Mark Ron: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8929] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and to signify that we will again be supporting this bill through its third reading. 
I will just mention a couple of facts that are interesting. I want to put on the parliamentary record some statistics I have that show that the contribution made to the defence of New Zealand by the women of New Zealand is quite substantial. Some people have reflected that it is not high enough but servicewomen comprise some 16.7 percent of the regular forces as a whole. It is interesting to note that almost 23 percent of the Navy’s strength is women that women make up almost 14 percent of the Army and that almost 17 percent of the Air Force’s strength is servicewomen. I know from the recent visit to Afghanistan by the Minister of Defence on which I accompanied him that something like 22 women are deployed in the Bamian province in a number of roles there ranging from medical to combat appointments. It is interesting to note that as far back as I think early 2007 something like 82 servicewomen were deployed on land-based operations around the world and 84 servicewomen were deployed on Her Majesty’s New Zealand ships. I guess that says that since about the year 2000 in particular when the Defence Force moved away from adhering to the policy prescribed in law and actually started deploying women in combat roles the numbers of women have steadily grown. 
I shall refer to my own experience in the military. I became an officer cadet in 1978 having joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1971. In my intake of officer cadets at Waiouru there were five women. I think only two graduated and one was discharged for medical reasons. The intake before mine—what was know then as an officer cadet training unit—had five women as well. One of them has only recently retired and that was Lieutenant Colonel Clare Bennett. I subsequently met her many years later when I was visiting the Solomon Islands as a member of Parliament. She was over there leading a recruiting team trying to get more people to join our Defence Force. I understand that she had a very good long and enjoyable military career. 
It is interesting to note that back in 1971 we had the Women’s Royal Army Corps. All women who joined the Army went into the Women’s Royal Army Corps. It was a separate corps women from which were trained in various trades skills and professions. They were commanded separately but were assigned and attached to units. 
That corps was disbanded sometime in I think the 1980s. That move was made to integrate women fully and completely into all corps and trades removing any barriers of sexual discrimination. The move was challenged debated and argued and many people disagreed with it. They did not think men were good commanders of women; they thought the best commanders of women were women. It was argued that women could not pull the wool over women’s eyes but they could definitely pull the wool over men’s eyes and did so on frequent occasions. I guess regardless of the argument the decision was made and it subsequently over time has proven to be a good decision and now we are where we are today removing the final barrier for women which is the barrier to their active engagement active employment in combat roles. 
It is interesting that traditionally when we have talked about combat roles we have talked about the teeth arms corps. If I might refer to the army again the teeth arms corps were the armoured corps infantry artillery and the corps of engineers. That is an interesting one because people hardly reflect upon the corps of engineers as being a combat corps. My partner was a territorial force officer in the corps of engineers which is quite curious because I was in the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers which made me a non-combatant. If I look at it that way she was a combatant and I was not. Was that discriminatory? I do not know. No it was just choice. There was nothing to stop me moving as I did into other areas and serving time in combat corps. 
It is interesting listening to the debate and hearing some women stand up and lament that there are not enough women in the armed forces. I say to those women who have said that that Heather Roy has joined the armed forces and I am looking right now at Jackie Blue who served in the armed forces. I say to Lynne Pillay: “Join up right now.” The recruiting doors are open and the armed forces would be keen to have her in the service like Heather Roy. They would be keen to put Lynne Pillay through recruit training and they would be keen to see her serve her country in a combat role. If there is one way for that MP in this House to do something about what she considers to be the flagging numbers the insufficient numbers of women in the defence forces and in the combat corps it is simply to take a leaf out of Heather Roy’s book and join—it is very simple actually—and lead by example. She does not need to sit here and lament the number of women who are not joining or do not have the opportunity. A member of this House has taken the opportunity available to her and has demonstrated leadership by example; she has done it and there is nothing to stop any women in the Labour caucus from doing the same thing. They should stop talking about it and just do it. 
I also would like to take a little bit of the fluff off the top of this. I notice that the Minister Lianne Dalziel made the comment that it is one thing to bring equality in law and another to bring it in practice—that the two are different things. That is true but in the defence forces might I suggest those barriers have been substantially dealt with. I have to compliment Major General Jerry Mateparae for the very positive and affirmative steps he is taking and the former Chief of Defence Force Bruce Ferguson for the very positive and affirmative steps he took during their tenure in that office. Such moves are not symbolic. They are not simply moves in law. They are indeed reflected in practice. 
It is I guess a matter of choice that we have only one female infantry platoon commander. I say that we should not denigrate the service of women who choose not to take a combat role who choose to be in the medical corps or the transport corps or to work as cooks and chefs. Those support roles are vital to the ability of the combat corps to do their job. It was Montgomery who said that the electrical and mechanical engineers put the punch in the army’s fist—that without them the army did not roll. He knew full well from the battle of the Eighth Army and the desert campaign exactly how important electrical and mechanical engineers were to him. Likewise other generals have said that an army marches on its stomach. We should not denigrate the cooks and the chefs who feed the troops because without them the troops would not be there to fight. 
It is good that we are removing this last vestige of sexual discrimination. It is good that the nation all of us have moved beyond what were chivalrous views and attitudes that are these days described as sexist views and attitudes. It is good that we now open up the full range of career opportunities to all New Zealanders men or women. But we should always remind ourselves of the fact that it is a choice as to whether a man serves in the infantry or in the logistics corps just as it is a choice as to whether a woman serves in the artillery or in the medical corps. That is the way it should always be.