Mark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8068] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I found it very interesting to listen to Dr Worth who actually made me reflect somewhat on what I was going to say. I will follow on from the interesting summation he has given because it really highlights to me what is different about the military and what is different about ordinary people.  
Some of Dr Worth’s recounting of the courts martial and of the procedures that used to exist reminds me even more broadly of the customs of the service and the expectations placed on military people that stand far and above the expectations placed on ordinary citizens of this nation. These expectations are put upon military people for very good reasons. There is an honour code and there are expectations such as what one will or will not do. There are consequences from bringing the military into disrepute through conduct to the prejudice of good military order and discipline and there are ranges of charges that can be brought against someone under that simple charge. In my day those charges came under section 61 and most young men and women who were undergoing recruitment training fell victim to that at some stage for misdemeanours such as dirty boots twisted boot laces not shaving scruffy hair—all of which was considered to be conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.  
To those who were subjected to the first few torrid weeks of the military world it could be quite daunting to find themselves being marched up at 110 paces to the minute to be stood rigidly to attention in front of the officer in charge of a company with their headdress removed to have the charges read out and to be given a few split seconds or minutes to attempt to justify or refute the charges which might be brought against them as a private by a lance corporal—who himself might look as if he has barely learnt to shave. It could be daunting for a private to be given a punishment and summarily marched straight out of the door to be put to work to complete one’s sentence—after-hours generally in one’s own time. In those times and in those days there was not so much as a snowball’s chance in hell of redressing what one thought to be a wrong. A few of us on the odd occasion took it upon ourselves as junior recruits to challenge the orderly room procedures and we were astonished to find that our punishments had doubled as a consequence. So one learnt pretty quickly to shut one’s mouth take one’s punishment get on with it and demonstrate that one was a man and would accept the consequences of one’s own transgressions.  
The customs of the service which are embodied in military discipline and the processes that underpin the Armed Forces Discipline Act are important. There have been differences between the army and the navy for some very good reasons. Some of it is customary. Some of it is outdated now such as the custom that the navy has of not drawing its sword of carrying its sword “at the trail”—that is the correct term. In days gone by under Queen Victoria I think it was— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: King Charles. 
RON MARK 
: King Charles. The navy lost the privilege of its officers drawing their swords in the presence of the monarch because they had mutinied. That was the punishment meted out to them.  
Traditionally the artillery had to suffer the similar indignity of seeing the transport corps being accorded the right to wear artillery officers’ uniforms and to carry artillery officers’ swords. Why was that? It was because at a certain battle—I think in the Crimea—a withdrawing transport unit came upon a battery of guns. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Abandoned no less. 
RON MARK 
: They were abandoned as Dr Mapp has just pointed out. They were abandoned and that is an ultimate sin because the guns are the colours. For one to abandon one’s colours is an ultimate sin and the punishment that was meted out to the artillery was for them to see one of their privileges and rights accorded to the corps that actually recovered those guns and brought them back in safely so they could be used again. An act of dishonour resulted in an act of honour being attributed to another unit and that still carries to this very day. Historically the differences between the army and the navy have been there for some very sound reasons. But society and the military have moved on and some of the things that were applicable then in terms of the Armed Forces Discipline Act are no longer applicable today.  
Dr Worth mentioned the fact that he believes the reason we now have so many lawyers in the military and deployed on operations is because this Government has us involved in only peacekeeping operations not war. Well the fact is these days New Zealand rarely deploys purely for the purpose of making war—in fact we do not. Internationally most of our friends and allies are involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations and that is a far more complex environment to be working in. The international consequences of a private soldier getting it wrong are considerably greater than they ever were in the First World War the Crimean War the Boer War or the Second World War. These amendments take note and give cognisance to those realities.  
I will not go back through and reiterate everything that the previous speakers Dr Mapp Dr Worth the Minister Phil Goff and Dianne Yates have gone through but there are some things that are worthy of note. It is worthy of noting that the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 came into force in 1983. I joined the army in 1971 and was subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act at that stage. It seems a long time ago that I was standing to attention in front of my company commander being confined to barracks for misdemeanours. Some years later in 1978 as an officer I was instructed as part of my training in the running of orderly rooms and the powers that subordinate commanders have.  
Some time later I had the opportunity to cross swords with an officer commanding which resulted in my being fronted up as a junior officer—second in command of a unit—on a charge. It occurred to me then that there was no way in heck I was going to take the punishment of the commanding officer so I opted for a court martial. I did so because I knew straight away that it was by means of a court martial that one could get a fairer hearing and that natural justice would be more likely to be played out and as a result—just for the curiosity of members—they promptly changed their minds and ordered a court of inquiry which gave me the opportunity to cross-examine my accuser. All charges were dismissed. It did not do the accuser’s career much good beyond that because he was the one who ended up with a reprimand.  
What is pleasing about this bill is that the laws of natural justice and the Human Rights Act are written into this with a far higher degree of compliance than has ever been the case before—and section 24 and section 25A reflect that. The “Seven Samurai”—as often referred to by the military legal fraternity—and the focus on the maintenance of discipline are absolutely essential and they are retained. The consistency in all strategic environments given the fact that our troops are deployed to places like East Timor Afghanistan Bosnia Iraq and Bougainville is absolutely essential. Portability is important because our troops serve everywhere. Expeditiousness so that justice can be swift is important—and I only wish that was the case with the police force and the way in which it deals with its people.  
Fairness efficiency and simplicity—I could talk about some of the things I observed in the way in which military justice was meted out in my 20 years in the military. Some of it I find still sticks in my throat to this very day. But I know there will be plenty of time for an opportunity to discuss those issues as this bill makes its way through the select committee and it comes back for the second reading. I hope that some of the things I witnessed in my time as a junior officer will never ever be able to be played out again because this bill will clearly take care of what I consider to be anomalies that are well past their use-by date.