Hayes John: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Hayes John: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8075] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I certainly agree that ignorance is the oppressor. I have never heard such an ignorant series of facts as those just touted out on the floor of this Chamber by the previous speaker who used to teach the children of this country. I am very glad that he is now in this House so we can bring him to heel and tell him the truth. For example when I think of my contacts with the military my observation would be that it is colour-blind. People in the military in New Zealand are colour-blind and anybody who thinks that they are not is off the planet. 
I can recall that back in the late 1960s Major General Brian Poananga was head of the New Zealand military force and today I think of Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae who equally has the most senior position in our military. When that member talks about glass ceilings it just shows that he is speaking from ignorance and I am delighted that he is no longer putting bad ideas in the heads of our children. 
I will now come back to the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Parliament is looking at this bill and the National Party will be supporting it because there has been no substantial reform of the military justice system in New Zealand since the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. As my colleague Dr Worth pointed out it took 12 years before that Act came into force in 1983. We also have to focus on the fact that our domestic and international developments in human rights law—and by that I particularly mean the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—have necessitated a thorough review of the military justice system in New Zealand. This bill results from the review of the military justice system that was conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force probably under I think Kevin Riordan. It amends the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990. 
I have sat through a certain amount of drivel coming from a number of earlier speakers here in this House this afternoon. Having been personally involved in peacekeeping operations involving New Zealand Defence Forces in other countries I can tell members that the sort of reason that we need our lawyers engaged in these processes is to do the exchange of letters with other countries. For example if New Zealand sends the HMNZS  
Endeavour 
 across to Bougainville to engage in peacekeeping operations there are rules of engagement and there are standard agreements between countries. But that is not what we are here to discuss today; we are here to discuss military discipline. 
We need this bill for two reasons. First we need it because at the moment there is a discrepancy between our three services in the disciplinary procedures that exist. Although the Army and the Air Force are in sync our Navy is not. Secondly we have to ensure that our disciplinary procedures especially courts martial are comparable with those of like-minded partners like Australia Canada and Britain. I think that this is particularly important given the increased level of deployments that have involved those other countries over the past 10 years. This will mean I think an improved court martial procedure including a new role of presiding judge and more appropriate Court of Appeal procedures. 
One issue that is bothering me and one that we will be looking at very carefully as the bill is considered in this House is the fact that the Defence Force’s legal directorate now has 28 officers compared with four just a few years ago. I keep wondering to myself whether this is part of a Government make-work scheme. It is certainly consistent with the huge growth in bureaucracy that is occurring under the tenure of Helen Clark and the “Green” Government—reflecting on Keith Locke’s comments I am not sure whether the Green Party will actually support this bill; time will tell. 
One aspect of this legislation seems problematical to me as well. I note that in the comment on consultation in the explanatory note of the bill the Government departments and agencies that were consulted are listed. As my colleague Dianne Yates read out these include Treasury the Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Justice the Crown Law Office and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The note also states: “There have also been a number of meetings between the New Zealand Defence Force and both the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Law Office to settle policy.” 
I find it astonishing that there has been no consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade given the strength of its legal division and its engagement on an international platform with many other countries. So I will also be looking as the bill progresses at why there has been such inadequate consultation. 
Those are the main points that I would like to register here in the House this afternoon. I reiterate National’s support for this bill’s progression through the House.