edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to participate in the third readings of these bills. As has been mentioned by earlier speakers from this side we are not supporting this legislation. But that doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge the work of public servants in this country. I would like to acknowledge the State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes who is sitting in the gallery to see the process of this legislation. I want to say that during these hard times the public servants have delivered world-class service to the citizens of New Zealand.I have travelled around the world from time to time and have always been admired by others because of our public servants. I have hosted a lot of public servants from overseas in Parliament from time to time who come here to learn from our public servants how they operate during the processes. That shows that our public servants are very well recognised all over the world.The reason that we are opposing this legislation is the process. The Public Service Legislation Bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee just before Christmas and I would like to acknowledge the chair Dr Jian Yang. He took the initiative and immediately called for public submissions before the Parliament closed for the Christmas break. Then in February the Parliament was not reconvened because of the COVID conditions around the country and that really left us with no other option than to take submissions over Zoom meetings—whereas the Government instructed to all select committees that only those bills which are related to COVID should be addressed. But this bill was not related to COVID but this bill in a generation was going to be revamped and realised and we wanted the best outcome out of this. The select committee I think on both sides whether it was Government members or Opposition members—their intention was to improve the bill. A lot of hard work was done and I would like to acknowledge the officials for their support in improving this legislation. The departmental report was ready which was discussed in the select committee at length and a lot of changes were made during that period. The only thing that was left was that the Parliamentary Counsel Office had to redo the bill and make the amendments in the bill. That opportunity was requested by us from the Opposition side but the Government MPs declined that request. And that is where I think the process is lacking behind. This legislation—which would have been very good legislation because a lot of hard work was put in during the select committee—could have gone through this whole process the committee of the whole House and the third readings in lesser time than what we have taken in this one day or so.So I think the intention of the legislation is really good but the process has been very shambolic. And that is why the National Party is opposing this legislation.
SpeechFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this legislation the Public Service Legislation Bill now in two parts. I simply want to add to the conversation in the House by acknowledging Minister Hipkins and actually Minister Grant Robertson and their efforts. I see the Public Service in the gallery this afternoon and I simply wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their incredibly hard work—the undertaking that they have gone through to get this legislation in front of the House as it is today. I just outline very briefly what we are seeking to achieve through this legislation. We are enabling the Public Service to deliver better outcomes and better services. We are creating a modern agile and adaptive Public Service and affirming the constitutional role of the Public Service and supporting New Zealanders' democratic form of Government. In seeking to achieve these New Zealand First supports this legislation. Thank you.
Public Service Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 & 2
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The member's asking for a legal opinion regarding the difference between those covered by the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002 and those that aren't. That's a debate that's well wide of the scope of this bill.
SpeechPart 6 Amendments to enactments repeals and revocationsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues that brings us to Part 6 debate on clauses 107 to 112 and Schedules 10 and 11. This is amendments to enactments repeals and revocations.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Before we vote on the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on Part 5 and then have a vote on the amended Part 5 could we have clarity as to whether the issue of the error that's been identified—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah there's a tabled amendment. There is a tabled amendment. We're just going to vote on it now.Hon Dr Nick Smith: So amendment has been tabled. Is that a separate SOP just so for the voting it can be clear?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes I have it in front of me—hang on. So I have an amendment in front of me that replaces the Part 5 heading with Offence immunity and public service reorganisations". So that's the Minister's tabled amendment to the Part 5 heading—hang on. It's the Minister's tabled amendment to SOP 549 to the Part 5 heading and for the benefit of the committee it reads: to "Replace the Part 5 heading with: 'Offence immunity and public service reorganisations' ".The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to: Replace the Part 5 heading with: "Offence immunity and public service reorganisations".Amendment agreed to."
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Hipkins ChrisKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister a direct one. In clause 73 it says Chief executives and boards to promote diversity and inclusiveness." In his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) he has proposed to delete some part of it. In the last sentence of subclause (1)(a) it says it should "reflect the makeup of society;". So I did ask the State Services Commissioner whether he was satisfied with the diversity presently in the public sector and his answer was no. So my question to the Minister is: how is he going to ensure that there is a true reflection of the society which makes up New Zealand today and how is he going to address this issue when there is a clear clause 73—what he's proposing in his SOP?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): If the member refers to clause 73(1) I think the important words to refer to are the very first ones: "A chief executive of a department and a board of an interdepartmental venture must—(a) … [be guided by] the principle that … the group comprising all public service employees … [should] reflect the makeup of society;". So it puts the onus to ensure that happens back on to the chief executives."
