Mark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12270. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): The reason I laughed out loud at the end of that speech by Dr Mapp—please forgive me—was that although I agreed with everything he said about the National Party I thought he was absolutely ludicrous to suggest that some other parties in the House might agree with this bipartisan bisexual relationship that now seems to be going on between National and Labour. Accepting that there is this sort of love-in between National and Labour on defence policy some of us were at this point 10 years ago. I tell Dr Mapp that it just so happens that I keep in my House box theInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report—Sandra Goudie: But have you read it?RON MARK: There goes the fishmonger’s wife again down the back. Someone should hang on to the varnish on the walls; Sandra Goudie has something to say. The children in the gallery should block their ears. This lady is pretty caustic. She has not got a lot of intelligence and does not have a lot to say of any value but if one wants to hear a parrot screech—Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member knows full well not to address members of the audience. It is inappropriate and I suspect it is leading to his rather overblown rhetoric in this speech.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point has been made. The member knows he should not address the gallery.RON MARK: TheInquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 report which Dr Mapp seems now to embrace to the very bosom of his being makes clear that most of the parties in the House—ACT New Zealand First and Labour—signed up to this view and philosophy a long time ago. I know that theMāori Party had it been here would have signed up. In fact Tariana Turia was a Minister in the Labour Government around that time.It is great it is endearing and it is wonderful to hear Dr Mapp speaking. I respect Dr Mapp because he has worn the uniform. Dr Mapp does not just talk the talk; he has done the walk. I respect him immensely and I know he has played a huge part in swinging his party to take up the position it has now. But for him to suggest that the National Party now realises that New Zealand punches above its weight and that we are more effective in this niche role and that this is something new is ridiculous. Some of us have known for years and have pointed out the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the New Zealand Defence Force due to the heavy contribution to it byMāori and Pacific Islanders. Hello! Some of us knew that a long time ago.I remember being in the desert in 1982 in the Sinai peninsula. We were performing thehaka. We were distinctly Kiwi but what was interesting was that being an Anzac unit and as an officer put in charge of organising the kapahaka group I actually brought in Australians because we had to make up the numbers. They were only too pleased to be Kiwis for kapahaka purposes. It evolved into a stronger relationship.We know that we work well with indigenous people from other nations. We have known that for a long time. I embrace and welcome National’s new-found position on our independence which National now recognises as being valuable. Some of us have known about it for a while.I could go on and address these issues blow by blow. This bill in the final wrap-up has greater consequences than simply just the purpose for which it was brought to the House. I would like to round off on a couple of those points if I may.The calibre of a defence force and the way it is viewed internationally when it is operating offshore and amongst other nations in a tri-service environment with people of different ethnicities cultures and religious beliefs is so often determined by the manner in which it conducts itself. It is so often determined by the way in which the defence force treats other people and by the way in which it monitors and holds itself accountable for transgressions that may occur.It is clear and understood by the military that if it is to uphold the traditions and values that give it the core base from which it can then lead then it must have robust legal systems. If young men and women are to put on a uniform pick up a rifle go to war and follow their officers and NCOs then they need to know a number of things. They need to feel confident themselves that their best interests are catered for. They need to firmly believe that their leaders truly are professional that their leaders would not put them in situations that were untenable that their leaders will do their level best to put them into situations in the most fully prepared position they could be in and resourced as best as possible to do the task and that their leaders will stand by them and lead them through to the completion of that mission. Those needs require a whole range of new considerations in a peacekeeping and peacemaking environment.I noted some time ago when I was in the New Zealand Defence Force that the legal fraternity was considered a little bit like thechalkies the whip-wingers—educationalists. Thechalkies were over there. They were the education officers. They were not real soldiers. They had different badges on but they were teachers primarily—specialist officers. Legal beagles were sometimes viewed in that way.That is not the situation today. We now understand the complexities of peacekeeping and peacemaking and the interaction between sovereign nations. Before soldiers go into a mission and take on a task those complexities have to be very clearly understood. They have to be very clearly understood before anyone embarks from these shores.That work so often falls at the feet of the legal officers in the New Zealand Defence Force. If that work is in any way tardy or deficient the repercussions can be huge. If our troops are not adequately prepared not fully briefed and are not fully understanding and if our officers and junior leaders are not fully understanding of the boundaries and limitations of their mission and their responsibilities and powers then there can be huge political repercussions that would leave a Government in an embarrassing position having to fight rearguard political actions to justify or rectify a problem that has arisen.So much of the standards of leadership demonstrated by our officer corps across all services and so much of the standards of leadership and the expectations placed on our junior NCOs at the corporal level down at the section are set and predetermined by the professional standards we set ourselves at the higher level. This document this bill is very much part and parcel of that.Many of us who have participated in operations offshore have seen unruly defence forces and have worked alongside defence forces that were known to be corrupt. I will not name them but I have been on some peacekeeping missions in parts of the world where we would not turn our backs on certain officers of certain ethnicities unless someone else was watching our backs for us. One would be very hesitant about accepting certain people’s word as to what they had done or what they had not done because one knew the nature of the defence force from which they came its levels of professionalism and expertise the culture that underpins their ministry and the reflected culture upon which their military is derived in the civil circumstances of their homeland as a result of the type of Government and governance they have.New Zealand has set very high standards for itself. New Zealand has consistently demonstrated a commitment to those high standards. That I guess is why we sometimes hear funny stories coming out of places like Iraq where security operators are operating. New Zealanders who have left the New Zealand Defence Force but who are now engaged with security companies have told us of things they have seen that they absolutely abhor do not tolerate and do not accept. Where does that culture come from? Where does that ethos come from? Where does that standard come from? It comes from the men and women who command and lead our defence forces here at home and is embodied in those young men and women who have since chosen to leave our defence forces and go to work for other people.The pleasing thing the satisfying thing is that we know they still carry that ethos that culture those sets of values with them and that is precisely what we are trying to encourage with this legislation in the Chamber tonight. We are trying to modify upgrade rationalise and improve and we are cementing in some very firm values which New Zealand First is pleased to see cemented in.I am starting to sound like I am making a third reading speech but I say to the committee: “Well done; thank you for your work.” I saw the recommendations and I see that the Minister has picked up on them. I say well done to the defence forces for their work. Let us get moving on.