Mooney Joseph; Salesa JennyJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. The National Party opposes this bill. I've heard the previous speaker just talking about how this is necessary to ensure civilian—the military is accountable to civilian control. Well I stand here in the House of Representatives which does exercise civilian control over the military. The Minister of Defence has that role here in this House. The reason why we have a democracy is because of those who have come before us and served in the armed forces and sacrificed their lives for this country to ensure that we have a democracy. If I look to my right I see Gallipoli where one of my great uncles was killed in the first hours of that campaign. If I look across from me I see Egypt where my grandfather who fought in that campaign was severely injured. These people among many many others in our country had great sacrifices to ensure that we are able to stand here in this House today and have civilian control over the military to exercise and protect our constitutional framework. I myself have served in the army in the army reserves and I can certainly account for the very exemplary nature of that service. It was somewhat unfortunate to hear the comments from the Green Party member on this bill who made insinuations towards the military. I would just recommend to that member to just take a look at the inquiry into Operation Burnham in Afghanistan which clearly found no wrongdoing by our SAS soldiers. That needs to be underlined and understood. That member of Parliament has a responsibility to reflect on that.It is probably important to just outline in the brief time I have available the current regulatory system—The modern approach to democratic oversight assumes that the purpose of the armed forces is to further civilian government policy. While deployment of the armed forces remains a prerogative power in practice this is exercised on the advice of ministers (ie. Cabinet)." The Minister of Defence facilitates control of the New Zealand Defence Forces "This reflects the constitutional principle of democratic oversight and the ordinary principles of responsible government." which we have seen until this point. While "The Minister is generally involved in strategic decisions rather than operational and tactical decisions" they still retain "oversight of the operation and administration of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and remains responsible to Cabinet and Parliament."—where we are this evening. They are also indirectly democratically accountable to the public for their decisions. The Minister can decide on their own motion or following a complaint referral to section 24 of the Defence Act 1990 assessment audit of the NZDF or can approve one or more assessments audits as part of the work programme proposed by the Secretary of Defence. Such an assessment audit is done independently of both the New Zealand Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the House of Representatives has the power to inquire into any matter that it considers needs investigation in the public interest. Practice inquiries and defence matters are carried out by this. Most scrutiny is undertaken through estimates examinations and reviews.The Ombudsman can also investigate any decision recommendation act or omission relating to matters of administration within NZDF. Their Controller and Auditor-General can audit the NZDF and provide Parliament and the public assurance that the NZDF is operating and accounting for its use of resources and performance in the way that Parliament is intended. The Privacy Commissioner can investigate the NZDF's refusal of requests for personal information the misuse of personal information or breaches of privacy. The Human Rights Commission can inquire generally into any matter if it appears that the matter involves or may involve the infringement of human rights. Also the Human Rights Commission is designated as the central national preventative mechanisms for the optional protocol to the convention against torture. It does not monitor places of abstention itself but coordinates activities of the other national preventative mechanisms. The register of Court Martial and their role as inspector of the service penal establishments is charged with monitoring the NZDF's detention facilities. The Human Rights Review Tribunal can hear and determine unlawful discrimination proceedings as well as interference with privacy proceedings. The Health and Disability Commissioner can look into health and disability service complaints. The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal can hear and determine disciplinary proceedings against health practitioners. The professional conduct bodies can look into conduct of medical professionals and lawyers employed by the NZDF. The civilian justice system—important in civic and criminal law—is also applicable to the New Zealand Defence Force including serious or grave breaches. WorkSafe New Zealand also has oversight—as does the military justice system international bodies and the media. There is already extensive oversight of the NZDF which is accountable to civilian control.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."