Hipkins ChrisLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I wish to ask the Minister in a subsequent contribution about the establishment of joint operational agreements. Minister I raise—under clause 37(1) it says Two or more chief executives or boards of public service agencies may enter into a joint operational agreement for their agencies to work together to achieve stated goals." and "(2) Before executing an agreement under this section the chief executives or boards must obtain the agreement of the Commissioner."Minister I ask this question in relation to the relative power between the commissioner and the executive—in other words Ministers. I liken it to things like when the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was formed when the Ministry for Primary Industries was put together and the subsequent dismantling of it by the current Minister. I look at where is the ministerial oversight in that mix? I would have thought that Ministers have a duty and an obligation to understand—and you as the Minister of State Services would understand this—what's happening. But I look at this clause and it seems to me that the commissioner actually has all the say. Things can be done—one would hope they couldn't be done without ministerial oversight but it seems like these clauses allow an awful lot of power to be given to chief executives and their boards to make arrangements and no overriding provision of either of those Ministers or the Minister of State Services.So Minister I'd like to understand your interpretation as to how that's actually going to work in reality on the ground. And it's available for any Minister of the executive with Cabinet approval I would have thought to make changes but this appears to give a whole lot of power to the State Services Commissioner and public sector chief executives and boards to reorganise things.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd encourage the member to read on just a little bit further and he'll find under clause 37(3) "The agreement must not purport to—(a) alter the responsibilities that exist between the chief executives or boards and the appropriate Ministers;". So the answer to the member's question is it does not alter that arrangement."
SpeechDr JIAN YANG (National): Part 2 covers Public Service agencies and joint operational arrangements. I understand that we did have what you'd call departmental agencies since 2013. The bill itself would improve—make more flexibility. At the same time the bill introduces new organisational forms including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures. The question is: because these will be relatively new will the Minister or the Government take steps to make sure that these things will be reviewed after a certain time? I understand that the officials have replied saying that there will be some kind of update from time to time but it would be more reassuring to include a particular clause to say that these new agencies—because these are new never tested properly—including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures will be reviewed after two or three years to see whether they are operating properly. So will that happen or will we simply say OK we won't have any time frame and we will simply check as we like?
Hipkins ChrisKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In his Supplementary Order Paper on page 25 clause 3 he says that the commissioner may appoint one or more independent advisers who are not chief executives of departments to the board. So my question is to the Minister: on whose advice is the commissioner going to appoint these independent advisers and why is there no limit to how many advisers he can appoint? Is he free to appoint as many as he wants or is there a limit as to how many of these advisers can be appointed by the commissioner?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I would expect the commissioner to use his or her judgment in making those kinds of appointments. As is inherent within the existing legislation of course the commissioner does have powers of appointment where they do have to exercise judgment.
SpeechPart 2 Public service agencies and joint operational agreementsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the member the Hon Dr Nick Smith could I just remind him of the new process that the House has agreed to undertake. We no longer have a limit on speeches of four five-minute speeches. The expectation is that you don't always speak for five minutes and that the point of your contribution is a direct question to the Minister who is then expected to answer it.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): As I mentioned before clause 4 of course is a guide to the Act and the clause that the member specifically refers to is the explanatory clause for Part 5 of the bill. So the substance of the member's issue is with Part 5 of the bill.However I will address the member's concern. Offence to solicit or attempt to improperly influence Public Service leaders—the thing the member seems to have an objection to is the insertion of the word improperly". It is of course possible to directly seek to influence a Public Service leader in a very proper manner. Lobbying happens from time to time. There is nothing improper about that. I don't see any grand conspiracy in saying that an attempt to influence a Public Service leader needs to be improper for the rest of the provisions to apply. There are instances where people will lobby where they will advocate for their position or advocate for their cause. That's a perfectly proper part of the way the Public Service operates and in fact New Zealanders of course we do want them to be working with the Public Service. So I think the thing that we're dealing with here is improper influence—i.e. buying favour—and I think that this is merely just a clarification."
