Groser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGroser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM GROSER (National): Madam Chair I am mindful of your directive that we must at least at some point in our speeches come back to Part 1—The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think everybody has had a fair go.TIM GROSER: —but I cannot entirely miss the Minister’s rather simplistic characterisation of my earlier political views.Hon Phil Goff: I think you should give us 10 minutes on that Tim.TIM GROSER: I might just take the member up on that. I just want to say that I am disappointed that the member did not go back to when I was 6 when for reasons both of principle and self-interest I used to believe in Father Christmas. I understand that the Minister could not possibly have grasped the complexity of student politics at Victoria University in 1969 which would by contrast make the internal politics of the Princes Street branch of the Labour Party at the same time look like a lightweight bunch of teenage socialites. We could perhaps discuss the complexities of that period on another occasion.I want to take up one point where there has been some debate between Mr Goff and Dr Mapp in relation to the strike force. I think the position here is pretty obvious is it not? There was room for a debate—where I might have stood is another matter—on whether we should have abandoned the strike force at the time the decision was taken. There was a range of arguments either way but I think the position that the National Party sketched out in its recent external strategy paper is based on one simple reality which is that it is impossible in any meaningful sense either technologically in terms of reassembling the human skills or in terms of the capital cost to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. It is utterly unrealistic to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. That is the basic reality.However as those who have read the paper with a little more care will have appreciated we still think there are some residual issues that need to be addressed and the recent debate over the future role of the Aermacchis I think is a case in point. There are some issues about the training of our troops in relation to the lack of a strike force that I think do deserve some serious consideration. That I think is the context of the change in position of the National Party. I think it is explained by simple realities. There was a case to debate at the time. Frankly to try to put Humpty-Dumpty together again now is just not a realistic position. National has accepted that and it has made its position very clear in this paper.In terms of the other theme of the discussion tonight by various speakers in relation to the role of discipline I just want to reinforce my own view about the absolute importance of maintaining discipline in this much more sophisticated role that the men and women in our armed services are increasingly playing in theatres of the world. They are exercising what I and others have called almost a quasi-political role. They are operating at the margin of politics one might say in societies that could not quite be described as failed States—although Afghanistan at a certain point certainly deserved that title—but where as in the South Pacific fundamental governance structures have broken down. Australian and New Zealand troops are working together in a very productive way and are playing one might say not just a stabilisation role in terms of law and order but a quasi-political role in that sense.I think our soldiers do a magnificent job. The National Party explicitly recognises that the multicultural nature of our army in particular is a huge asset. I was over in Sydney a few months ago speaking with some senior Australian foreign policy people who were absolutely explicit in their acknowledgment of the added positive dimension that the New Zealand defence forces play in these as I say quasi-political roles because of the multicultural character of our army in particular. Quite clearly maintaining discipline in this situation is a role that is not purely internal to the discipline processes of our armed forces but is crucial in maintaining the confidence of the local peoples in this situation. We know that there have been some appalling lapses—fortunately not involving our people—on this issue in other areas of the world which have raisedquestion marks about the whole suitability of having peacekeepers in certain roles. So we are asking a lot of our young men and women and our perhaps rather more mature commanding officers in very very murky situations sometimes and I think that military discipline is absolutely central to that. I hope our armed services will see this bill which brings up to date the internal procedures as fair and as reinforcing them in the right way.I have just a couple of minor points. I return to the theme of trying wherever possible to use civil procedures. I referred earlier to the provisions on time limitation for offences which principally model the philosophy of the civil process whereby one cannot be charged twice for the same offence. There is some very complicated drafting there about how to define the same offence given that in the course of proceedings additional charges may be laid. Some quite sophisticated thinking was done by the legal services of the New Zealand defence forces which I hope and trust will serve the test of time. Again on this theme there are provisions to deal with situations where personal interests have come in. That I think is in section 108 inserted by clause 37. There are some very careful words to recognise the difficulties that could arise. Members of the family may be involved. In a small community such as ours that may indeed be the case particularly where individual families have a proud and long tradition of service. There is a whole series of other consequential changes in Part 1 which are very much consistent with that philosophy.