Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7338] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 The explanations given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade were full and they gave us a good understanding of what the bill is about. It is rather a pity that just a few minutes ago he did not take the opportunity to give much the same kind of explanation about the merger of the Department for Courts with the Ministry of Justice. Such an explanation is not an unreasonable request it would seem but did he take that opportunity? After all we do presume he knows something about the matter. However we were denied the opportunity of that explanation. 
I appreciate Mr Speaker that you are probably of the view that I should focus on the bill before us rather than on the one that preceded it. National supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court and we did so for very good reasons. I know there are parties in this House that did not give such support—notably New Zealand First and ACT. They explained that they feared that such a court would go beyond a reasonable level of jurisdiction. It did not seem that they were necessarily opposed to it in principle but rather that they felt the jurisdiction was wider than was necessary to cover crimes of genocide and matters of that nature. 
I would ask them to reconsider their point of view in relation to this bill. The reason is that if we look back over a century or more of international lawmaking we see that ad hoc tribunals have been established to deal with particular issues—they could be limitation issues or various claims or tribunals or disputes between particular States. That process has gone on for centuries. Its limitations were appreciated a century ago and that led to the establishment of a general court of competence the International Court of Justice to deal with disputes between States. No country in the world today would say that was not a good thing. The merits of international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes through courts were advanced by that process. 
In many ways the International Criminal Court is an advance on that because not only does it provide jurisdiction between States but also it brings individuals who are guilty of the very worst crimes—and maybe there is a point to be made about the precise drafting—before a recognised international court. That is a far more effective and reliable system than having ad hoc tribunals such as those established following events in Kosovo and Bosnia and most notably the Nuremburg Tribunal. What this court does is gather up the ideas that motivated those various ad hoc tribunals and that established some fundamental principles of human rights law to provide a court that will punish and bring to justice those people guilty of the very worst crimes imaginable—those that are a fundamental affront to human rights and dignity. 
I would ask all the parties in this Parliament today to reconsider their vote effectively through the agency of this bill. There are two reasons for that. The first is that general principle. The second is the fact that the court now exists. It is established. It does have its 18 judges and it does have a secretariat. It will commence its business. Surely we as a country cannot be in a position whereby based on a vote of a year or so ago we would now deny the rights and privileges of diplomatic immunity to the court’s judges staff and so forth. Whatever argument existed a year ago I believe that time has moved on and I would like to think that at the very minimum all parties in this Parliament would vote unanimously to send this bill to a select committee. 
 One might think I am overstressing that point but there is a reason for it. I believe that the establishment of the International Criminal Court was one of the great cardinal points in the development of international law. New Zealand—the nation—is now a party to that court. It behoves the entire Parliament to recognise those obligations. Even if people state their particular concerns the obligation is now incumbent on the New Zealand Government and in fact the people of New Zealand to enable that court to be effective and to implement justice in the worst cases of human abuse. The Minister is right; most often because of the mobility of people because of the way that these criminals try to escape justice in the place where the crime occurred there will be witnesses—there could even be defendants—in this country whom the officials the prosecutors will wish to visit. Surely we would not want to say: “No you can’t have the appropriate immunities.” 
This is one of those rare issues but they do come up from time to time where I believe our Parliament would be sending a strong message about our fundamental beliefs around human rights and around the protection of the rights of people to live their lives in liberty in today supporting this bill at least going to a select committee.