Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thanks to colleagues who've been contributing in this debate at the second reading of this Inspector-General of Defence Bill. It's been an interesting discussion. I agree with my colleague and friend Tim van de Molen that there are many priorities for the Defence Force right now that are much more urgent than this project. Morale is low. I say that not merely anecdotally although that is certainly the sense I get from talking to people who are currently in the New Zealand Defence Force but also borne out in various satisfaction surveys or whatever they're called now. I know what low morale looks like. I was a member of the National Party caucus in the last Parliament and members of the current Labour Party caucus know what low morale is like too.The army and indeed the Defence Force in general have been decimated. In the literal sense of that phrase it would be one in 10 members having departed the service. In fact the attrition rates again as my colleague and friend Tim van de Molen has indicated some 30 percent over two years. If we do the math on that obviously that's north of 10 percent so worse than decimated which has echoes of Blackadder's famous a fate worse than a fate worse than death" line. And that's again in the words of Blackadder "pretty bad". So strategic decisions are needed for the Defence Force at this juncture. I do acknowledge that the Minister of Defence has brought forward a review that his predecessor had instigated. I think bringing it forward was a good move. I also give credit to the Minister for arguing successfully that a pay rise should take place across the New Zealand Defence Force. While some good decisions have been made recently it is nevertheless the case that there are other pressing strategic priorities. So while it is again positive—and I give credit where it's due; I don't wish to speak in a partisan way unnecessarily regarding defence and national security matters. It is positive as I say that decisions were made in relation to P-8 aircraft to replace the existing P-3s likewise the Hercules replacement. Nevertheless there are big questions now still: what is to be the replacement for the frigate class—if we can call two ships a class—and the case discussed relatively recently in relation to the Boeing 757s and many other issues of course remain and they're all worthy of debate and discussion. It seems surprising that it would be the priority of the Government to put forward this legislation—and under urgency at that.We've heard a number of arguments—and some of them are more compelling than others—from various parties across the House about why this bill should be supported why we're not going to have the opportunity to discuss it further and debate them with our caucus because the bill will be passed before the night is out. So that's one of the perils of urgency of course. We've heard about the need to increase public confidence in the Defence Force and the matter of trust. I've had a few occupations in my life and my current one politician is not particularly high among trust levels among New Zealand public. Before that I was a lawyer. Again not a particularly trusted profession. The only thing I've ever done that's actually been remotely likely in a general sense to be the subject of public trust was being a member of the New Zealand Defence Force.So with all due respect I think we're looking in the wrong place if we say that these measures are necessary to increase public confidence in the military. I think in fact the members of our Defence Force—and I acknowledge and Mr Rosewarne and also Mr Bayly and van de Molen who have spoken tonight in that regard. I think that is with all due respect not the strongest justification for the further measure that's in front of us tonight. I think the point that Mr Rosewarne makes regarding interoperability with Australia is a useful one because I think that should be a concern of ours. That is to say we should always be interested to know whether moves that our Defence Force are making will make us more or less interoperable with close allies and partners including in particular Australia—which of course is an ally proper not merely a very good friend or however we're characterising our relationship with the US for example at the moment. But I think if we were to wonder about how Canberra and indeed other parts of the Australian defence establishment would regard New Zealand as an ally in our region and further afield I think that the establishment or non-establishment of an Inspector-General of Defence would be very low among their priorities. Certainly there would be other issues that they would and do raise with us frequently that they would have us attend to more pressingly in relation to our Defence Force and its ability to operate with their. I state an obvious case in relation to the AUKUS submarines. At the moment our statute book will not allow the prime strategic asset of our closest defence ally to enter our waters. Notwithstanding that they are nuclear-propelled not -armed I don't state that with any intention of suggesting any policy position one way or t'other. I just merely state that there are interesting and important issues that will come up in trans-Tasman relations and questions of interoperability I think might more usefully be answered in such questions as that going forward than merely creating another position such as this.Most fundamentally again as pointed out by Tim van de Molen the things that this bill will do need not be legislated because they have been done before even with the legislation in its current form. So to that end we don't see that there is any need—urgent or otherwise—for the bill and for that reason we do not support it."