te Heuheu Georgina: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6266] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. In June 1987 the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment entered into force. An optional protocol was added known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was adopted by a vote in the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 2002 and signed by New Zealand on 24 September 2003. This bill implements the optional protocol to that convention and of course it is no surprise that New Zealand was foremost among those countries involved in the development of the protocol in the first place and among the group of countries that are foremost in designing bills to implement the provisions of the protocol. 
The protocol provides further measures to achieve the purposes of the convention and its objective is to establish a system of regular visits by international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty in order to prevent torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. These things I suppose seem somewhat strange to us sitting as we do in a wonderful country like New Zealand a great little democracy where the rule of law is observed. Generally speaking we have provisions in the law already to ensure that New Zealanders or those people who are detained in certain places in our country are generally accommodated or catered for. 
The bill’s three key provisions establish a subcommittee of the existing United Nations Committee against Torture to regularly visit places where people are deprived of their liberty and to make recommendations to the Government concerning the protection of such persons. A provision also enables the subcommittee to exercise New Zealand’s functions and powers as set out in the protocol. The subcommittee is permitted to visit any place under the Crown’s jurisdiction and to have unrestricted access to such information as is necessary for the proper performance of its functions. 
At the second level as the Minister has already traversed the protocol requires each State party or Government to have at the domestic level at least one visiting body for the prevention of torture and the functions of that body known as the national preventive mechanism are basically set out to examine the conditions of detention applying to those detainees in places of detention. The body is also required to provide at least a written report to the Minister of Justice each year on the exercise of its functions. The third level sets up the central national preventive mechanism with accompanying responsibilities. 
As I said earlier in this discussion what we are doing here tonight is extremely important obviously and National supports the ratification of the protocol. It is proper that as a democracy observing the rule of law we implement the provisions. We need to remind ourselves that we have an enviable record on human rights because it is not the case in a number of other States and countries in the world. We are a leader in human rights and as a colleague of mine Dr Richard Worth said in the first reading regarding the issues relating to the right not to be tortured that right is “one of the core non-derivable human rights” and it is therefore of the highest priority. 
Just before I go to some of the points that National members made in the first reading I tell members that the Minister has traversed the changes that were recommended in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It is helpful obviously that submissions to the committee were in favour of the bill. As the Minister said there were a number of submissions. Basically we considered a wide range of issues including the general implementation of the protocol; the role competence and independence of national preventive mechanisms; and ministerial discretion to appoint national preventive mechanisms. 
Just in relation to that last issue I tell members there was some concern amongst submitters that national preventive mechanisms are not designated or established by this bill—I am sure our colleague from the Green Party will have a comment to make on that—they are appointed by the Minister. The majority of the committee however are confident that the national preventive mechanisms measures contained in the bill are consistent with the optional protocol which does not require those mechanisms to be appointed by statute. We do recommend though in line with developments since the protocol was introduced that a new section be amended to provide that the Minister designate national preventive mechanisms no later than 1 year after the optional protocol is ratified by New Zealand. 
The other important point that was also referred to by the Minister concerns the reporting requirements. The committee looked at those requirements which have been improved to ensure greater accountability and transparency. That is important especially to a democracy like ours. As I indicated earlier our country is foremost in human rights. We have taken steps of our own accord to make sure that the kinds of abuses that are seen in other places around the world are certainly never going to be seen in our country. The optional protocol and the bill that we now bring forward to implement it sets that as a certainty. 
My colleague Richard Worth together with Simon Power in the first reading made some comments that I think are worth repeating. The first was around the fact that National was concerned—and we still remain concerned—that United Nations committees from our point of view in looking at them from a distance and from our democratic position do not always seem to focus on the most pressing of human rights violations. We would hate to see any UN bureaucracy set up in New Zealand when perhaps resources such as they might be—and perhaps my colleague Tim Groser will have something to say about that—might dictate that the main focus of such a committee should be on those countries and States in the world where matters of torture and cruelty to people in places of detention really do exist. As I say New Zealand is a leader on human rights and although the committee is entitled to come here when it wants I would like to think that proper focus is put where it is absolutely needed. 
In closing I tell the House it is proper that New Zealand ratifies the protocol. We along with other like-minded nations act as a role model. The persuasive element in our signing up to the protocol is very important and that we do so acts as a beacon for those countries who do not observe human rights and such protocols. It is the kind of standard that we as a democratic nation in the international community expect for all citizens of the international community.