Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. As someone who's served in both the New Zealand Army and the British forces when the book by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson was released in 2017 I was sitting over there and I went down to the bookshop as soon as I heard about this book and actually bought it and read it in the course of the same day. At the time when I read it the one thing that struck me was when you looked at the bibliography in the book there seemed to be only three sources for the entire book and the claims made by Hager and Stephenson in that book. My personal feeling at that time back in 2017 was how maligned the New Zealand Defence Force had been in that book that obviously led to the inquiry. I think in times of this it's very important that facts are part of the conversation—and not allegations. I just want to pick up on an earlier point one of the Labour members said: I think it's shameful to compare this action—Operation Burnham—to what has been taking place in Australia. I'm very disappointed to hear a Labour member—and also a former member of the NZDF—talking in that way because there is a gulf between what has happened there and what happened in Operation Burnham. I just think we need to reflect that war involves both offensive actions and defensive actions and war is often ugly it's usually confusing and it's a horrible display of mankind but it is what it is. Politicians and politics mean that the military is an arm of politics unfortunately. But the people who go out on behalf of our country—the men and women who do this on behalf of our country—deserve our support. I have spoken to the combatants who were engaged in this operation I've spoken to them directly and one of the things I was surprised and pleased to hear from them was the level of restraint shown by our New Zealand soldiers during that battle. I was very very heartened to hear that. I think the important thing is it's when people go into battle there are always terms of engagements; there were very formal very clear terms of engagement issued to all the soldiers involved in Operation Burnham and from what I could see or understand I thought they showed incredible restraint in that action. What I'm concerned about is the issue of inability to know and to determine and to make quick decisions in the field. When you realise that actions are often lead by rather junior officers such as lieutenants or senior NCOs such as sergeants. These are people who've got to make split decisions in the time of a great deal of confusion and danger. I think what this bill will do is put an element of uncertainty in the minds of those commanders. I'm very concerned that our men and women who serve New Zealand proudly are going to be in a situation where they may delay they may be unsure of what to do and I would say to you that in conflict delay is deadly. Delay is deadly in conflict. I am very concerned about what this is because this bill proposes to embed in the process an independent inspectorate. If it was one that could be called upon when required I can understand that arrangement but I think it's unnecessary and it will lead to long term degradation and it also raises the issue of what is the remit of the inspector-general. Just heard the member from Greens talk about approving battle plans—is the inspector-general going to be involved in determining rules of engagement?—Hon Member: No no!ANDREW BAYLY: Whatever—what weapons should be used; what personnel? I think that level of uncertainty is very worrying and I hope everyone understands that National will support our servicemen in New Zealand because they do a fine job on behalf of our country.