Smith Lockwood: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12825] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the second reading of the Visiting Forces Bill I cannot help but comment on that silly little speech made by a silly little member from Waimakariri. If that member had been around this Parliament for any length of time at all he would know a little bit about the history of foreign policy in this country. There is no question that New Zealand’s foreign policy is a matter for New Zealand’s absolute sovereign determination and in New Zealand’s interests—absolutely. 
If that member knew more of the history of his own party he might have read a little bit more of what Michael Bassett has to say. He is an eminent historian and a former front-bench Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government and it is very instructive to read what Michael Bassett has to say about what drove foreign policy and continues—obviously—to drive foreign policy in the Labour Party and that clearly is not New Zealand’s sovereign best interests at all. I see that Michael Cullen has just walked into the House. As a former friend of Michael Bassett he knows only too well what went on back in those days when the Labour Party took New Zealand down a track that did not see New Zealand making its own sovereign best interest judgments but was driven instead by other motives and forces that had an awful lot to do with prejudices. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not me saying this; this is the view of that member’s own Dr Michael Bassett a respected historian who will talk about the prejudices of Helen Clark Margaret Wilson and Jim Anderton that drove New Zealand down a foreign policy path that was not—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I see that Mr Speaker is tapping the bill. It was the member from Waimakariri who went down this track and I am only responding to him. But perhaps I have said enough about Labour’s past which included anything but providing independent sovereign foreign policy for New Zealand. 
In looking at this Visiting Forces Bill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Not visiting forces. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Michael Cullen would not know about this because he was not there but the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was briefed on it on 19 February. I refer back to my notes at the time and what I wrote down. I said: “Why the delay since the signing of the status of forces agreement with Australia in 1998?”. That agreement was reached in the last year of the previous National Government. 
What I wrote down at that briefing from the Ministry of Defence kind of speaks volumes about Labour’s attitude towards our defence relationship with Australia. Labour cared so little about our defence relationship with Australia that the status of forces agreement negotiated by the previous National Government in 1998 could not be ratified for 6 years and it cannot be ratified until this legislation is passed. That Labour Government cares so little about our defence relationship with Australia that those members could not be bothered advancing legislation to ratify that agreement. That is only one of the small reasons but it is still a contributing reason why Australia is so scathing about our contribution to the joint defence effort. 
Dr Cullen knows how scathing that country is because it has told him. One thing I will give Dr Cullen the credit for is that he is usually far more honest than Phil Goff is when it comes to reporting what he is told in foreign capitals. I will give Michael Cullen that because we know that Phil Goff never tells us what he is told in foreign capitals but Michael Cullen does occasionally. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Go home to bed and think about it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: What did Dr Cullen say? “Go home to bed and think about it.” Dr Cullen knows that our defence relationship with Australia is strained—Australia is highly critical—and if Dr Cullen said that he had never been told that then he would not be telling the House the truth. He knows and I know—because I talk to the same people that he does and they will not tell me different things to what they tell him—that the defence relationship is severely strained. One reason as the commentary on the bill acknowledges is that it has been 6 years since the status of forces agreement was negotiated with Australia and Labour could not be bothered advancing the legislation to ratify it. 
I want to speak about some of the detail of this bill because as my good colleague Simon Upton pointed out—my God I mean Simon Power. Simon Upton was also a very good colleague. 
Simon Power 
: I’m taller. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Simon Power points out that he is taller and he is much taller indeed. But they were both very intelligent members of this Parliament—one a former member and one current. Simon Power pointed out that there are some complex issues in this bill—and the Government has seriously downplayed some of them—such as where a status of forces agreement does not exist where are jurisdictional boundaries to be drawn? It becomes a bit more complex than that because there arises issues as to when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies. That is something the select committee heard a bit about and it is not clear. It becomes quite a complex issue. 
I am not sure the bill makes this very clear at all because as I understand it where the criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction under clauses 7 and 8 belongs with the visiting State party visiting forces would not be subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In other words normal kinds of activity and behaviour in pursuit of the law in New Zealand normally are subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As I read the bill the jurisdiction that a visiting State has under clauses 7 and 8 as amended and reported back by the select committee—and I draw members’ attention to the commentary—would not be subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The last paragraph of the commentary states: “Finally we note that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not apply to the acts of visiting forces.” It goes on to state: “However if the visiting force’s jurisdiction is exercised over or assisted by a person or body to whom section 3 of that Act”—referring to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—“applies … then the New Zealand courts would have jurisdiction in respect of that exercise or assistance.” 
I suspect that is quite complex legislation. There are circumstances when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act may or may not apply depending on who might be involved in the exercise of criminal or disciplinary jurisdiction involving a visiting State. That is quite complex. I just hope that during the Committee stage this Parliament looks at some of these issues quite seriously. The key issues are in clause 8 which defines those jurisdictional boundaries. I hope members also have a good look at clause 15 which the select committee amended to ensure that the actions of visiting force authorities could not be further questioned in a New Zealand court. That is further complicated by the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which appears to apply or not apply depending on who might be involved in the conduct of a case involving a visiting State. 
So members can see that the issues like my good colleague Simon Power—a lawyer himself—pointed out are quite complex and they deserve the detailed attention of this Parliament. National supports this legislation but it does require detailed attention. 
Bill read a second time.