Hipkins ChrisKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to ask a question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins. First of all in Part 1 clause 10 says that while appointing the chair of the board it should be a merit-based appointment. In the Supplementary Order Paper it clarifies further that it is not only the chair but the board members also. So what criteria are to be followed and who will look after that this is being followed particularly if we look from the ethnic side? How will they get that equal representation under different boards because so far that question was raised during the select committee process and we don't have any report from the select committee? So my question to the Minister is: how are you going to address this issue while appointing the board members as well as the chairs from time to time?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I'm not entirely sure that I follow the member's point. Clause 10(1)(c) which I assume is the clause that the member is referring to refers to the fact that the Public Service should make merit-based appointments (unless an exception applies under [the] Act):". The basic principle of merit-based appointment of course is one that was in the original Public Service legislation passed early in the last century. And the purpose of that legislation was to move away from effectively cronyism where the Public Service was dominated by people appointed based on who they knew rather than based on them being the best person for the job. So the basic premise here under clause 10(1)(c) is that the Public Service should operate on the basis that the best person for the job gets the job i.e. it is a merit-based appointment rather than favouritism or cronyism as has been the case in the New Zealand Public Service in the past—certainly the case in the early days of the New Zealand Public Service before the original Public Service legislation was passed. With regard to board appointments I'm not sure which particular boards the member's referring to. But of course I would note that many many boards within the Public Service particularly when it comes to Crown agents Crown entities and so on actually these provisions do not apply to because those appointments are made by the executive and there are people who are on those boards who are politically aligned. That has been the case for a very very long time."
Smith Nick; Hipkins ChrisHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There are 24 changes in Part 1 of this bill. We only got these changes provided to us less than 48 hours ago and I want to go through and systematically ask questions of the Minister as to what those changes mean. Now a core part of this Public Service Act is which agencies are covered—so whether Government agencies whether we've got independent agencies like ACC. We've got of course 2700 schools. We've got district health boards. A really key question for all the other parts of the bill is who is covered and we spent a lot of time at the select committee determining whether Crown agents and which of those agencies should have the commissioner of the Public Service oversee them which will have powers to investigate them and how their responsibilities will wrest back to Ministers.We see in clause 8 some of the detail of Government departments of departmental agencies where we've got these new interdepartmental executive boards and these interdepartmental ventures which previous Prime Minister Bill English through the social investment model established. Now what we see in clause 4 of the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 549 is changes to which Crown agents Part 1 applies to. When we had the bill at the select committee I was really keen to know: will these rules of Public Service be neutral will these rules of the Public Service be open accountable will these rules of merit-based appointments—all of those things. We need to know as a Parliament as to which are the agencies that are covered by them.So I would like to know from the Minister quite specifically with the changes that he is proposing to clause 4(1) where we are saying Some provisions apply to Crown agents" now—not all of them; only some of the provisions apply to parts of the Public Service. I'd like the Minister to answer the question: what does his SOP change in terms of the agencies that are now covered by this legislation and when it says that some provisions will apply to them with his Supplementary Order Paper I would like to know which are the agencies that are not going to have some of these principles apply. In other words we need a very clear definition on which parts of the Public Service are covered—how is he changing that?—and when he is changing the coverage of the provisions in this bill we need clear answers as to what those changes are. If the Minister could give some clarification of why these changes are being made at the last minute that also would be helpful.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I'm very happy to clarify. Clause 4(1)—the clue is in the name. It says "Guide to this Act". The additional wording added at the end of clause 4(1) is simply providing additional clarity. It does not make any changes to the substance of clause 8. Members looking at clause 8 will of course see that Supplementary Order Paper 549 does not make any changes to the substance of that clause."
