Hayes John: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes John: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12247. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I join my colleagues in speaking this afternoon on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. It is complicated legislation and I think the media will find absolutely nothing noteworthy in it but it is fundamentally important to the operation of our military services—army navy and air force—and it brings the military judicial system into line with our civilian law.The select committee process was as various speakers have said particularly rigorous. We had very useful input I particularly want to record from the Judge Advocate General’s committee. Two of the members came along spoke privately to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and had a significant impact on our final deliberations. I join with those who have commended the service of Brigadier Riordan and his assistant naval commander Chris Griggs. They did a very very fine job.If we take a slightly wider picture I think we can see the impact of having inadequate laws around the management of our military. We see the consequences of this in our region when people step outside the law. I am thinking now particularly of Fiji and of the situation a couple of weeks ago in Burma. While the opportunity presents itself I say that I am quite sure many people in this Committee are appalled at the actions of the Burmese military in shooting unarmed civilians. I hope that this legislation will prevent any of those sorts of circumstances getting out of hand in New Zealand.In respect of the bill I draw attention to the proposed Armed Forces Discipline Committee described in Part 1. The select committee made a contribution to this part of the bill in encouraging for it to be amended to provide for an Armed Forces Discipline Committee. That committee is provided for in a new section 160 in Part 8A which is to be inserted into the Armed Forces Discipline Act by clause 45 of the bill.In the select committee we also recommended that the Chief of Defence Force be required to cause notice of every sentencing guideline to be promulgated by defence orders. We recommended that in sentencing an offender under the Armed Forces Discipline Act the Court Martial should be required to impose a sentence consistent with sentencing guidelines relevant to the offender’s case unless the court was satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.We envisaged that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee would consider command issues arising from trials by courts martial. Every report submitted by a senior military member of the Court Martial under clause 38 of the bill would have to be laid before the committee at its next meeting. We required that the Armed Forces Discipline Committee meet at least every 6 months. That committee will be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and assisting him will be the Vice Chief of Defence Force; the three chiefs of the individual services; the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand; the JudgeAdvocate General; the director of military prosecutions; and a representative of the defence counsel.I think as members of a bipartisan select committee with the process that has resulted in this bill but I was rather astonished by the comments made by Minister of Defence Phil Goff recently in respect of his claims about Iraq. I draw attention to Saturday’s newspaper to an article written by Fran O’Sullivan in which she said—Hon Phil Goff: A well-known independent commentator.JOHN HAYES: The Minister may laugh at that but he might remember that I worked very closely in the ministry on these issues around the same period so I have some direct knowledge of what actually happened. As Fran O’Sullivan said—and I happen to agree with her—the Minister ought to be put out to pasture if the full-blown case of Alzheimer’s he has conveniently developed on Iraq exists for his other previous political positions. I am sure that would not be the case I say to the Minister. I remind the Minister that in 2003 he issued a number of statements foreshadowing that de-mining was one of a range of options that the Government was considering to ensure that New Zealand played its part in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in close conflict in Iraq.