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:12241. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM GROSER (National): I rise to make a few points on Part 1 but before doing so like other speakers I recall the rather bigger picture involved here. Although the New Zealand public is hardly likely to be enthralled at this debate or even aware generally that it is taking place I think we are all very conscious of the fact that military discipline can become intensely controversial. As the previous speaker Harry Duynhoven has pointed out when it is perceived by the public that a major miscarriage of justice has taken place the public anguish can last 100 years.Once again I want to pay tribute to the professional staff of the New Zealand Defence Force who have been fantastic advisers to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Although this has been a deeply technical exercise of great complexity and sophistication I think the members of the select committee were very conscious that rooted behind this complexity is very clear evidence of deep-seated public concern that military justice must be seen to be done in a scrupulously fair manner or otherwise watch out! We spent a lot of time trying to get this bill right. We tried to bring it up to date with changes in society—not just in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in respect of broader societal changes in our community. I think with the aid of our advisers we have done I hope a job that will serve this country for at least the next 20 years when no doubt another generation of people will need to take a look at the same issues and reinterpret them in the light of changes.There is a very strong theme here and it is fairness. Fairness as we all know is hard-wired into the New Zealand DNA. Fairness has been the key hallmark of the examination of the amendments to the 1971 Act as this legislation has proceeded through the stages of the select committee process. I would like in a fairly mechanical sense to go through a couple of those issues to make that point. First of all with respect to giving greater clarity around the old issue of the commanding officer I think we have a much clearer definition here both in respect of summary proceedings and courts martial. It is quite clear that we are not going to tolerate a situation where people of the same rank or near rank will investigate each other’s misdemeanours. We know enough about human nature to know how dangerous that would be. The amendments to section 2(1) inserted by clause 4(11) particularly with respect to the superior commander and the issue of delegated authority to commanders down the rank should give the men and women in the armed forces a fair degree of assurance that fairness will be part of that process.There is also another theme I think that has underlain a lot of the work that has been done on this bill. We understand that there have to be special procedures in place to deal with the very challenging and specific characteristics of serving literally under fire at times and dealing with discipline that has a different order of importance from that in any other realm of life professional or personal in our country or in any country for that matter. Notwithstanding that qualification we have tried to ensure that we follow wherever possible civil procedures. For example I turn to the issue of time limits which is a very important issue in domestic law. Clause 12 deals with the elimination of time within which charges may be dealt with and covers a whole series of amendments to the 1971 Act which I think give greater clarity. In particular the prosecution of a charge that may be tried either summarily or by the more serious avenue of courtmartial has to take place within 3 years after the alleged commission of the offence. It is again a paralleling of a fundamental procedural point in civil law. Another extension of that philosophy or theme would be as in civil procedures that people may not be tried in respect of the same act or omission and there is some quite complicated drafting reinforcing that point.