Groser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGroser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12267. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM GROSER (National): I rise to speak to the title of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. This debate provides National with an opportunity to reflect on the context within which this very detailed elaborate and sophisticated process has taken place. I think it is quite convenient particularly from our perspective given that we have put out for discussion to New Zealand a paper covering the three main areas of external strategy.In this context I would like to focus just on defence. There has been a lot of discussion from various parties in the course of the proceedings of this bill on how we have arrived at a situation where there is essentially a bipartisan—or multiparty perhaps with some exceptions—basis to proceed and how important that is when it comes to vital strategic interests of New Zealand that clearly do not fit into any electoral phase. I do not think any member of this House could put hand on heart and say that this has been easy to achieve but I think we are in that space now.There are a couple of themes that I would like to focus on. First of all I think one of the difficulties we have had historically in coming to this—I would say new—consensus was because like everything in New Zealand the dominant culture was to try to set up a mini-British system here across all fronts. When it came to defence forces this meant setting up a mini - balanced force as is entirely appropriate for a major military power such as the United Kingdom. Indeed in the time we were trying to replicate British military culture here in New Zealand in the late 19th century the United Kingdom was the world’s largest military power.As the decades have rolled on I think it has become slowly apparent to people across the spectrum of political views that such a system is becoming less tenable and indeed less useful for New Zealand. So we are moving—partly by design partly by hazard—towards niche armed forces in which the principle is quite clear: we do some things historically extremely well even though I acknowledge that in some cases we have not given the men and women in the field all the tools to do it. Like other New Zealanders I recallRommel saying that with two more battalions of Kiwi troops he could have won the war in Africa. That was praise indeed from our enemy.I believe that there are other things that New Zealand troops have historically shown an extraordinary aptitude for but it is quite clear as the revolution in military affairs hasprogressed that the difficulties of a small country like ours will be a drop in the bucket by world standards no matter what figure we finally settle on politically for defence. It is becoming immensely difficult for our New Zealand armed forces to play in all games across the front of military activities. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate we have had over the strike force. Even the Australians with their far greater resources—and in some respects one could say greater public acceptance of the need for defence expenditure—are struggling to keep up with the implications of the revolution in military affairs.This is the background behind National Party thinking. We have borrowed ideas over the years and tried to put them down in some fairly general terms in this paper foreshadowing if we become the Government a defence white paper that will be used as a basis for a consultation process both within the country and with countries we have worked closely with historically starting obviously with Australia.We also think we need some fresh thinking. The roles our defence forces are playing are increasingly sophisticated. They are closely enmeshed with key foreign policy interests in the Pacific. I think it is going far too far to describe the Pacific as a train wreck but quite clearly there are some fundamental problems that have grown in intensity over the years. In a number of cases New Zealand along with our Australian friends has been called reluctantly to play a stabilisation role in an increasing number of these States. That is a very sophisticated demand on our armed forces.It is a new environment that we are describing although it has not come around in just a year or two. It is a slow evolution of opinion in New Zealand as we have broken free from essentially a colonial mentality of trying to replicate the entire British imperial system in miniature to where we are today. I think it is a good basis for coming forward.We in the National Party of today want to see—very much taking account of the point that Mr Mark made about the absurdity of his two-grenade experiment—that in the areas where we have superb New Zealanders we give them the capacity to do their job superbly. I suspect that is where we all want to go and we want to concentrate our expertise and our spending in those areas where we know we are good and where it actually matters to material New Zealand interests.The military justice system is a component of that. We clearly need to have a such a system given the extraordinary demands that we make on people who are prepared literally to put their lives on the line for their country. The discipline process for the armed forces which is essential to their effectiveness has to be backed up by a highly credible military justice system. I think we have had a good basis in the past but the strengthening of the procedures that takes place through this bill bringing the system up to date with contemporary thinking and with both formal provisions such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and informal changes such as the greater role of women in the armed forces should give our men and women a feeling that this Parliament values them that it knows they are a vital part even of a small society like ours and that it is ready to back them in the future perhaps I would hope in a more rational and consistent way. We will have a military justice system that is cutting edge up to date and above all irreproachable in terms of the fairness integrity and coherence of the judicial system.