Goff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12165] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is the product of 4 years of policy development undertaken in consultation by the New Zealand Defence Force. It amends the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990 to deliver an enhanced military justice system for the New Zealand armed forces. In doing so it will take into account developments in domestic and international human rights laws including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It will ensure that the military justice system does indeed fulfil the seven vital elements of the military justice system that I referred to when the bill was read for a first time. Those elements are the maintenance of discipline consistency in all strategic environments portability expedition fairness efficiency and simplicity. 
 The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in March of this year. The report of the committee and the useful amendments that it has recommended to the House demonstrate the value of the select committee process. I commend the committee for what has clearly been a thoughtful examination of this bill. The committee received four submissions from interested groups and individuals including the New Zealand Law Society the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Advocate General. I also received some useful suggestions from the Legislation Advisory Committee which were referred to the select committee and which in large measure are now reflected in the bill. 
The bill as read a first time inserted a new Part 6A into the Armed Forces Discipline Act establishing the Court Martial of New Zealand as a permanent court of record. Because of the limited availability of new section numbers in that part of the Act the bill inserted a large number of alphanumeric section numbers including a new section 144ZZI. The committee has recommended that in order to make the bill more user-friendly to members of the armed forces who are not legally qualified those provisions should be moved into new Parts 4 to 6 of the bill with a view to those parts being divided in the Committee of the whole House stage to form a separate bill which will be the Court Martial Bill. That seems to be a sensible proposal and the Government supports it. 
The bill repeals current provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act that permit commanders to overturn or interfere with the decisions of the Court Martial of New Zealand including the abolition of the board of review. Such powers will now become the exclusive province of the appellate courts such as the Court Martial Appeal Court. This is necessary to ensure that our system of military justice complies with internationally recognised standards of independence and impartiality which are reflected in section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
One of the issues raised by the Judge Advocate General and considered by the committee is how the valid and useful contributions that senior members of the defence force can make and have made to the maintenance of service discipline could be retained in the new legal environment. There is value in having senior commanders consider the broader issues that often arise in the context of trials by court martial to determine whether there are measures that might be adopted to prevent the reoccurrence of problems or to improve the conditions and standards of discipline in the armed forces. 
To address that issue the committee has recommended the establishment of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee which will be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and will include his senior commanders the Judge Advocate General the director of military prosecutions and a representative of the military defence counsel. The Armed Forces Discipline Committee will consider reports on command issues from the senior military member at each trial of the Court Martial of New Zealand. It will also produce sentencing guidelines for the Court Martial of New Zealand fulfilling a similar role to that of the Sentencing Council which was provided for by an Act of Parliament passed in July this year. The Government supports this development. 
Another issue that the Judge Advocate General suggested the committee should address was how concerns about the outcomes of summary trials might be communicated to the Judge Advocate General so that he or she can if necessary refer those cases to the new Summary Appeal Court. The committee has responded to that issue by recommending that the bill provides that any person whether a service member his or her defending officer or even a concerned parent may refer such matters to the Judge Advocate General. That will be a significant additional safeguard and the Government also agrees with that. 
The select committee has recommended that all judges of the Court Martial of New Zealand have security of tenure equal to that of the Chief Judge and in fact of a High Court judge. The Government accepts that that provides a better fit with New Zealand’s constitutional framework and supports that recommendation. 
The committee has done some work on clarifying the status of the director of military prosecutions who will be in much the same position as a Crown solicitor in his relationship with the Solicitor-General. 
The committee has also recommended that the role of the national preventive mechanism for service penal establishments under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 be transferred from visiting officers appointed by the Chief of Defence Force to the registrar of the Court Martial of New Zealand in a new role as inspector of service penal establishments. The Government agrees that that will enhance the independence of the authority responsible for ensuring that there is no potential for torture or ill-treatment to occur or go undetected in New Zealand’s service penal establishments. 
I note that the select committee has commended the work of the legal staff of the New Zealand Defence Force in the initiation and the conduct of the military justice review and the modernisation of the law. I have huge respect for people in the legal staff of the New Zealand Defence Force and I endorse the committee’s comments in this respect. 
I also take this opportunity to thank the retiring Judge Advocate General Mr Peter Trapski for the excellent work that he has done as Judge Advocate General for the past 12 years. Peter Trapski’s connection with the military justice community stretches back over 50 years to the time when he was a legal staff officer with the New Zealand forces in Malaya. We are fortunate indeed in New Zealand to have people with a depth of wisdom and knowledge in the law as well as a familiarity with the armed services. 
As a result of this bill Parliament will ensure that New Zealand continues to have a highly disciplined and world-class defence force. 
Before concluding I mention—perhaps unusually—that today I had the sad responsibility together with Dr Wayne Mapp to attend the funeral of Byron James Solomon a young sailor with the Royal New Zealand Navy. Byron Solomon was tragically killed last Friday in an accident whilst he was serving on board the  
Canterbury 
. I record on behalf of this House our sorrow at the tragic cutting short of the life of this young man who had so much to offer. I know Wayne Mapp will agree with me that the service today was a huge tribute not just to Byron and his family but also to the family that the navy is for those of our service personnel men and women who serve in that service. Byron was a young man with a long tradition of family involvement in the military including a grandfather who served in the 28th Maori Battalion in World War II and a great-grandfather who served at Passchendaele the anniversary of which we commemorate on 12 October. I take this opportunity on behalf of the House to pass on our deepest condolences to Byron’s partner and to his mum dad sisters and brother and indeed to all of his crew mates who were part of his family on board the HMNZS  
Canterbury 
.