Franks Stephen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11244] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Like Lockwood Smith I think the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill is misnamed. I was a little sorry that the Hon Lockwood Smith did not return to the matter he raised when he first spoke on this bill in the first reading debate. He pointed out that new sections 10E and 10D inserted by clause 3 raised serious issues that the select committee should examine. Sadly the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did not examine them. It did a pathetic job and did not look at any of the serious issues. This bill comes back to us with the title unamended despite the fact that the immunities privileges and exemptions the bill confers will go way past diplomats. The international agreement the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which the bill makes extension to or extends the benefit of begins with some very fine old drafting. It states: “The States Parties to the present Convention Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognised the status of diplomatic agents” and “Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relationships amongst nations irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems …” and then it goes on. 
The problem here is that this bill extends diplomatic privilege or immunity to people who may well be war criminals or thugs. They may be propagandists for war criminals or thugs. The bill states that when an International Criminal Court hearing is being held here the immunities extend not just to the judges—which we would think was common sense—but go past the prosecution the deputy prosecutor the registry staff the staff of those officers of the court or those necessary appendages of the court and they go to counsel witnesses victims experts and any other person required to be present at the seat of the International Criminal Court. Members should just think for a moment about whether the title of this bill would alert anyone to the prospect that the former President of Serbia Mr Milosevic could call as a witness anyone he wanted to call and could bring in a bunch of his thugs—his gangsters—who would obtain all the immunities provided under noble sentiment for the diplomatic agents of nations. 
 In other words this bill does what Labour so often does: it takes legislation with ordinary words that have a well-settled meaning and adds in provisions that mean in the end they could come to have totally different consequences. I believe that is something the Committee stage of the House should look at because the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did such a hopeless job in the 35 or 40 minutes that it spent examining this bill. It did not consider just what the ramifications are when the immunities are extended to counsel witnesses victims experts and any other person required to be present at the seat of the International Criminal Court. Why should those people be immune from New Zealand law? Why should they not have to pay tax? If they are gangsters and crooks and they spend 6 7 or 10 months here while there is a court hearing on we can be sure they will live according to their normal custom. Why should those immunities be offered to those people at all? Is there any suggestion that they need the State to assist them in finding accommodation? In my opinion there is a whole host of articles in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that should clearly have been made exceptions so that those people could not benefit from this immunity. 
The title of this bill should have been adjusted to reflect the fact that this is not a diplomatic privileges and immunities amendment bill but is a “Parties to Court Proceedings (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill”. That is quite different from the old immunities and privileges that have become part of international custom and that have sometimes been tested almost to the point of destruction when members of some diplomatic missions have abused them. We all know about the members of such missions who routinely do not pay their parking fines or who scoot and run when they have caused traffic accidents and so forth.