Groser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Groser Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12170] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I must say that never having had any personal or professional reason to become involved in these issues I have found this legislation immensely educational and also quite challenging. Until we started to get deeply into these issues in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I had not realised the sophistication of the thinking that has gone into this exercise. Like other speakers I really want to commend the professionalism and the good patience of the legal services officers of the New Zealand Defence Force. They revealed a very high degree of sophistication in their thinking and a very high sense of responsibility for the procedures they were asking this House to put in place and were immensely helpful to the committee. In that sense I think they were perhaps a little fortunate that we had at least one member of the committee—namely my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp—who unlike me had quite a deep personal knowledge of this issue. I think he provided some worthy questioning and even perhaps some testing questions at times for the professional staff. Out of this I think came a very happy marriage of advisers and politicians and that is why I think this process has gone both successfully and smoothly. 
Every major policy issue has to be looked at by each generation through their own eyes. Things move on. I guess a number of members of this House would be familiar with the old Churchillian aphorism about how discipline was maintained in the British navy historically. It was through a combination of three factors one of which I have temporarily and perhaps conveniently forgotten but the other two were rum and the lash. That might have been appropriate in centuries past for the British navy but clearly it would not pass muster in the 21st century with Generation Z. So we have looked at this starting as previous speakers have said with the legislative framework set in place more than 30 years ago in 1971 and we have then looked at it with fresh eyes in terms of the changes. Those changes are not just in terms of the nature of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which was the main driver I think in a procedural sense for much of the debate and the drafting; they also reflect the broader societal changes such as the enhanced role of women in the armed forces. The committee has looked at this bill through the light of social and legislative changes that have taken place in New Zealand and similar societies since the base legislation of 1971 was put in place and I think it has done a fair job frankly. 
I suspect that the public understandably is only at the best dimly aware of this major legislative initiative and exercise that has been under way. But I think that many if not all members had in their minds the following thought. There are times when things do go wrong in military justice. This can become a matter of acute public concern. If we think back to the deeply controversial executions that took place in the First World War of people who were alleged to have deserted and think about some of the debates still going on in societies around the world about some of those deeply controversial military justice decisions we can see that although the public might not follow this issue on a continuing basis—and understandably so—politicians on every side of the political fence have to bear in mind the long-term consequences of getting it right. This can become a matter of intense public interest if it has not gone right. I think that was very much in our minds. This was a—unique is perhaps too strong a word—once in every generation opportunity to try to get this right and that was the spirit of the committee’s work. 
I also think that a number of us were conscious that the role of the military has become very different and itself much more sophisticated. Indeed in the discussion paper the National Party put out on external strategies in the section dealing with defence it referred to the almost quasi-political role some of our New Zealand defence personnel are carrying out in the Pacific Afghanistan and other areas around the world where they are using not just the traditional soldier’s skills. They are operating in an almost political environment and their own behaviour and discipline is absolutely essential and a central element in the efficacy of their operations. We have certainly seen—fortunately not in respect of any of our armed services that I am aware of; at least in the recent past—peacekeeping operations involving officers and soldiers of other countries in which some deeply questionable losses of discipline have occurred and where some very serious charges often of a sexual nature have been levied against those soldiers. So the whole role of discipline also has an additional character which is the intense international scrutiny of the behaviour of troops operating in these sometimes grey zones which are neither combat nor political. I think that is also a broader context in which the issue becomes a very important issue that politicians of every complexion need to bear in mind. 
Quite clearly the role of discipline in the armed services is of an entirely different nature from discipline in any other profession. I do not think we need to dwell on that; it is self-evident. Therefore the principles underlying the administration of military justice have to be quite specific to the nature of the beast. As far as I understand it we have essentially two types of military justice: the summary discipline system and the courts martial for much more serious offences. 
Like any politician trying to cover a number of bases in which one does not have any personal experience I followed on the first issue the old advice of asking some taxi drivers. Eventually I found one taxi driver who had been a soldier for a number of years and I asked him whether he had ever had any experience of military justice. He had indeed. He and a couple of his mates when they were young soldiers had relieved the officers’ mess of a certain amount of alcohol to as he put it redistribute it down the line. There were of course other ways of describing it that were slightly less favourable to my friend the taxi driver. I asked him whether he went to a court martial. He said: “Good heavens no. It wasn’t that serious. We were dealt with under summary discipline procedures.” I asked him how it went and he said they were a bit concerned when the officer who was hearing the charge shouted out to the sergeant major the words “March the guilty bastards in.” as to whether they were going to get a truly fair hearing. But he said it was a fair cop and he did not have any particular complaints. 
Although the “Dad’s army” side of discipline is there I suppose we also know that there are much more serious offences carrying severe penalties and that is where the courts martial comes in. In respect of the summary discipline side of the equation I think there are some very sensible changes. There is the unification of the summary discipline procedures. Whereas in the past there was one for the navy and other slightly different systems for the army and the air force they have now been combined into a unified base and I think we have a much more expeditious and coherent system that is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
In respect of the more serious side of military discipline—the courts martial—I think what we have done with this legislation is end effectively that closed loop as I put it of the system. The director of military prosecutions will be appointed by the Governor-General and high standards are expected by the incumbent of that office. He or she must have served I think 7 years as a barrister or solicitor to the High Court and must have practical military experience. By insisting that he or she no longer reports to the Chief of Defence Staff there is a big shift to remove any potential conflict in terms of their career and the chain of command from the director of military prosecutions to the Chief of Defence Staff. Henceforth the director of military prosecutions will be reporting directly to the Solicitor-General which I think is a very healthy shift and I hope it will increase the confidence of the men and women of our armed forces that in the event of a serious charge they have a fairer system. I think we all know that fairness is hardwired into the New Zealand DNA. I think the men and women who serve the country with distinction should welcome these changes and feel that they have a system that is up to date fair yet efficacious in terms of the special disciplines required.