Mapp Wayne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12167] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I think in light of the Minister Phil Goff’s comments that it would be appropriate that I also record the debt that the nation owes to all of our serving people. I have heard service in the armed forces described by some people as a job. In fact I heard that very recently from someone who should know better. But of course service in the armed forces of one’s nation whether in peacetime or at times of armed conflict is inherently risky and everyone who goes into the armed forces knows that. Those in the armed forces train diligently and rigorously to avoid accidents as much as they possibly can. 
 Most of what defence people are doing is training for operational service so it is a deeply wounding tragedy not just to the family but to the whole Defence Force and the Navy when such an accident happens. Byron Solomon had joined the Navy just 4 years ago and was very obviously from today’s funeral service highly regarded by his colleagues. It was more than just the Navy pulling together; it was his shipmates bonding in unity with the family with what will now be the memory they will have of Byron Solomon and reflecting on their future. It was a very moving service. It was certainly poignant as indeed it was a very moving address to note that his great-grandfather had served with the New Zealand Army and had been wounded at Passchendaele; his grandfather had been in the 28th Maori Battalion; and indeed his uncle is a senior warrant officer in the New Zealand Navy. So this is a family that can look back with pride at service across the generations and of course will remember with pride their now lost son brother and partner. 
The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill is one of those opportunities that the Parliament has to consider carefully the law and practices that apply to the armed forces and we get such an opportunity probably only once in every 30 or so years. This legislation was initiated by the New Zealand Defence Force and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee specifically commends the legal staff—and we noted this in our report quite particularly—for their competence and professionalism. Had the director of legal services for the armed forces Brigadier Riordan and his team and particularly the naval commander not taken the initiative we would not be dealing with this legislation today. What they are doing is a service to the quality of rights and freedoms that every New Zealander has irrespective of the occupation he or she performs. We owe it as a House to ensure that when people don the uniform of this country they do not surrender their rights and privileges as citizens. We have to ensure that the armed forces law which operates in obviously unusual circumstances reflects those rights and privileges. One of those is to know that one will receive justice in the military chain of command. 
This bill is very much about that; it is essentially a modernisation to bring New Zealand law into line particularly with those of Commonwealth partners Canada the United Kingdom and Australia. So we now have a much more robust court martial system. I want to make clear that traditionally court martials have had the advice of the judge. The judge has not actually been the presiding officer; the presiding officer is normally a senior officer not trained in law but obviously trained in command. This bill changes the court martial into a proper court so that the judge will be the presiding officer and the members of the board will be acting much more like a jury. So it will feel and look for the future much more like an ordinary court. 
We see that as a major advance because in that way there is virtually no risk that one’s rights and privileges would be trampled upon perhaps for the cause of the service at large. An individual’s rights should always stand above those. That is an important change and one that the committee commended. 
The committee however was particularly concerned about the role of the summary proceedings where so many issues are dealt with and where to be honest people are sometimes encouraged to plead guilty to sort of “Get it over and done with; it will go easier for you.” and so forth. I can understand the pressures for that. It is all done as part and parcel of binding the unity of the team together and a difficult legal process may disrupt that. There are enormous pressures around that process to keep things tight to have a person who may have transgressed so to speak kept within the family by perhaps doing something that is against his or her interests but might nevertheless be seen as appropriate for the unity of the organisation as a whole. Some of us have seen that happen in practice admittedly in a very small way—things like an unauthorised discharge or something of that nature. 
Therefore the committee decided there had to be some supervisory role and the armed forces sentencing committee is really intended to perform that particular role. It provides guidelines and we did see some value in essentially importing the modus and practices of the new Sentencing Council into the armed forces. We saw that as a desirable outcome; it would encourage justice being done in all cases. 
We were also particularly concerned that in summary proceedings people receive the right to legal advice. We have sought and indeed strengthened that part of the legislation. We considered seriously and it is noted in the report of the committee whether that should be so in every single case but we decided that in some instances—for instance a ship at sea during a warlike situation—that may not always be possible. But by and large we expect the person charged to have that right of independent advice; to have that sense that his or her rights will be protected. 
I want to touch on perhaps one final point and that is the role of media freedom. This is obviously another issue that we were concerned should be properly protected. The worst thing that can happen is that justice held in secret is actually no justice at all. Justice to be trusted must be open. So we were concerned that the media have the proper access and we have I think struck a proper balance between protecting the security of the nation and providing for open processes of justice. We feel we have modified the bill as presented in a proper way. 
The Minister spent a bit of time going on about letters of sections and so forth and it is true we were concerned that the legislation be understandable to people who are not legally trained. One of the things I think is a good thing in the Supplementary Order Papers which we will be debating no doubt in the Committee stage is that the bill has been broken up into four separate bills. It is very important that the legislation be readily accessible to those people who have to administer it and that it be structured in an obvious and coherent manner. 
In conclusion the select committee took its task very seriously in this instance. We asked a lot of questions of the legal advisers probably more than they were expecting I suspect but we understood that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right. I commend the director of legal services for the Defence Force and his staff for working extremely hard and well with the select committee to strengthen what was already a very good bill—and I want to make that clear. It strengthened the bill and I think we will come out with excellent legislation that the armed forces can rely on with confidence for the next generation.