Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11247] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Clause 2 again is a fairly simple clause. It is when we get to clause 3 that the substance of the bill can really be addressed and there are some issues that colleagues have raised that the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs should respond to. Even in clause 2 there is something that the Minister could assist us with that would be of value to the Committee. Clause 2 states that the Act will commence on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. When the bill was introduced we were told that the reason for commencement by Order in Council was that it was proposed that the Act should come into force on the same date as the agreement came into force in New Zealand. I presume that that agreement is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
That seems to all make sense up to that point. The agreement was to enter into force in New Zealand on the 30th day after the date of the deposit of New Zealand’s instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What would interest the National Party and the Opposition is why the Government is now amending the commencement date. Supplementary Order Paper 190 provides that the commencement date will be changed. The amendment to clause 2 on that Supplementary Order Paper states: “To omit from lines 7 and 8 on page 1 the words ‘a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council’ and substitute the words ‘the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent’.” It would be helpful in order for the Committee to understand what is going on here for the Minister to take a call and explain the reason for that change. 
I accept that it is not a huge change. It is quite common for a commencement date to be the day after the day on which a bill receives the royal assent. There is no problem with that but this is a significant issue. The clause had originally been put in for a specific purpose which was to coincide with the date of the agreement coming into force in New Zealand. The legislation was supposed to commence on that day. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand what has changed. It is a not a big deal. I stress that it is not about the downfall of the Government—it is causing enough problems for itself in other areas without this legislation causing problems—but it is important that the Committee understands the reason for that change. 
For example has the agreement already come into force? When does the agreement come into force in New Zealand? When was the instrument of ratification lodged with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Has it been lodged? What is the nexus now between the royal assent being given to this bill and the coming into force of the Statute of Rome agreement in New Zealand? The Committee deserves to know that. It is not a big ask of the Minister but it would certainly give us a better understanding of why that clause is to be changed. There must be some reason for it. 
The bill as introduced had a perfectly rational commencement date. It will now be changed and there is obviously some good reason for it. That change must relate in some way to New Zealand’s ratification of the agreement and it would be very helpful to the House—if we are to vote in favour of the commencement date as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 190 and I stress that we have no huge problem about that—to understand why. Why is the Government asking Parliament to amend the commencement date when it seemed that the original commencement date in the bill as introduced to Parliament was a perfectly rational commencement date that tied in with the ratification of the agreement—its deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? What has changed? I am prepared to resume my seat in order to save time and enable the Minister to take a call and explain to us—because it may save some debating time—why the Supplementary Order Paper amends the commencement clause when that clause seemed perfectly rational. Something must have changed to make that amendment a sensible one. I believe that it would be courteous to the Committee—if the Minister expects it to vote in favour of the amendment—to explain why it has become necessary.