Civil-Military Relations and an Inspector-General of Defence for Aotearoa New Zealand

• Author: James Mehigan
• Position: Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury
• Pages: 97-121

97



Inspector-General of Defence for Aotearoa

New Zealand



Abstract

is article looks at civil-mil itary relations in New Zealand in the light of the ndings

of a Government Inquiry into a special forces operation in Afghanistan (the Bur nham

Inquiry). e Inquiry found a militar y that was not fully informing its civilian leadersh ip

of important informat ion regarding, inter alia, civilia n casualties. is led to the Inquiry

recommending that an Inspector- General of Defence (IGD) be estab lished to investigate

allegations made against the defence forces and to assess policy and practice, in order

to report back to the Minister of De fence. is art icle looks at what the IGD adds to the

regulatory f ramework for the military and argu es that it is a welcome step in improving

accountability for the military and increasing the levels of civil-military interconnection.

New Zealand’s military has been granted a signicant degree of trust in how it has operated

for many decades. is accord s closely with Hunting ton’s theory of “objective control”.

e IGD’s role should s erve to bri ng it under closer control by civilian leadership. i s

is an important development for the constitutiona l protections of civilian control of th e

military and mi nisterial accountabi lity to Parliament.

I. Introduction

The deployment in A fghanist an, lasti ng as it did for 20 years , was New Zealand’s

longest continuous military engagement outside of peacekeeping. It involved

complex military i nterventions, including by high ly trained specia l forces.1 Yet, in

spite of its signi cance in the country’s milita ry his tory, it is not able that it wa s

largely u nderreporte d in New Zeala nd media.2 One piec e of investigat ive journa lism,

1 Stephen Hoad ley “New Zeala nd civil–m ilita ry relations i n Afgha nista n: Aims, as sessments, a nd

lessons” in Wil liam Maley and Su sanne Schmeid l (eds) Reconstructing Afghanistan: Civil-Military

Experiences i n Comparative Pers pective (Routledge , Abbingdon, 2014) 43.

2 Donald Mat heson “‘Can’t tal k now, mate’: New Zea land news media and t he invisible Afg han

war” in Richa rd Keeble and John Mair (eds) Afghanistan, War and the Media: Deadlines and

Frontlines (Arima , Bury St Edmu nds, 2010) 276.

*Associat e Profess or, Facult y of Law, Univer sity of Ca nterbu ry.

98[Vol 31, 2024]

however, did have an outsized impact on the way the Afghanistan War will be

remembered in New Z ealand, at least i nstitution ally. That work was the public ation

of the book Hit & Ru n by Nicky Hager and John St ephenson in 2017.3 The allegations

in the book led to the establishment of a public Inquiry (the Burnham Inquiry)

which found tr oubling fai lings by the m ilitar y in how it relates t o the democratica lly

elected and c ivilia n leadership of t he country. One of the I nquiry’s re commendations

was that a n independent Inspector G eneral of Defence be establ ished to provide an

oversight and a ccountabilit y mechanism to i mprove civil-mil itary relat ions.

This art icle looks at the oce of the Inspector-Gene ral of Defence (IGD), startin g

with a di scussion of why it s formation wa s recommended. It t hen tur ns to a disc ussion

of why civil-military relations are important and should be improved in New

Zeala nd. The IGD’s statutory fr amework is a potentia lly useful way to develop bot h

investig ations of complaint s as well as assessment s of potential polic y and practice.

Althoug h the IGD does not have the power to nd civil or cri minal r esponsibilit y,

it has signic ant investigator y p owers wh ich allow it to provide a much bet ter

understa nding of the oper ations of the New Zeal and Defence Force (NZDF) th an was

possible prior t o its establ ishment. Alt hough it has it s aws (notably its troublingly

evidentia l immunity prov isions for cooperative wit nesses), it has great potent ial to

improve civi l milita ry relations i n New Zealand a s the country mo ves beyond its War

on Terror deployments a nd into a new strate gic era which seems likel y to focus far

more on China .

II. Inspector General of Defence –

Origin Story

The oce of the I nspector Ge neral of Defence wa s establis hed by the Inspec tor-

General of Defence Act 2023 (the Act). Taking a longer view of the reasons for the

formation of the IGD, it i s suggeste d that it was somet hing of an i nevitabi lity once the

country de cided to join the Un ited States i n its contentious i nvasion of Afgh anista n.4

Joining the United States-led coalition meant that New Zealand was engaging in

what Kaldor refers to as a “New War”.5 Thes e complex conicts, apparent ly loca l

in cha racter, involve my riad interna tional connec tions and in uences which ma ke

them more dicult to successfully prosecut e than the “Old Wars” of the 20th cent ur y.6

3 Nicky Hager and John Stephenson Hi t & Run: e New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan and the Meaning

of Honour (Pot ton & Burton , Nelson, 2017).

4 Ryan T Will iams “Dan gerous Prec edent: Amer ica’s Illega l War in A fghani stan” (2011) 33 U Pa J

Intl L 563.

5 Mar y Kaldor New & O ld Wars: Organized Violence in a Glo bal Era (2nd ed , Stanford Univers ity

Press, Stanford, 2007).

6 At 2.