Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe. Kia orana e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you very much for this opportunity as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to speak on the first reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.I too would like to take this opportunity firstly to congratulate the Hon Ron Mark. This is his first bill as the Minister of Defence. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and has had responsibility for overseeing the passage of this legislation in the House.I firstly wanted to make a comment about the New Zealand Defence Force which contributes to the defence security and well-being of New Zealanders. We ensure that they are well trained and equipped and I think that through this piece of legislation we are also ensuring that as members of our defence forces they continue to have duties rights and responsibilities as citizens of our country and as human beings. Essentially what we are giving them access to are philosophies that actually reinforce their rights and responsibilities not only their roles in the military.I'd like to highlight that the intention of this piece of legislation is to update the military justice system and to align it with the criminal justice system in certain respects including by enhancing victim' rights. But I specifically want to focus on the issue of the onus of proof and the history behind it.For me the reason I want to focus on the onus of proof really goes back to the history of military law—and I hope the House will indulge me. In trying to understand how significant this piece of legislation is—and I believe it is—I want to take us through a little history lesson in some ways. Military law actually traces its origins to the prerogative powers of rulers. It was developed from the imperium of the magistrates in their capacity as commanders of military forces. Roman historian Tacitus—I hope I'm saying his name right—56 AD to 120 AD noted that military justice was somewhat rough and ready and heavy-handed and raised very much within the individual commander. Some 400 years later it was formalised in a digest the Codex Justinianus. It was really about the maintenance of discipline and to ensure it was enforced by ordinance or articles of war used by the Sovereign or a commander authorised by the Sovereign at the beginning of each campaign.I tried to look for a campaign and found one. Cromwell's army was famed for its discipline. He had his army between 1645 and 1660. It is said that it was so famed for its discipline because the articles that they created were vigorously enforced. So military law has always been about the discipline but also the compliance with those ordinances by the military personnel. So when we look at the whole issue of the onus of proof actually in a civil context we are all innocent until proven guilty. So there is a presumption of innocence within our civil criminal justice system and the burden of proof is on the one who declares not the one who denies. The legal right of the accused in a criminal trial is also reinforced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is in article 11. The trier of fact judge or jury is restrained by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court.I guess the kōrero around military law has been that there's been a perception that you're actually guilty until proven innocent and that kind of stems from the history that I outlined. So if you disobeyed an order there was a military justice system. What happened within that system from what I've been able to ascertain was that there was a sworn statement in which one of your peers said they had knowledge of a crime that you had committed and that they had investigated that crime and then you were charged. And it led to—[Interruption] Not you Madam Assistant Speaker but the person who was accused. Then it led to a court martial. The presumption of being guilty actually was premised on the fact that if you were innocent there wouldn't be a trial. So we've completely inversed what has been a longstanding tradition within the military.I think the focus also on victims' rights speaks to what I said before. So when you serve and are a member of the New Zealand Defence Force you don't lose your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. So I think this piece of legislation is incredibly important and has come as my colleague Raymond Huo outlined from a review of the defence sector and it is something that we should be incredibly proud of. I think that we should anticipate therefore that there will be some challenges possibly because if this has been about maintaining discipline and compliance then what we're actually saying to the people who serve is that you also have a right to put up your hand if you disagree with something that's happening and actually challenge those in authority.Next year is the 100th anniversary of the Armistice. When we think about that and that being about peace we think about the people who in some of our history were asked to serve—our conscientious objectors—and said I don't want to. I don't believe in war. I believe in peace and I will protest because I don't think war and the activity of war is valid." So from my perspective this also highlights those actions by our previous New Zealand citizens our fellow citizens who were in that context I guess drafted into a system that was about defending and protecting us. So it opens up a whole other conversation from my perspective about service about what security and well-being mean for everybody.So as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill. I encourage people who are listening to think about making submissions but I commend the bill to the House. Thank you."