarck—actually the reason that that discipline that strict discipline was imposed was because those emperors at the time and those leaders understood that Germany being in the middle of countries that they were going to be continually fighting with needed to not only win the war—they knew they could always beat those that were around those that they'd come in conflict with—but win the peace. And actually the discipline was imposed on them not for the battlefield situation; the discipline's imposed so that those soldiers behaved themselves after the battle was won.I think in today's world where we do have the much more digitalised world where pictures of how people behave in even post-conflict situations—we see now photographs; we see film crews back filming in places where there are literally bullets whizzing over their heads. So the opportunity for army personnel or for military personnel to misbehave is considerably reduced.So again I go back to the rationale for why we now should be giving our armed forces the same rights or access to the same rights as the rest of their fellow citizens. Just an example there'll be those who will think all of a sudden that the military are somehow easy on their own. I do recall a story some years ago when a member of the military was selected for a very prominent national team and couldn't turn up for the game—well it was actually a test match. It transpired that he was actually in I understand Ardmore military prison for what was a relatively minor offence involving I think just a breach of some discipline on the military camp. Something that would at best have got a rebuke got him six weeks in a military prison. That's something that I think is a good example of why we just need to bring the discipline in our military into the modern world.In doing that I also compliment those who brought this legislation before the House: the Hon Mark Mitchell followed up by the Hon Ron Mark. I'm sure that behind them were many advisers that have got us to this stage even before we get to select committee. It's a tribute and I suppose an indication of a change in thinking in our military that it has been able to get this far because in the past I think that even the discussions that would have allowed us to get to this stage would have been stifled and the necessity for that military discipline would have been dragged out.So in addressing as I primarily have the rights that are going to be given to the military personnel as a result of this of course I should also address the roles of the victims in the military because unfortunately in the past—and I've seen it—that same discipline and that same adherence to the hierarchy of rank have meant that those who've been victims have risked their career and had other risks by even bringing things to the fore. So the fact that we now in these situations give victims the same rights as civilian victims have is also an important part of this. It just shows the strength or I suppose the sensibility of this legislation—both sides of this being addressed—that we are not just seeking to cherry-pick one part of the legislation and we are seeking to address everything even the fitness to stand trial.I wonder when we look now and while we're addressing and reminiscing at what happened in World War I we do talk—and one of the previous speakers has talked about those who we now know were shot for desertion on the World War I front. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln when he talked about the end of the civil war and how the thing that hurt him most was having to have people shot for desertion. What we now know is about post-traumatic incidents that really would—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Stress disorder. PTSD.GREG O'CONNOR: —have brought about those situations. So PTSD—thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member; your time has now expired.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee."