Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11246] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The title of the bill does not tell us what is really happening and indeed in the preceding debate with the exception of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith everyone’s speeches went immediately to the substance of the debate. I want to speak a little bit on those points because they are important. I think it is inappropriate that the Government through a bill that is primarily about the International Criminal Court adds in at a very late stage the European Union through Supplementary Order Paper 190. There are no doubt good and valid reasons to do that but it is just that it is an unfortunate process whereby a statute being passed for one purpose ends up being used for another separate purpose. As a matter of legislative form that would be wrong. 
Last week there was extensive discussion about the role of the International Criminal Court. The ACT party in particular and Mr Franks especially has very directly stated that party’s opposition to the court. However on analysing new section 10D(2)(d) to be inserted into the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act by clause 3 of the bill he may have a point and I would invite the officials and the Minister to look specifically at that point. 
I think everyone and perhaps even Mr Franks would concede that obviously there should be immunity for the judges of the International Criminal Court and for the prosecutor deputy prosecutor and registrar. Frankly that is common sense and there should be immunity for States parties too. However Mr Franks has raised an important point around counsel witnesses victims and experts. I would particularly focus on the term “witnesses”. I think as we know from observing the trials in The Hague currently many of the witnesses usually by some form of immunity agreement have agreed to testify against a superior officer even though that witness was directly implicated and involved in the crime against humanity usually a grave massacre. 
 In that situation whilst the immunity may be against prosecution before the relevant tribunal one would hardly think it necessary that the witnesses have a general exemption from the criminal law itself of the place of jurisdiction of the tribunal. Imagine for instance there was a hearing of the International Criminal Court in New Zealand. Quite clearly witnesses could be called. Some of those witnesses might have some involvement in the massacre. Surely it cannot be our intention—and maybe that was a matter overlooked by the select committee—to also be absolving those witnesses from criminal conduct in New Zealand or immunity generally from New Zealand law. So I would counsel the Minister and the officials to look at that point in particular. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs—or indeed Mr Franks—should be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper relating to that clause. 
We certainly do not want to pass law that would make us a laughing stock and that—more than that—would enable people to perpetrate crimes. It is a grave matter. We must ensure our law is right. The next hour or so is the last opportunity to get this legislation right. There is no other opportunity except by an amendment bill or a Statutes Amendment Bill—but why wait? Why not do that work now in order to make sure we get this legislation correct? 
I understand Mr Franks’ broader objections to the International Criminal Court—and I generally disagree with them—but I think he has raised a very valid point on this particular issue and it would behove the Government to look carefully at it. I will take a further call when we come to later provisions particularly those amended by the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Mr Locke—which is breathtaking in its implications I think we could say—but I will turn to those points later on.