Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I look forward to resuming my contribution on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I might take the liberty effectively of starting over only having had a 15 second run-up initially—15 seconds of fame I understand just to tweak that slightly is accorded to us all but I'm going to be greedy and take just a little more to discuss this piece of legislation.It amends of course the Armed Forces Discipline Act—as those who were watching with great intent and interest no doubt last week will recall—and also the Court Martial Act and the Court Martial Appeals Act. Before proceeding any further I'd like to acknowledge the good women and men of the New Zealand Defence Force. They are of course the Military" in the title—the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill—and I think it's worth noting that the matters contained in this bill and referred to are somewhat exceptional. They're exceptional in that the rule of the operation of the Defence Force and its fine people is of course very much law abiding so these are circumstances in which we are deciding how conduct is to be regulated and determined when things are outside those bounds and an exception occurs. So that's something I just wanted to place on the record lest anyone listening to the debate were to gain an impression that these are more regular matters than in fact they are.I acknowledge both Ministers involved in the passage of this bill by which I mean the present Minister but also his predecessor on our side of the House at the time that we were in Government and this legislation was first contemplated. I acknowledge too the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee those who had been drafting the bill and also those who have submitted on it.There are three things I'd like to touch on briefly in the remainder of my contribution and they relate to the things that I believe this bill does achieve pretty well. The first is that it aligns the second is that it updates and the third is that it strengthens. Taking each of those briefly in turn—the first is "aligns". This bill aligns the military and the civil law at least to some extent. The key aspect of this is that it sets out in a way that is similar—in fact in certain respects identical—to the civilian that is non-military law how we are to regard the burden of proof in a trial. The burden of proof here relates both to the onus and the standard of proof such that whereas currently the Armed Forces Discipline Act provides that the onus is on the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities any excuse etc.—any exculpatory consideration I believe might be the phrase and any Queen's Counsel in the area will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on that. But that onus is different in the sense that it's not for the accused to prove that thing but indeed for the innocent to be presumed guilty so that will change and also the standard of proof will be going towards "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "the balance of probabilities" which is the more normal civil standard to use the word "civil" in a different context. So that's a valuable thing to me it seems in that this bill aligns the military and the civilian justice systems.The second thing that it does is that it "updates". Here I refer to the fact that actually not the bill so much as the report back from the select committee allows an update whereby this bill will be subject to a Supplementary Order Paper to bring it into line with the general legislation that will come before the House the Courts Matters Bill. Just by way of explanation the select committee that was considering this bill did not know what exactly the Courts Matters Bill would look like when that came back to the House and yet the committee desiring that those two things would be aligned contemplated that a Supplementary Order Paper might go in and ensure that once the Courts Matters Bill has progressed through that this one could be amended effectively to ensure that it is along similar lines. So that's the background for that one and that particular change that I've referred to will go to the question of a mentally impaired person as defined in other legislation—whether they are fit to stand trial that being the first thing to determine and then to see whether they've in fact committed the offence as opposed to the other way around which is presently the case.The third and final thing is that this bill "strengthens". I refer to victims' rights which are strengthened in the case of the information that's to be provided to them on their request. That's set out in new section 155A inserted into the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 by clause 10 a new provision that will be included in this bill; certainly at this stage the legislation is looking like that will be so. That's something that we as a party support—indeed we supported it each of our members on the select committee.I'll finish by saying that the process of getting to this stage has been collegial and constructive—no doubt that will continue—and so it's with no hesitation that I commend this bill to the House to proceed to the next stage."