Worth Richard: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8067] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Dr Mapp has explained in an exemplary way the ramifications of this legislation and its impact on the current law. As he has said National supports this Armed Forces Law Reform Bill for passage. It is a commonplace to say that an effective and fair military justice system is essential to the maintenance of discipline in the armed forces in peace and war whether in New Zealand or overseas. 
This legislation stands clearly in need of amendment. It is interesting that the legislation being amended—the principal Act—is the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. But it took that legislation 12 years to come into force. I am not sure that we would tolerate that in the Parliament of 2007. That was a 12-year gap between the enactment of the legislation and its coming into force. We just do not see those unacceptable time frames. The reason for that in substantial measure was that it was necessary for armed forces rules of procedure to be enacted. Prior to the Armed Forces Discipline Act there was a Navy Act New Zealand Army Act and Royal New Zealand Air Force Act. They all had quite different rules and incidentally they all had quite different traditions. 
In the course of my military experience I had the privilege—fortunately not of being a victim of the court martial setting—of taking part in courts martial in a number of roles. In particular I had a role in navy courts martial—the service I was associated with. Where the court martial involved the trial of an officer a sword was placed in front of the accused. That sword lay parallel to the place where the accused officer was seated or standing. The court retired to consider its verdict and when it came back to pronounce its verdict in open court the accused officer could look to see which way the sword was pointing. If the sword was pointing towards him or her—but it was always him in those days—then he knew that he would be convicted by the particular court. Those were the elements of drama that were injected into the courts martial of those days. It was somewhat akin as more experienced members of the House may recall to that television programme called  
Branded 
 where the sword of a Confederate Army officer who had crossed the line of military discipline was broken. 
There were other aspects of courts martial in those days that were also of some interest. One good practice was that when the court retired to consider its verdict and was in a position to deliberate on what the outcome would be it was always the junior officer in the court of three—or perhaps five—officers who was asked to say what he felt and whether he felt the accused was guilty or not guilty. The reason behind that tradition was so that a junior officer would not be affected by the views of his seniors as to what would be the appropriate political response to make in respect of a determination in a criminal setting. It is also right to say that there was a degree of cynicism about those court martial processes in those days—somewhat akin to the  
Alice in Wonderland 
 statement of sentence first verdict afterwards. 
We are not seeing in this legislation significant substantive change but we are seeing some change which I believe—echoing Dr Mapp’s comments—to be worthwhile and of merit. There are still significant differences between military justice and the justice meted out in the civilian courts sitting in their criminal jurisdiction. Much higher standards are expected of military personnel than those people outside the military who cross the line and commit criminal offences. Nothing in this legislation will detract from that higher standard required of those who serve this country in a military setting. 
The comment has been made about the number of lawyers in the military. That is truly a striking change. To some extent I am not supportive of that change but it is the reality that this Government has significantly moved our focus of military activity not from war fighting but to peacemaking. In that peacemaking context the provision of legal advice becomes quite critical. In a war fighting setting those issues do not bear time for reflection. I commend this legislation to the House. I think it is appropriate that it be enacted without delay.