Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (no 2); Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill; Defence Amendment Bill (no 3) and Court Martial Bill

Dr Pita Sharples; Co-leader of the Maori Party

Tuesday 6 November 2007

This Bill is being read in a context which illustrates the fickle state of popular favour.

If this Bill had been read a month ago, as the nation commemorated the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele, the context of military action would have been described with words like courage, sacrifice, comradeship, discipline and honour.

A more dramatic contrast would be hard to find, than the descriptions of military training that erupted from the depth of the Urewera Valley on what is now known as ‘Black Monday’ – the 15th October 2007.

Suddenly ‘military training’ became likened to guerrilla warfare, with wild descriptions of balaclavas, camouflage clothing, napalm gel, and para-military activity decorating the debate.

Just an hour’s drive from Ruatoki, and one would arrive at Tukaki Marae in Te Kaha, where Corporal Willie Apiata VC was recently celebrated in a grand event supported by the New Zealand Defence Force and Te Puni Kokiri.

Tukaki Marae also has strong links to second Lieutenant Moana-nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu who was awarded the Victoria Cross, posthumously, for actions while serving with the 28th Maori Battalion in Tunisia.

Fighting for the honour of the country – guerrilla wars – what’s it to be?

M…………Speaker, I raise these contrasts and perceptions, because they seem central to any context in which military reform is to take place.

The suite of Bills we are considering today, in this third reading, have been constructed in such a way as to promote core values of discipline, consistency, fairness, efficiency, and simplicity across the military system.

I am particularly interested in this notion of consistency.

How is it that‘camo clothing’ - the parachute pants, multiple pockets and zippers, colours that blend in to the lay of the land – is considered acceptable across the pages of the 2007 fashion catalogues, but unacceptable when people of the Tuhoe nation take it on themselves to wear it?

Indeed, ironically, these camouflage clothing have in previous eras been associated with the direct opposition of war – that is peace.

During Vietnam, for example, protesters wore camouflage jackets with peace signs and anti-war slogan written on the backs. Activists made a powerful fashion statement in taking on the clothes of soldiers from the very war they were speaking out against.

Will the duck and game hunters and gatherers of deepest Canterbury be taken in for questioning if they dare to go shooting in clothes which carry the shade of the jungle?

M……….Speaker, I mean no offence by raising these questions.

They are the questions which New Zealanders have emailed in to me, have rung me, have written to me about over this last month.

They have asked me, why is it legitimate to enrol on a six week military training course and earn the title of‘Limited Service Volunteers’ in a programme run at Burnham Army Camp and sponsored by Work and Income – while a wananga run by Tuhoe is likened towards preparatory school for Al Qaeda?

This suite of Bills amends the Armed Forces Discipline Act and reforms the military justice system, in line with human rights law.

And this, of course, is the greatest inconsistency of all.

That a Government which has denied indigenous rights; which is happy to disregard the human rights of the citizens and children of our small rural communities, on the other hand makes a great public pretence of being the biggest human rights defender of the South Pacific.

We in the Maori Party are of course wholly supportive of the move signaled in this Bill, to be compliant with national and international human rights law.

We do believe that the proposals in this Bill better protect the human rights of the people facing military justice.

But one good Bill does not make us the role model for human rights compliance.

The proposals in the armed forces law reform legislation while positive, in no way can justify New Zealand having the audacity to announce its candidacy for the United Nations Human Rights Council, for the period 2009-2012.

It was also of interest to us in the Maori Party, that despite the fact that Maori are strongly represented in the army and navy, no briefing or advice had been received from Te Puni Kokiri.

Once again the question must be asked – why have a department ostensibly set up to advise Government about the impacts for Maori – and yet not ask them for informed comment on Bills such as this?

In particular we would be interested in seeing what advice Te Puni Kokiri could bring to bear in these four Bills, as it applies to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In that Declaration, Article 30 states that:

“Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a significant threat to relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned”

So when we think of the purpose of these Bills, to reform the military justice system in line with developments in human rights law, we would of course presume that to be in line also with the human rights of indigenous peoples.

Another key movement in these Bills has been to respond to the anomaly of existing practice, that legal representation is excluded from the Courts of inquiry in all cases.

This has long been thought to be inconsistent with the right to natural justice, and so we welcome the assertion of rights which will make these Bills compatible with the Bills of Rights.

In particular, we welcome the initiative this legislation makes with regard to section 24c and section 25a of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The House will recall that section 24c states that everyone charged with an offence has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, while section 25a says everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court.

The Maori Party supports therefore the amendments included in the Bills, which now better protect the human rights of those who take up the challenge of working for the military.

Finally, we are pleased to support the momentum towards ensuring there will be consistency across all strategic environments, in respect of the summary disposal systems.

The existing law lacks any appeal system for summary disposals, and so the changes included in these four Bills to ensure joint operational orientation across the Army, Navy and Airforce is very positive.

We believe the key features of the four different Bills included in this package –will greatly enhance the efficiency of the military justice system in its first significant reform since the original Act was introduced some 24 years ago.

We support also the possibility of better justice for all – and if this Bill is the starting point in the military sector, then the Maori Party is happy to lend our support at this final reading.

ENDS

© Scoop Media