Hughes Darren: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Darren: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12273. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I want to take just a brief call on the title and commencement clauses clauses 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill in response to some of the comments made by Dr Mapp. It was not my intention to do so but Dr Mapp made a number of points that I think are worthy of consideration reflection and maybe a brief response if he is so minded.Bob Clarkson: Sit down!DARREN HUGHES: Bob Clarkson will learn a lot because I will talk about some of the history of defence policy on both sides of the House. I suspect that Mr Clarkson does not know a lot about that so I think he should get out his pencil and his pad and take down as much of it—John Hayes: What are you filibustering for?DARREN HUGHES: I do not think it is filibustering; I think it is very very important to reply to some of the points Dr Mapp made.Dr Mapp said there had been some convergence between Labour and National on defence issues. He implied that somehow Labour had moved closer to National’s position in terms of defence policy. Nothing could be further from the truth in that regard. In his speech he made it sound as though he had made some great gesture towards the Government on defence policy but he did not tell the Committee about all the positions he personally had taken on defence policy over the years. He had spoken vociferously and with great and absolute conviction about the terrible direction thatLabour’s policy on defence was taking but he managed to miss out that part when he talked of the convergence that was going on.We remember the history. We remember Bill English coming down to the Chamber and saying that the SAS should be withdrawn from Afghanistan after the invasion that was part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Do National members recall that their defence policy was that the SAS should be brought home? The morning statement was that they should be brought down under but that policy was gone by lunchtime too actually because by lunchtime the then foreign affairs spokesperson had shaken some sense into Bill English in that regard and that policy was gone.Then there is National’s defence policy in relation to Iraq. The National Party leader at the time—again Mr English the defence and foreign policy expert—said that National had voted in Parliament to support the coalition of the willing and to commit New Zealand Defence Force troops to that operation. Then during the election campaign Dr Brash was not sure what National’s defence policy was in regard to that and he could not answer a question on it.Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member is getting carried away. As interesting as it might be for the junior Government whip to expound history I ask that he relate some of his speech to the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just say to the senior Opposition whip that the National Party had four wrap-up speeches that had very little to do with the bill. Members had requested that—[Interruption] I am on my feet. This has gone on throughout the debate on the bill with some agreement of the wider Committee. All speakers have done that. The member who is speaking now is making a wrap-up speech and I think that is quite fair in relation to the debate we have had on this in the last few hours. I am going to allow him to continue. I also ask that the level of interjection be kept down. We have had a very good debate over the last few hours. I ask Mr Hughes to continue.DARREN HUGHES: Thank you very much Madam Chairperson. The only point I make is that I welcome the interjections because they are nothing more than embarrassed people trying to scream their way out of their misery. The point I am making is in direct response to the views put to the Committee by National’s own defence spokesperson whom the senior Opposition whip is trying to bail out. He cannot argue that this part of the bill is a convergence between Labour and National. It is National that has abandoned its own previous statements—all the various forms of them—to adopt Labour’s position on these defence issues. That is fair enough those members can do that but the member should not then try to argue that somehow Labour is moving its position.As to whether the New Zealand Air Force should have a strike capacity Dr Mapp argued very strongly for that and it was National’s policy at one point. National said that Labour was really letting down the country by not having a strike capability in the air force but that is now National’s policy as well. That is welcomed by Labour but it is hardly a convergence caused by Labour’s shifting.The debate has been an opportunity to put some of those differences directly on the record to make sure that members are aware of them. As members have said the bill has been worked on well by the select committee—[Interruption] David Bennett pipes away the entire time. I wonder what he knows at all about these kinds of issues particularly with reference to his own party. He is now being silenced by his own side. [Interruption] Mrs Goudie is piping up as well. It is good to have a little bit of silence because every time those members interject they show the folly of their own policy position on these matters. That is absolutely correct. I see that David Bennett is again being told off for the fact that he cannot control himself in the Chamber. Nationalmembers do not have any discipline whether it comes to sitting in the Chamber or to coming up with decent consistent defence policy. Maybe a stint in the army or any of our armed forces would do some of them good in terms of getting some discipline.Labour supports the title and commencement of this bill. It has been a thorough debate and a good debate. I think that the work that has gone on to bring the bill to this point will be welcomed by all those whom it has a direct effect on. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Billpursuant toSupplementaryOrder Paper151.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.