Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on this, the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ron Mark, for his support in making sure that this bill remained in the House and saw a safe passage through the House.

I only intend to take a short call, but I think one of the points I really wanted to talk to was around victims’ rights, because we know our New Zealand Defence Force—whether it be army, air force, or navy—is quite a small family in terms of we’re not talking about big numbers; we’re talking about 5,000 or 6,000 people. So there’s often less than a degree of separation, and actually ensuring that victims are looked after and are given the rights and the care that they need through the process is actually, fundamentally, very important. So for the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill to be able to align and make sure that both the military justice system and our civilian criminal justice system are fully aligned, and, in particular, that victims are afforded the same rights and recognised as being treated the same in both systems, was a small part but a very important part of the overall legislation in terms of what this bill is trying to effect.

This bill will ensure that victims of specified offences have rights and protections in the military justice system that are equivalent to those that they would receive in the civilian system. The bill also repeals a provision of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 that places the onus of proof for the defence, on a specific charge, on to the accused. This is very important too. Although, fundamentally, our court system should always operate in the sense that the prosecution has to be able to prove an accused person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—that’s a cornerstone of our justice system—there are times too when, actually, in relation to specific charges, there is also an onus on the accused to be able to present a certain level of evidence in relation to certain cases.

So I’d just, finally, like to wrap up and say that, again, this is a very good bill. I’m very pleased and would like to acknowledge that the Minister has seen fit to continue to support it. It was a bill that was introduced in our last term, and I will just finish my contribution by highlighting again—and maybe the Minister will take a call on this—the importance of victims’ rights within this system as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mark Mitchell has noted, this Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill has been in the House for some time. It is an important but not contentious piece of legislation. Part 3 amends the Court Martial Appeals Act in some important ways, and one of those important ways, with Supplementary Order Paper 37, of course, is dealing with fitness to stand trial. Fitness to stand trial is, of course, an important question, and we can see that one of those questions that is dealt with in the amendments to that Act is the order of the inquiries, because, if someone is found unfit to stand trial, then, clearly, that is a significant mark against them. Therefore, the fact of the matter is that the inquiry is, first, to be, under that Supplementary Order Paper, whether or not the factors giving rise to the offence exist. That’s a great improvement and, as we know, that is aligning it with the Courts Matters Bill, so that we know, before we start inquiring in trial, whether someone is fit to stand trial; we know what the facts of the offence are.

The other things that this does, which are really important in amending the Act, are to reinforce the rights of victims, and, essentially, to put victims in military justice on the same footing as those in the civilian sphere. That is very, very important indeed. Whilst it is the case that many victims of military offences are military personnel themselves, that’s not to belittle at all the trauma that may flow from that. There may, perhaps, have been a bit of a sense that in the military you need to harden up a bit. Well, that’s not the case. So these steps are very, very important. They sit alongside some other matters that were heard about in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, including the Operation RESPECT programme which, of course, is aiming at reducing sexual violence, in particular, in the military and in the armed forces.

This is part of that programme to make sure that victims’ rights are respected, and that there is fairness and equality for military members, alongside their civilian peers, including knowing what’s going on when, for example, prisoners are released, they’re on bail, when they escape, or, indeed, if they die in custody so that there is a real sense—so that’s an excellent move, because the matter of principle is that in so far as it is possible, these two things should run in parallel. The other important change is onus of proof, because onus of proof in respect of a defence needs to be the same as in any other part of a criminal prosecution, and what this does is confirm that.

So in respect of this Part 3 amending the Act, we can see that it’s achieving that in respect of appeals as well. It’s absolutely right that it’s fair and in step with a civilian system. As I’ve said, it is an important piece of legislation, and it’s important to note that the submitters here—the National Council of Women of New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Society—were largely in support of it, with some technical observations. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend the Minister Mr Mark’s work and I commend this bill to the committee.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to make a contribution as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about Supplementary Order Paper 37 of my colleague the Hon Ron Mark, because, actually, the whole philosophy of military justice has been about discipline, and it’s also been about guilt, actually—the fact that you were charged meant you were guilty. So the philosophy has been completely flicked on its head. The alignment between our criminal justice system and our military justice system now says that, actually, you don’t have to be disciplined and follow the orders of somebody if it’s not right.

I want to focus on that, because I think the history of military justice has been about people doing what they’re being told to do, as opposed to being citizens. The alignment now between our military justice and our criminal justice system, in fact, says, within the sphere of justice, actually, you have rights of citizenship over and above your role as a person in the military. So within the military system, once you are charged, you’re guilty. In the criminal justice system, actually, you’re innocent until proven guilty. The relevance of the Supplementary Order Paper is, to be charged, now, are you actually mentally responsible for your actions? That should actually always be the first step in a criminal justice process. We should determine whether or not you had the capacity to take responsibility for your actions.

The only other piece of information I wanted to highlight to the committee was that there were no recommended changes to this piece of legislation at second reading, and, in fact, it has been as a response to the Courts Matters Bill—which is going through a parallel process in the Justice Committee—which has then led to the Minister of Defence presenting this Supplementary Order Paper to the House.

So, like everybody else, I commend the Supplementary Order Paper, and I look forward to the passage through this committee stage so we can have the third reading soon. Kia Ora.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill with amendment, and that the committee had divided it into the Social Security Bill, the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill, and the Artificial Limb Service Bill, and reported the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.