Dunne Peter: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14095] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Madam Deputy Speaker— 
Dail Jones 
: No you cannot do that. That is not the agreement any more. 
Jill Pettis 
: We have given him our call. 
Dail Jones 
: I will let it go but that is not the agreement that was reached with the Speaker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Madam Deputy Speaker I am taking the call because I understand that there has been an agreement and that the Government has assigned this call to me and I am grateful for that opportunity. I will not take long so the member will get his call probably shortly after the luncheon adjournment. 
I want to pick up on the point that the previous speaker finished on. This bill does update legislation that is 65 years old and it does provide for the incorporation of status of forces agreements into the ambit of this legislation. I think the previous speaker’s concern about jurisdictional boundaries the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the interpretation of section 3 of that Act are covered by his subsequent comment that the impetus will be for visiting forces to negotiate a status of forces agreement which will cover that particular situation. We discussed this matter in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I want to acknowledge as the chair of the committee the contribution that all the members made to this matter. Mr Jones with whom we had a wee contretemps a moment or two ago and other members— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the lunch break has arrived. I want to clarify that what Mr Jones said is absolutely right. I thought there had been agreement but it is right that the No. 3 slot is not a tradable slot. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: When the House adjourned for lunch I was commenting on the remarks of the previous speaker Dr Lockwood Smith who had raised some interesting questions regarding the application of clause 18 which applies the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Bill and in particular his comments relating to section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is a fairly tight definition and how it might be applied in the case of visiting forces. I was making the observation that to some extent he had answered his own question because he opined at the end of his remarks that maybe this would be a further reason why visiting forces ought to conclude a status of forces agreement in respect of any particular attachment because that would in effect deal with the issues that are still unclear as a result of clause 18. I think he is absolutely correct. My recollection of the discussion at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is that when we dealt with these matters we did delve deeply. We still ended up with a grey area but we came to a pragmatic conclusion that had two legs to it. Firstly there was the issue of individual status of forces agreements that might be concluded. Secondly there was the notion that if we got into a really difficult situation in that regard the particular person who was the source of the difficulty would probably be whisked away home by his or her superiors at the drop of a hat anyway. 
The only other observation I will make in respect of this third reading which has widespread support is that Dr Lockwood Smith spent some time in the opening part of his speech criticising the Government for the tardiness in the preparation of this legislation particularly in respect of the inclusion in this legislation of the 1998 status of forces agreement with Australia. He referred to the recent Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum and the remarks made by the Australian Foreign Minister Mr Downer which were interpreted as being somewhat critical of New Zealand. I will make a couple of comments in respect of that view. 
First with regard to whether the Government has been tardy in the preparation of this bill others will make that judgment but I make this comment: if this bill provides for status of forces agreements to be incorporated under the heading of the Visiting Forces Bill and if as we have just discussed at the end of the day in a lot of these matters the primacy will lie with the individual status of forces agreement it does not matter greatly whether the agreement with Australia was included in this bill at this time or at an earlier date. 
The second point I would make with regard to Mr Downer’s observations is that I was one of the few New Zealand politicians who were present at the leadership forum. I do not recall any critical comments about New Zealand being made by Mr Downer in the context of that forum. The only critical comment that I recall Mr Downer making as I would remind the honourable member Dr Lockwood Smith was made a few days earlier when he said with regard to the nuclear impasse between New Zealand and the United States that it was a great pity the National Party which at that point seemed keen on changing the law had not done so when it was in Government. So I think that for Dr Lockwood Smith to use Mr Downer’s alleged criticisms—and I am no defender of Mr Downer—is somewhat strange given that the criticisms were actually of his own party and not of any actions taken by the Government we have at present. 
This bill is difficult to find substantive argument with. The select committee spent a lot of time on the jurisdictional issues and at the earlier stage in the Committee I acknowledged the contribution of members such as the select committee’s deputy chairperson Winnie Laban Mr Power and others in that discussion because it was a constructive process. As a result we have emerged with legislation that I think every party in Parliament will support and that our armed forces are keen to see put in place. Given the increasing role of New Zealand in terms of both our detachments overseas—the 14 or so deployments we have at the moment—and the two-way traffic that that creates in terms of people coming here then agreements of this type will be more relevant. The original Visiting Forces Act was written in the context of World War II. There is a vastly different environment today and this legislation brings us up to speed. I conclude by acknowledging the work of my colleagues on the select committee congratulating them on their efforts and making the observation that we have a sound bill that will serve New Zealand well in the future.