Mitchell Mark; Little AndrewHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. I wasn't intending on taking a call on this bill and wasn't actually meant to be taking a call but first I just want to acknowledge the members in the House that have served in our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). I have never done that but I was very proud to have been a defence Minister and reviewed all the information in relation to Operation Burnham and was struck by the incredible professional and brave behaviour of all of our NZDF personnel in Afghanistan and the amazing restraint that they showed. I find it extraordinary that we're in this House and the Minister has alluded to it several times tonight the incredible world-class standard and professionalism of our forces and yet we're still talking about putting an inspector-general in place as a result of obviously the recommendation that came out of Burnham which completely vindicated cleared and confirmed for all of us just the quality of the New Zealand Defence Force that we have. My real concern is this: if we do have our staff deployed overseas if we do have them in Afghanistan doing a job that most of us don't want to do putting them in harm's way often trying to advance the democratic values that we hold as a country can the Minister stand and assure me that an inspector-general or his or her office however big that may be is not going to be in a position where they're going to inject themselves into an operation where they're going to put troops on the ground in a situation where all of a sudden there is an outside entity that arrives and starts to scrutinise and look at what they're doing? The reality of it is they have to be wholly focused on what they're doing. There's a chain of command and any outside interference could put them in danger and anyone else that they're protecting or having to focus on bearing in mind that a big part of our SAS deployment there and our provincial reconstruction team deployment was acting as security for Afghan security forces.So I guess what I'm asking the Minister do is give this House an assurance that there is no chance—and there's too much vagueness in my view in terms of the response that the Minister's giving in the House at the moment around what the parameters are what the rules of engagement are for an inspector-general in terms of how they're going to have oversight how far they can inject themselves into ongoing New Zealand Defence Force operations. This is critically important that they are not compromised or put in a position where all of a sudden like I said if they're on the front lines and they're operating in a war zone all of a sudden having an inspector-general's office roll into town and start to scrutinise operating procedures the way they're operating and what they're doing.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): As I have already said now at least a couple of times the front-line defence force personnel are already subject to a range of rules policies guidelines protocols and their own training. That is what makes them disciplined combat personnel. So they're already subject to that. It's very clear in clause 8 of the bill in the description of the functions of the inspector-general. There are two principal functions. One is an investigation function and it's very clear in the drafting of the bill that it is post any event that might be the subject of an investigation. So the inspector-general will not be marching into a combat zone with a clipboard checking that anybody is complying—Hon Mark Mitchell: Define an event". Is it a single event or is it a deployment?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —with rules protocols policies. The member asked whether it's a single event. The legislation refers to incidents that have occurred in the course of the activities of the defence force and also then goes on to say "acts or omissions … in relation to those incidents". That's the investigation function. Then there's the assessment function which is more about the policies procedures and you might say the governing level of NZDF what happens at the officer level. I go back to what I've also said before too which is about the origins of this. If you look at the conclusions of the Operation Burnham inquiry the negative conclusions if I could describe them this way focused on the failure of the defence force hierarchy to keep proper information and provide proper information and advice to the Minister and others responsible for civilian oversight. So it is about making sure that that remains intact and conducted in a proper way. The Inspector-General of Defence does not and will not interfere in the work of front-line personnel when they are carrying out that work but when things do go wrong when there are failures of policy other failures that are not or could not be the subject of a military court of inquiry then it will be the role of the Inspector-General of Defence to conduct an inquiry."