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:12257. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): Again we get into the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and I thank Dr Mapp or should I say Captain Wayne Mapp formerly of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment for again expanding the debate just a little bit. In coming back to the bill I will follow that same pattern briefly and just comment on some of those expansions.My partner and I had an interesting discussion over the dinner break as we often do about what is happening and I commented on this bill. I was reflecting on the discussions that had happened in the Chamber prior to the break and on how some of the debate had sort of moved outside of the bill to talk about the modernisation of defence forces bipartisanship and all those wonderful things—and an agreed defence policy.I reflected on my comments and it gave me cause to remember something else from when I was serving in the New Zealand Army. It is very pertinent because when the two old parties start slagging and bagging each other as to who did the most for whom where and at what time it is often those who are serving in uniform at the time who know best. Well it is generally the case that they know best the reality of what is actually happening at the coalface of the defence forces.I recall a time when I was a corporal in the armoured regiment up atWaiōuru. I was going into a Q store and looking on the floor. There was an object that looked as if it were made out of plywood covered in camouflage net. I wandered over and looked at it and I saw that it had a big tube sticking out of the front of it. I wondered what it was. It did not look like military hardware. It had all the appearances of being the turret of a tank except that it was made out of wood. Then it was explained to me: “These are the tanks that we have when we don’t have tanks because we don’t have tanks that go.”! It reminded me—John Hayes: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The discussion we are having at the moment bears absolutely no relationship to the bill under consideration particularly to Part 2.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right but as the member knows he spent a good deal of his speech doing the same thing and so did Wayne Mapp. I do detect a certain enthusiasm for what we are discussing but I just ask the member to wrap it up and come back to the bill as soon as he can.Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know that part of that interchange was light-hearted but during the course of it the member for Wairarapa Mr Hayes interjected directly on you and then made an incredibly unparliamentary remark about your office. I think despite the debate’s light-hearted nature—and he is now interjecting on me during my point of order as well—there does have to be lines that we do not cross. I think that member did and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise if the remark was unparliamentary.John Hayes: I withdraw and apologise Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.RON MARK: Thank you Madam Chair.Bob Clarkson: Tell us the end of the story.RON MARK: Does the member want me to go right back to the start? Well there was a time when our New Zealand army was so well funded that we had to dress up armoured personnel carriers with plywood mock-ups of turrets and pretend they were tanks. That was at a time when I was posted to the armoured regiment in 1977 and I am trying to think of who was in Government in 1977.Hon Ruth Dyson: How many syllables?RON MARK: How many syllables? Well I think it is easy is it not? It was National I tell John Hayes which is probably why he took that rather spurious point of order and tried to intercept me and interdict me. But we need to be realistic and that is why I think it is welcoming to see the new philosophy of the National Party. It has simply given up trying to have defence policy and has decided to copy Labour just as it copied from New Zealand First’s manifesto all the way through the last election.It was nice to have that slight diversion in the debate as Captain Mapp did before coming back to the bill. We can keep taking these diversions as long as we like because the night is long and it is quite entertaining—like the time when an umpire was telling a soldier “You are dead—lie down.” This was at the time that we did not have blanks because the Government was not paying the Defence Force enough money and soldiers had to go “Bang bang! You’re dead.” An umpire was telling a soldier to lie down because he was dead but the soldier kept coming. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!” and the soldier who had shot him was saying “Sir I shot him; I said ‘Bang bang!’ ”. The umpire said “Lie down—you’re dead!” but the soldier kept coming and said “No sir—clank clank; I’m a tank.” I think that was in National’s time in Government as well.We can throw accusations at each other all night long as to who spent more and when and what for defence or who did the most but I seriously have to say that legislation like this on the back of a long-term development plan and on the back of a range of things that have happened indicates that in actual fact the Government has not done too badly. We do have serious differences over some aspects such as the combat air support—which National has now rolled over on as well—and we do have serious differences over pay and salary. But at least the Labour Government has addressed that unlike National which would not do so when Jenny Shipley was here.This legislation is important to New Zealand First and it is important to me personally because it is only when people are actually serving in the military and get to be subjected to military law and get to administer military law that they realise thingsand find themselves questioning the rather archaic nature of some of the procedures systems and customs and the relevancy of those to the modern situation.It is always useful to go back to the very first briefing we received from the military. I am holding it right here—this colour print-out on the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. When I look at it I can see the principles they strive to adhere to. It states that everyone charged with an offence has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer and that everyone who is charged with an offence has in relation to the determination of the charge the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. One of the difficulties with the legal system which I witnessed in my time in defence was that often there were rights bestowed on people or available to service personnel that were never taken advantage of or were reluctantly tried or applied for or sought. Sometimes the fear of the repercussions deterred and intimidated service personnel from taking some of those options.I will give members an example. As a junior officer based at Linton Camp and second in command of a unit I had occasion to find myself rather interestingly on a charge. I was on a charge in front of the camp commander—ColonelWedde I think his name was—and the charge had been laid against me by the officer commanding me. It was a rather curious situation because very very rarely does a commanding officer ever charge another officer but there I was. I was marched up in front of the commanding officer and the standard question was put: “Will you accept my punishment?”. A lot of defence force personnel will say yes even though they know they should say no. But the fear of an elevated set of repercussions coming down upon them will often intimidate them into saying yes. The fear that they are unable to articulate their case and the mitigating factors and the fear that they will be overawed by the circumstance will often lead them to plead guilty say “Yes I will take the punishment” and move on from there. Being the sort of chap I am—Dr Wayne Mapp: Probably less likely to be court-martialled.RON MARK: Right—but being the sort of chap I am I said no. The consequences of a captain in the army telling the camp commander “No” are quite severe. That immediately elevates to a court martial. So I was promptly advised of the consequences of my decision and asked whether I would like to reconsider. I said “No.” The matter was adjourned for a moment and I was taken outside and counselled and I was promised and assured that if I just accepted my punishment it would be easy going—it would go away. It was a bit of a nonsense situation. I said “No. I am fully aware of the implications and I want a general court martial.” Well matters were adjourned from there and we ended up with a court of inquiry which suited me down to the ground because it enabled me then to put my officer commanding in the witness box and question him and to call witnesses.The result of that court of inquiry was that all charges were dismissed and a certain officer was made to look a bit of an idiot which pretty much fitted the reputation he had garnered for himself anyway. And we moved on and lessons were learnt. But it has always troubled me that on occasions when soldiers and defence force personnel had options available to them they were often more prepared to stand firm keep their heels together bite the bullet say “Yes sir!” accept the punishment and march out. It was done dusted and gone and they got over it.Bob Clarkson: Why don’t you do that right now?RON MARK: I say to “Bob the Builder” “Mr What’s-his-name” from Tauranga that it is because I see things that are wrong and I challenge them. I see things that are not right that are improper and lack justice and I do not accept them. I see things as they could be and I strive for that. If the day comes when I lose that passion and that drive then I might as well lie down and die like that member has already and mycontribution to the nation will be equivalent to what he is providing right now. No! Some people have the strength determination understanding and confidence to go forward but some people do not. I see in this legislation a degree of empowerment and recognition that might not necessarily have been available to people in the past.