Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill and also to recognise the great work that our armed forces have undertaken in the past many years. It's somewhat overdue I must say to bring our armed forces' discipline in line with that that they would find within the civilian criminal courts. As the honourable and gallant member Mark's noted it's really important that members of the armed forces are accorded the same rights of criminal procedure as anyone else and for far too long there's been a sense that criminal procedure in the armed forces can be hard and fast and not adhere to due process. So this is a welcome reform a reform that accords appropriate rights.Probably the most important reform in my view is the repeal of section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act a quite extraordinary section a section that provides that where an accused military member is charged with an offence against the Act and relies on some defence or excuse exemption or qualification in the provision of the offence—that is to say an affirmative defence—then the onus of proof under that section lies with the accused person. Now that is a truly extraordinary section. It reverses the usual onus the usual burden and it requires an accused person to in fact prove their defence. That is repugnant to our rights and it's been well noted that that kind of onus is not consistent—indeed it's not consistent with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 25(c) of that Act makes it very clear that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right of every New Zealander and it is very overdue that we now accord that right to military personnel who are accused of wrongdoing.Indeed in a recent case or relatively recent—2007—of our own Supreme Court the importance of that onus was examined. That's the case of R v Hansen a case concerning cannabis possession and the presumption of dealing. The Supreme Court there made it very clear that indeed even in a case of that nature the onus lies on the prosecution to discharge the burden even in cases like that where the defence was one of whether or not it was a quantity for supply. One would've thought that 1.5 kilograms was for supply but the fact of the matter is the prosecution had the onus of proving that.This is a thread that has run through all of our law and not only our law but the English law and the law of the United States. You know even tribunals—military tribunals and civilian tribunals—make errors and we need to make sure that the scales are tipped very clearly in favour of the accused so that margin of error doesn't fall foul. Indeed even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that in its article 14(2). Of course that's not to say that the accused only has to raise the possibility of one of these affirmative defences. It still will be necessary for them to produce evidence or for there to exist evidence of self-defence of insanity or any other of the number of affirmative defences that exist. So it's a real pleasure for me to recommend this bill to the House which will effect that reform.Of course the other thing that this bill does which is really important is it brings to military tribunals the approach of civilian tribunals in respect of victims because when there is a victim in a military environment they are just as much of a victim as in any other situation and in fact arguably their situation is even more trying.So it is very good indeed to see the recognition of victims' rights the placing of the victim very squarely at the centre of the procedure because clearly the victim has a very significant interest in being a part of that procedure. We know that perhaps in some instances quite sadly there's a real interest in knowing when prisoners or offenders or the accused are released on bail so new section 198J in clause 19—the fact that when someone is released on bail is very very important.Hon Paul Goldsmith: He's been here for a month and he's already filibustering.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Goldsmith you of all people should know how important it is that the victims of crimes are aware of what's going on in their community. Look it happens even in your community Mr Goldsmith. No matter—yours and mine both. It's quite right; it's quite right—Hon Member: He lives in Remuera.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I know that. And what's more the views of the victim are to be taken into account when bail is applied for and that's really important too. As the member Mark noted the fact of the matter is that victims of crime have legitimate views and voices to be heard in the process and it's quite right that a military tribunal should take into account the views of a victim as to when—but more appropriately how—people are released on bail. Certainly in terms of their ability to contact the victim or be in the vicinity of the victim all of those kinds of things—we want to make communities feel safe. That is an important part of it.Of course the other really important part of the recognition of the rights of victims is the appointment of an officer to liaise with the victim: that important nexus between the judicial process and the victim. Obviously victims are not—and did not anticipate becoming—familiar with the judicial and criminal processes. So the officer is someone to be alongside them to assist them in understanding the process to make sure that they can have a voice in that process; and the importance of that voice is really a fantastic innovation in a military tribunal. Of course in those unfortunate events where there is an escape or when an offender is not complying with conditions of release or is in breach of bail conditions the victim also has a right to know those matters. So it's really important that the victim is engaged at every level.The other factor in here which is of importance as well is when we have people who might be liable for deportation. We know that not all of our military personnel are necessarily citizens and if convicted of an offence they are liable for deportation. It's quite right that if that right is not exercised then the victim has a right to know. It's quite appropriate that they know whether that person still remains in the community.Having said that this is a bill that came from the other side of the House but it's clearly one that is timely. It's one that does bring—and there is absolutely no substantial reason particularly in times of peace that there should be a two-tier system that military personnel should have less rights that victims of military personnel offending should have less rights. It's absolutely appropriate and admirable that we have a single system of criminal justice that recognises both the rights of the offender to due process so that the accused does get a fair trial that the wrongly accused are appropriately discharged and also the rights of victims.Possibly we've had an approach historically that says too much goes in the military—that a bit of rough and tumble is OK. Well it's not. It's quite appropriate we recognise crime where it exists whether it be civilian or whether it be military. So this bill is exactly what we need. I commend it to the House and I look forward to the select committee. I am sure that process will improve it. I hope that there are substantial submissions on it both from the New Zealand Law Society and the likes of the civilian sector but also from the military because I think that's where we'll get the most useful and informative submissions. So Madam Deputy Speaker I commend this bill to the House.