Inspector-General of Defence Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take the call and rise to speak to the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. It is a privilege to do so. Can I begin by thanking the public for their submissions, for taking an interest, and for providing their feedback. I also want to thank the officials for their work.

Minister Henare outlined the intention of this bill: the establishment of the Inspector-General of Defence to provide the independent oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force. It fits into the New Zealand democratic civil/military relations construct as the objective to allow civilian control through allowing military to carry out operations here at home in Aotearoa and abroad as part of a coalition without undermining the system of government. Consequently, it is what the New Zealand Defence Force asked for.

I want to pay particular acknowledgment to our men and women in our armed forces. In my former life at the Auckland Council as an elected member, there are two significant days in the calendar every year that we recognise our servicemen and servicewomen. I’m going to share very quickly a few comments because I’m able to do so. The first is Anzac Day, 25 April every year, where we commemorate and we mourn the loss of our loved men and women who gave up their lives for the freedoms we have today. The second is Armistice Day, which is tomorrow, 11 November, where, again, across the motu services are held and we remember our armed forces soldiers and we stand and we commemorate them for their bravery, their efforts for the freedoms we have today.

The armistice was the truce signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany at Compiégne, France, and we remember them. Courageous men and women of the armed forces gave up their lives, and some of them were lost and never came home. So I want to pay tribute to them, the whānau we lost, because only recently we’ve discovered that the Pacific contingent lost soldiers—Cook Islands soldiers, Niue soldiers, as well as soldiers from Tonga, Fiji, and the Gilbert Islands, now known as Kiribati, and part of our Maori Battalion, in their valiant efforts in the New Zealand contingent.

This bill will achieve the ethos of New Zealand values in the New Zealand Defence Force. The inquiry into Operation Burnham recommended, in terms of the shortcomings, that New Zealanders must be confident when scrutiny is required and available, and that the role of the Inspector-General of Defence, as outlined in the bill, will have the necessary powers to carry out the tasks and be able to pivot when improvements are required. The functions are critical if we are to achieve our military obligations to have clear guidelines in the New Zealand context as to who is responsible for what and what process and under what scrutiny in our response.

The role of the inspector-general will be complementary in its operations to avoid duplication of specific processes. Just as I wrap up, I note that the bill is a result of key recommendations, as we’ve heard, to address a range of problems identified by the inquiry into Operation Burnham. Strengthening ministerial and public trust and confidence in the New Zealand Defence Force is a key focus for this Government in the aftermath of Operation Burnham. The budget has been set aside—over $5 million additional to the $90 million investment in the Defence Force which was to help remuneration and address the pay challenges. It is the largest capability investment that Defence has ever received. This bill will help keep civilians in control. I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. National won’t be supporting this legislation because we are not convinced of the need for this at this time. Indeed, whilst there are many things with the Defence Force that may well need addressing, this is not the number one priority.

This legislation has come about as a result of an inquiry the Government undertook. As the last speaker said, the Defence Force has called for this: no, the Defence Force hasn’t called for that inquiry; it was the Government that did it, and it was into allegations that were made against the New Zealand Defence Force claiming that they had caused civilian casualties during Operation Burnham in Afghanistan. This was at the time that we were in Government. It was looked at and considered fully and a decision was made that an inquiry was not needed.

However, jump forward, the new Government called for an inquiry and launched it in 2008. The inquiry found no wrongdoing by SAS soldiers and at all times they complied with the rules of engagement and the laws of armed conflict, and it said that New Zealanders, therefore, should have confidence in the fact that the New Zealand SAS on the ground did the right thing, acted completely lawfully, did nothing that was of a revenge attack, acted in accordance with international law, and did nothing wrong on that night. That was stated by the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker.

We back our Defence Force. The last speaker spoke of those who have defended New Zealand, stood up for freedom and the rights of others around the world, and who, gravely and sadly, have lost their lives. The New Zealand Defence Force, at all levels and Governments, take their responsibility seriously. In opposing this legislation, we send a very clear message to the men and women that have served and continue to serve on behalf of New Zealand, that we respect them, we thank them for their service, and we thank them for their professionality.

This will create additional bureaucracy at a time when the case has not been made clearly that it is required that there is something that needs fixing and that it is something that will assist and help. I would suggest that an area that we would be better to spend our time on is how to support the men and women that are part of the New Zealand Defence Force and the work that they do in an area that is extremely difficult.

We take our responsibility in Opposition seriously also, and have taken a long time to consider this issue but do not believe it’s something that is going to assist in any way. Indeed, if we look at the reason for it, the inquiry was undertaken by the Government not because they suspected that there had been any action taken by our SAS that was inappropriate or unlawful, but because of media pressure concerned by one or a very small number of individuals in the private sector—in the public—who raised an issue with this.

Rather than looking at it and working with the Defence Force and considering it and making a decision, it feels like the Government kicked it to touch and said, “We’ll have an inquiry into it.” They have the right and the ability to do that, but, at the same time, that inquiry found that nothing—nothing at all—was wrong with the way the SAS had acted, and found that they were lawful and responsible and that the procedures followed were correct, they were appropriate, and indeed, in the words of the Attorney-General, David Parker, a member of the Government himself, that New Zealanders should have confidence in the fact that the New Zealand SAS on the ground did the right thing, acted completely lawfully, did nothing that was a revenge attack, acted in accordance with international law, and did nothing wrong on the night.

But we’re creating another piece of bureaucracy. The Government says oversight as a result of claims that were made that were found not to be correct. And if that’s the case, then we will end up with much more bureaucracy in all parts of Government, because people will make claims. It was investigated fully; it was investigated properly; the Government accepted the report and has decided to create additional regulation and cost around that.

We won’t be supporting this. We believe it is just more bureaucracy and more costs, with negligible benefit. We would much rather see the $5 million the Government has said they have set aside used for other things in the Defence Force that will assist the Defence Force, to assist the men and women who work very hard to represent New Zealand properly. And those are the reasons we’re not supporting it.

Debate interrupted.