Smith Lockwood: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11066] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Was that not a measure of how this Labour Government has fallen? The senior Government whip stood up presumably to support a piece of Government legislation and spoke for what was it? Five seconds I think. That shows how Labour Party members have lost confidence in what they are doing. They know now that the mood of the country is running against them. They are not even prepared to argue the case for the laws they put in front of this Parliament. David Benson-Pope should be able to do better. 
In speaking to the second reading of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill I think it has been made very clear to the House that National supports this legislation. I think it has also been pretty clear this evening that there are members who are a little concerned about the detail of the bill. In some ways this bill is interesting because one could almost say it overrules the old law. The old law was: “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” but this bill says: “When in Rome do as New Zealanders do.” 
It pays to think about that a bit because although it might be a simple argument to say that New Zealanders when serving overseas should comply with New Zealand law—and I think that is a very good argument—we have to make sure there are no fishhooks around all of this that the simplicity of the legislation overlooks. Of course the role of the select committee has been to consider those issues. 
My good colleague Judith Collins—a very very good new member for National—has pointed out that the bill is retrospective. The members of the select committee noted that as well and sought advice as to the implications of that. It is retrospective as stated by clause 2 “Commencement”: “This Act is deemed to have come into force on 24 July 2003.” That date was over 6 months ago so there are issues there. What about our servicemen and women serving in the Solomons right now? Are they aware that they will be subject to this law once Parliament passes it? 
We were assured at the select committee—and I made notes to that effect on 28 August last year—that New Zealand men and women serving in the Solomons who would be subject to this legislation and who were not already subject to the United Nations (Police) Act and various other acts that cover our armed forces were advised prior to deployment. We were told that prior to deployment clear notice had been given to New Zealand men and women serving in the Solomons which is the theatre where there is a risk of retrospectivity catching people unawares. 
I suppose we in Opposition have to trust the Government on that point—that it has properly advised people serving on our behalf in the Solomons of this new law. It is important because retrospective legislation by and large should not be supported by Parliament. There are good reasons to support it in this case and one reason worth mentioning is that the old law of “when in Rome do as the Romans do” could leave New Zealanders serving overseas very vulnerable. If we did not have this new law in place it would mean that certain New Zealand citizens would not be immune from the idiosyncrasies of jurisdiction in places where they were serving overseas. 
Clearly that could have unsatisfactory ramifications for New Zealand men and women serving overseas. Not all countries—especially where New Zealand men and women might be serving—have the sophistication of law that New Zealand has. I do not want to be unkind about that but it is fair to say that the standard of law in our country is reasonably sound. It is based on Westminster law and has stood the test of time. There are a number of countries around the world where New Zealand men and women might be serving where law as we know it has been in place for less time and might be less certain. We do not want New Zealand men and women serving on our behalf caught up in a jurisdiction in which the certainty of the law that might protect them is less clear. 
The concern about retrospectivity is very valid and New Zealanders serving overseas—particularly in the Solomons—must have been advised of that but we want New Zealanders overseas to have the protection of our law rather than being vulnerable to some of the idiosyncrasies of law elsewhere that might be less sound than our own. To me that is the balancing issue. 
The select committee looked at a few technical issues especially around the implementation of the bill. It is all very well to say that a New Zealander overseas would be subject to the new law but the question arises of how to give effect to it. Members will note that the select committee recommended an amendment to clause 6 in order to make sure that a New Zealander arrested outside New Zealand could be detained in custody outside New Zealand for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable that person to be brought back to New Zealand. That was a practical measure the select committee saw as being sensible so that this law could be given effect to overseas. 
Issues were raised about how the situation might work when a citizen of a third nation is serving with a New Zealand force overseas and that is an area where this bill is perhaps least clear. In that circumstance we have a person working—employed if you like—with the New Zealand force and one could almost argue therefore subject to New Zealand law. Yet I am not sure that that is as unequivocally clear as it might be. That is one issue that the select committee did grapple with a little and when we get to the Committee stage I would like to hear Government members comment more on it because we do not want to put law in place that is really messy around any particular issue. We should not get too neurotic about it but there is an issue there about how this law technically applies to people from a third nation serving as part of a New Zealand force overseas. 
Those are the main issues that occupied the minds of the members of the select committee as we looked at this bill. It is needed legislation. Our servicemen and women overseas who are not already protected by other legislation need to be protected by New Zealand law. They need immunity from the idiosyncrasies of foreign law and for those who might argue that people overseas might not know about this legislation that is a good balance. The important thing is that the group it will affect the most are the people serving in the Solomons. We have been advised that they have been given clear notice that this legislation will apply to them retrospectively. In many ways it provides more security than anything else. That is why the National Party is supporting this measure and will be voting in favour of it.