Duynhoven Harry: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12168] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 First of all I agree with Dr Mapp when he says that every 30 years or so Parliament takes the opportunity to modernise legislation regarding the defence forces and the military. Certainly that has been the case. I cannot claim to have been here 30 years ago but certainly I have in my time seen one earlier occasion when Parliament modernised law regarding the defence forces. 
I have had the privilege—as you have Mr Assistant Speaker—of serving on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I was always greatly impressed by how seriously the committee undertook its task. You might recall Mr Assistant Speaker that you I and a few other members of this House led by Mr Graham Kelly agreed with my suggestion to visit East Timor and witness first hand how our servicemen and servicewomen managed the peacekeeping work there. That visit coincided with the first anniversary of independence. It was very interesting to see just how our legislative framework works in terms of our defence forces and at that time we were greatly impressed. We were impressed with what our defence forces were doing there we were impressed with how well they were regarded and we were really impressed with the arrangements made to ensure the smoothest possible transition to civilian rule there. 
As Dr Mapp said the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee takes its role very seriously as it has with this bill also. I imagine that many members of the public are not very familiar with the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill but it is basically a technical bill. It is technically important as it reforms the New Zealand military justice system. Although this might seem a little arcane it is worth noting that the foreword to this bill in the Bills Digest states: “There has been no substantial reform of the military justice system in New Zealand since the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 came into force in 1983. Domestic and international developments in human rights law particularly the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 necessitated a thorough review of the military justice system in New Zealand. The review conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force recommended a large number of reforms. Those reforms are reflected in this Bill which will amend the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953 and the Defence Act 1990. The Bill will also make a number of consequential amendments”. 
Although many people might ask what this has to do with them I think that as we celebrate our country’s contribution and commemorate all those who have given sometimes the supreme sacrifice of their own lives in the service of our country the Commonwealth and our allies in various conflicts around the world it is worth remembering that we have not always had the legal frameworks necessary to ensure that our people get a fair deal. You will recall Mr Assistant Speaker that some years ago this House debated legislation to pardon those who it was felt with the hindsight of history and the years and generations that had gone since had been unfairly treated and executed as a result of decisions made during past jurisdictions—indeed not only by New Zealand but also by our allies. We have had to grapple with some issues and that is precisely why we have this sort of legislation. 
In the consideration of this bill the Labour-led Government believes that the military justice system should apply the same rights to our armed forces personnel that are enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system. The purpose of this bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. As I said earlier sometimes in the past that system has not always been seen to be effective or fair. The current military justice system is governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. As I said earlier there have been changes in human rights laws over the years both domestically and internationally and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act made it necessary to review the military justice system. This bill provides for a common system of summary discipline for the armed forces that complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
This bill will amend the Acts that I mentioned earlier and hopefully following the select committee’s modification the bill will deliver an enhanced military justice system for New Zealand’s armed forces. New Zealand’s armed forces justice system is currently governed by out-of-date legislation. In fact the legislation was over a decade old before it was finally enacted. The armed forces justice system needs to be updated to be consistent with international developments in human rights laws as well as with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The legislation will better serve our servicemen and servicewomen by applying to them the same rights enjoyed by civilians. 
When one reads the report of the select committee and the Bills Digest associated with it it is interesting that there are some quite detailed recommendations relating to procedural and technical matters that are aimed particularly at protecting the rights of accused persons. These are explained in some detail in the select committee’s commentary on the bill. They bring into a more modern framework the legislation that governs the way courts martial and the like are conducted. As someone who is not a lawyer I am well aware that some lawyers—and I have acquaintances who are very well versed in this issue particularly from a military perspective—have been very concerned for some years that the legislation has been not only somewhat out of date but also well out of step with what happens in the civilian world particularly in relation to the rights of the accused or the person being court-martialled. 
The select committee has recommended that a separate bill be formed from this bill and proceed as the Court Martial Bill. So parts of this bill will be split off and new parts have been added. The select committee has also recommended that the bill provide for an Armed Forces Discipline Committee which would produce guidelines on sentencing principles and practice and establish grounds for when there might be departure from those guidelines. The Armed Forces Discipline Committee would be established and chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and would consist of the Vice Chief of Defence Force; the three chiefs of the individual services; the Commander Joint Forces New Zealand; the Judge Advocate General; the director of military prosecutions; and a representative of the armed forces defence counsel panel appointed by the Judge Advocate General. 
The select committee has done a thorough job on this bill from what I can see. I am not of a legal mind myself but I have been around this place for some time and one gets a perspective and a view of when things are not quite as they should be. I think that this bill will go quite some way towards modernising the circumstances and the legislation under which persons who are perhaps up for some disciplinary charge or who may be even in as serious a situation as being court-martialled are being dealt with by our military forces. 
It does seem to me that this legislation is well overdue and I commend it to the House. I am pleased Mr Assistant Speaker that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee appears to be just as thorough and committed as it was in earlier days when you and I were part of it. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.