Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister on his promotion and wish him well in the important Department of which he is now the political head. When the office of ombudsman was first established in Sweden in 1806, there were two ombudsmen — the military ombudsman and the justice ombudsman. It was, therefore, regarded as very important that there should be an ombudsman for military affairs. I am delighted to see that at long last the Defence Forces are being granted some form of modern personnel standards. They are entitled to have an ombudsman. We should commend Dr. Doyle for the work on which the Minister has reported.

While the new office must be established along with the requisite powers, and while the military ombudsman will be a different office from that of the Ombudsman — in the same way as the health service ombudsman is different — there is no reason those positions could not all be held by the same person. Consideration should be given to that possibility. An expertise had developed in the Office of the Ombudsman in dealing with such matters. There is a body of knowledge and precedent there and, after all, it is personnel work. If the various ombudsman roles were held by one person it would minimise the expense of setting up a new office, with people having to find their way around. Over the 20 years since it was established, the Office of the Ombudsman has established itself as an object of public trust. It would be helpful if the various positions were to be held by the same person.

The Bill provides for the right of a member of the Defence Forces to complain about unacceptable treatment. However, if members of the public have a complaint against the Defence Forces presumably they have recourse to the ordinary Ombudsman. One could see it happening if the Army was acting in support of the civil power and, for example, roughed up a house. It is something the Minister might consider.

Since the Minister has to amend the 1954 Act, it is a pity he did not take the opportunity to amend that part of the Act dealing with service under the aegis of the United Nations. The wording of that part of the Act will have to be examined sooner or later so we do not again get into a situation in which we were unable to help out in, for example, Macedonia. Increasingly, there is a tendency for the United Nations to sub-contract some of its activities perhaps to an emerging European force. It would be a pity if we had to sit on the sidelines just because our legislation was couched in terms which, if narrowly interpreted, would prevent us from participating in some UN missions.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on having presented it to the House.