Mark Ron: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12228] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting listening to the comments raised by Mr Worth in his discussion—[ 
Interruption 
] I was not listening to the comments made by Judith Collins. I am not a legal beagle and I have never really wanted to be but to help the Committee—and I thought the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson might want to comment on this—I can advise that the lack of distinction between civilians and the police members of an operation was considered and discussed. It was suggested that consideration be given to deeming civilian persons on a non - United Nations deployed mission to be members of the police. The concern appeared to be that there was insufficient distinction between the situations of the police and civilian members of an operation. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did not consider that greater distinction than at present was warranted between the two because in reality both would be subject to prosecution for the same sorts of offences regardless of whether they were police or civilian members of the operation. It was put that if police members have defences available to them because of their policing role those defences would be available by virtue of their policing role and status. The committee accepted the view that it would not be wise to take an approach that sought to treat civilian members artificially as police personnel not least because of the different consequences that may flow in terms of the defences available to them. 
I come now to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. Those issues were discussed and considered. I draw members’ attention to the commentary on the bill. There was subsequent discussion and legal advice suggested it was arguable that the current arrest provisions may give police powers to arrest only in New Zealand. Accordingly the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would apply by virtue of section 3 of that Act. Section 3 provides that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will apply only to acts done by “any person or body in the performance of a public function power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.” The committee did not believe however that there would be value in clarifying the bill. So it is clear that police would also have the power to arrest overseas. 
A number of changes and amendments were made. One of them was to clause 6(2) to read: “(a) the person may be arrested without warrant within or outside New Zealand—or (b) a warrant for the person’s arrest may be issued in New Zealand and executed within or outside New Zealand” A new subclause (4) was added stating that “Any person arrested outside New Zealand may be detained in custody outside New Zealand for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the person to be taken to New Zealand.” Quite a bit of discussion goes on in the interdepartmental report on the submission that deals quite extensively with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and any relevance. The bottom-line recommendation made was that clause 6 “Powers of arrest and detention” be amended to make it clear that the police would have powers of arrest overseas. The committee did not recommend any changes to include a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If we read the interdepartmental advice we see that the matter is dealt with quite clearly there. 
Part 2 agreed to.