Goff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12248. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I am afraid I cannot let that sort of rubbish go unchallenged as the member probably expected when he made those comments. The Labour-led Government had a very clear position at the time of the invasion of Iraq: we were against it. National had a very clear position: it was in favour of it. Mr Hayes was not here then but Dr Mapp was and all members of the National Party including Dr Mapp voted for all practical support to be given to the coalition of the willing. So there is no suggestion at all that the Labour-led Government has been anything other than consistent—and history will demonstrate also right—in terms of the stance we took in respect of Iraq.Of course we welcomed the fact that the conflict at the time of the invasion was relatively short. We welcomed UN Resolution 1483 which stated that countries should try to help with reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq. We took that seriously and we committed our Defence Force engineers. But Dr Mapp made this point before: it is nonsense to suggest that those members of the Defence Force went there for any purpose other than for the reconstruction and humanitarian work that they carried out so effectively—rebuilding health clinics and rebuilding schools. They were not there as part of the coalition of the willing. It is not the Labour Government that has members who are guilty of hypocrisy in regard to their stance on Iraq. What the member has told the House frankly is totally wrong.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No I am sorry; the member cannot use that word. Withdraw the word.Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy” and replace it with the words “double standards” and “deliberate efforts to mislead and confuse the public” because that is exactly what that speech was.I pick up on something that the member said that is rather more sensible—he tries to say something sensible but then cannot help himself—in regard to the question of the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. We have repealed in this bill and I think rightly so the current provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act that would have allowed officers to interfere with or overturn the decisions of the Court Martial and that includes the abolition of the board of review. That was a very sensible thing to do because those powers should rest with the proper appellate body such as the Courts Martial Appeal Court. In our military justice system we have to reflect internationally recognised standards of independence and impartiality. That in fact is a requirement of section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.One of the members who spoke—and I cannot remember which of the two members it was—mentioned that the Judge Advocate General and I think the deputy had very helpfully appeared before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have their comments heard in private. One of the comments made was that senior members of the Defence Force could and should however still have the opportunity to make valid and useful contributions to the maintenance of service discipline in the new legal environment. To address that issue—and I support the committee in this regard—the committee recommended the establishment of an Armed Forces Discipline Committee to be chaired by the Chief of Defence Force and to include senior commanders the Judge Advocate General the director of military prosecutions and a representative of the military defence counsel. They will consider reports and issues that arise out of the cases that are heard. I think that will be quite important in dealing with the wider issues so that this is not seen purely as a legal matter and we can learn the lessons from difficulties that might have arisen on disciplinary matters.I also say that I think one of the really important aspects of this new legislation is to ensure that New Zealand continues to have a well-trained and also a well-disciplined New Zealand Defence Force. We have seen in some of the deployments where we have worked alongside other defence forces how ill-discipline can create huge problems. Ill-discipline amongst defence forces can actually make a situation on the ground much worse—it can lose the potential support of the local community—and we do need to have provisions that allow our military structure to impose discipline where it is needed. I have to say that one of the things I have been really proud of in terms of the New Zealand Defence Force is that because of pre-deployment training and a good system of discipline and a good system of leadership our armed services personnel on the ground have generally done a superb job.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next speaker—the Minister responded to a previous statement which I had not called the member up for. I remind members that this bill is about the military justice system.