Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11064] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There are a couple of issues that are a little concerning to me. The first is that this legislation has a retrospective element to it. I understand from reading the seven pages of the report back from the select committee—for what is a 4-page bill—that it is intended the bill take into account personnel serving in the Solomon Islands. That may well be a very good reason but this should have been done before the personnel went to the Solomons and I am sure that all parties would have helped to facilitate it. 
Retrospective legislation is by its very nature something that we should avoid in this country. To tell people that they will be subject to a law that was not in effect when they committed an action or an omission or undertook to serve overseas is a very bad precedent. Certainly I have noticed that in quite a lot of the legislation that has come before the House in the last 18 months that I have been here an element of retrospective nature has come in often. That points me to the very shoddy nature of the Government and its processes whereby good legislation is allowed to languish while other rubbish goes through. 
My other concern is about exactly how the bill is supposed to work. I look at clause 5(2)— 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect I took offence at the member describing the business of the House as rubbish. I think it was quite unparliamentary to refer to the work of this Parliament in that way. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I certainly was not referring to the business of the House but to some of the legislation put before it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that is perfectly OK. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Coming back to my point I am concerned at just how this bill will work. In clause 5(2) the tense seems slightly unusual. It states: “If any person to whom this section applies does or omits to do any act outside New Zealand”—so if we are talking about the Solomons an act or omission in the Solomons—“that if done or omitted within New Zealand would constitute an offence”—that is fine—“that act or omission is deemed to have taken place within New Zealand unless—(a) the person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the place in which the act or omission took place;”—in other words the Solomons— “and (b) the authorities in that place—(i) are not subject to … cede jurisdiction.” 
My problem with this clause is that it means the person must have done the act or omitted to do it. Surely that is something a court of law would have to find before the rest of the clause could come into play. I am just a little confused about that and I would really like to hear from the Minister or perhaps the officials are available to give me some advice on that. It seems just a little bit as though someone who is accused or charged under this bill when it becomes an Act could say: “I have to have been proved to have done it before I come under it.” It is all a little confusing and I am a little concerned that with the very best will in the world—which I am sure the House has towards this bill—we might have a bit of a chicken and egg situation whereby we are not quite sure what is supposed to come first. 
One of the things lawyers look at when they are acting for and defending someone charged is this sort of possible inconsistency. I am quite happy to be shown wrong by the Minister and I would really love to hear from him on this. It just seems as though the tenses are a little bit out. 
The other provision in this clause is about the authorities in that place—in other words the Solomons in the example we are using—not being subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to the New Zealand authorities. I wonder in what circumstances authorities in another jurisdiction would be obliged to cede jurisdiction to New Zealand authorities. I take up the point of my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall in his very good speech about this who raised the issue of the American servicemen accused of committing an offence in Japan. The Americans wanted to have the case tried in America and that was absolutely unacceptable to the Japanese. I wonder what sort of situation that would be so I would be happy to hear from the Minister on that. 
The other thing too is that we need to make sure that when people are serving overseas—whether they are part of the police or part of the civilian population that happens to be serving—they know full well about this bill and when it becomes an Act about it as an Act. That is because this is a totally new situation for our peacekeeping people and it is very important that they know fully about it. These are people who risk their lives often for not particularly substantial pay and they need to know what they are going into. It concerns me that some of them may feel they will not necessarily be subject to it and we need to be assured by the Minister that current and future personnel in the Solomon Islands will be properly advised of this. I would like to make sure that there is proper procedure to have that documented. 
I close now with the thought that this is good legislation but there are a couple of points I would like to have sorted out during the Committee stage. I really would like to hear the Minister on those points.