Power Simon: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11177] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I follow on from the comments of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and although this is slightly irregular I wonder whether I can ask across the House which member from our party the Minister wrote to regarding the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When I seek agreement for a Supplementary Order Paper I write to the leader of each of the parties. It would have gone to Don Brash. 
SIMON POWER 
: Thank you. If the Supplementary Order Paper is as the Minister stated in his opening contribution to the debate we will not have any difficulty in supporting it. We await its final form. I understand the reasons outlined by the Minister and provided that those are reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper there will be no difficulty from the Opposition on that front. 
I certainly endorse what the Minister has said regarding the aim of the bill in respect of amending the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act to implement the agreement on privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court and of course as the Minister has said to give full effect to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I have to say we have no real difficulty with the issues raised in the bill as outlined by the Minister. The National Party will certainly continue to support this bill subject to as I say our sighting the Supplementary Order Paper referred to by the Minister. 
I have one very quick comment to make and it is about the statement of the public policy objective. On page 4 of the explanatory note the narrative states: “New Zealand has an interest in seeing the perpetrators of the most grave international crimes brought to justice. … The establishment of the ICC helps to make this possible”. From memory the ratification by way of domestic legislation of the International Criminal Court via the Rome Statute was supported by most if not all parties of this House at the time it went through some months ago. It is fair to concur with the statement in the narrative: “By becoming party to this Agreement at an early stage New Zealand demonstrates continued commitment to the ICC …”. The National Party certainly pledges that commitment alongside the Labour Government on this legislation. 
One does always have to be wary with legislation such as this in the sense that I am always a little cautious about international conventions the role of international agreements and the impact they may have on the raw sovereignty of any particular State to conduct its affairs in the way it wishes. But I have to say that we on this side are satisfied that this bill does not impinge on that statehood—if one likes—in respect of any nation being able to carry out its day-to-day activities. 
If the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister referred does include European Union representatives because as the Minister rightly pointed out the European Union is not a country and does not enjoy the same diplomatic privileges and immunities as nation States do then that makes perfect sense particularly given the expansion of the role of the European Union over time in terms of diplomatic postings and offices throughout the world. 
I do not propose to labour this point any further. I advise the House that the National Party will be continuing to support the passage of this bill.