Hipkins ChrisDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister based on his response to the Hon Nick Smith earlier. It is in regard to clause 10 in Part 1. The Minister's response to the Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment was to refer to other parts of the bill that he thinks cover off spending public money wisely and effectively. But if we read in that clause 10 which is about Public Service principles the first opening line is In order to achieve the purpose in section 9 the public service principles are:".So while the Minister—and this is my question for you Minister. While you're saying "Well you know Hon Nick Smith have a look back at the purpose in clause 9. That takes care of your particular tabled amendment." in clause 10 it says that in order to achieve the purpose the following principles are politically neutral free and frank advice merit-based appointments open Government and so on and so on. None of those refer to the wise and effective use of public money. That's what Nick Smith's tabled amendment says—the wise and effective use of public money. There is no reference in those principles to the use of public money. I take on board that there are principles around remaining politically neutral and free and frank advice but the specific tabled amendment wants to insert the topic of use of public money. Can I ask the Minister why if in fact the opening line is "In order to achieve the purpose of section 9" they should be—I guess I just don't see why there couldn't be reference to the use of public money in that list of principles.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Can I just briefly reply to the member. Clauses 9 and 10 do need to be read in conjunction with clause 50 which of course is in the next Part of the bill. The way the Public Finance Act works—and as I've indicated before the Public Finance Act of course sits alongside what will be the Public Service Act—chief executives are responsible to their Ministers for the operations of their agencies and for the efficient use of public spending. So if you look under clause 50(1)(c) which says "A chief executive of a department or a departmental agency is responsible to the appropriate Minister for—(c) the operation of their agency including in carrying out the purpose of the public service under section 9;" and then if you move to clause 50(1)(h) it says "the efficient and economical delivery of the goods or services provided by the agency and how effectively those goods or services contribute to the intended outcomes." So it is covered. There is obviously a cross-reference between clauses 9 and 10 and clause 50 so I'm comfortable that it is covered by the bill."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the member could I just comment that members seem to have reverted to the old style of committee stage debate where their speeches were five minutes long and that was it. The new regime is the House has agreed that there is a dialogue with the Minister. Some members are expected to raise questions to ask the Minister to respond. The Minister is expected to respond and then the member can assume they'll get another call. Five minutes is not a target.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The principle around efficiency and effective use of public money is a really important one and it is one that we considered when putting these principles together. The principles are owed to the Public Service Commissioner. When it comes to the expenditure of public funds the duties of public servants in that respect are owed to the Minister. The basic premise of the Public Finance Act which of course we all follow here in the House is actually it's Ministers that spend money—you know public money appropriated by Parliament—and therefore it's Ministers who should be accountable for the efficient and effective spending of that money to this House. The issue of efficiency and effectiveness is covered in other parts of this bill. Now if we go to the very first provision before the one that the member speaks to which is the purpose of the Public Service it refers to high-quality and efficient public services" so it is already encompassed there but particularly the responsibilities of chief executives which is referred to further on. It makes it very clear that "the efficient and economic delivery of the goods or services provided by the agency and how effectively these goods or services contribute to the intended outcomes."—that is the responsibility of the chief executives and they owe that responsibility to the Minister. So the question really is—there's no question about the fact that there should be reference to the efficient and economical delivery of public services; the question is how that's best framed within the law. I'm comfortable with the balance here recognising that actually the Public Service Act which is what this will be is not the primary legislative vehicle for these particular provisions. It is the Public Finance Act which of course sits alongside the Public Service Act that deals with that and there are very comprehensive duties set out there around responsible fiscal management and the responsibilities of chief executives in that."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK OK. Now if I can interrupt the member I have allowed him—because the process is difficult—considerable time now to make what are quite general comments about process but we are actually on Part 1 debating clauses 3 to 20 and Schedule 1. We are also in a different type of committee process where you are not limited to four five-minute speeches but more a question and answer process of the Minister. So I'm happy to allow the member to continue but I do want it focused on Part 1 and I do want it in the order of a question and answer session on details of the bill.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I only spotted one question in that contribution from Nick Smith and I'm happy to respond to it. The SOP tabled by the Government here does little more than adopt the amendments recommended in the departmental report that the select committee did not work its way through because in the six months available to them they were unable to organise their business in a way to do that as select committees would normally do.The SOP adopts the recommendations that arose from the select committee process so it's a bit surprising to see that the member who participated in the select committee process is unfamiliar with the contents of those amendments because those amendments arose from the select committee's deliberations on the matter. Unfortunately the committee were unable to organise their business in such a way that they presented the bill with the amendments incorporated back to the House so therefore the Government picked up the work that the committee had done and adopted the recommendations from the departmental report that are a reflection of the submissions received during the select committee process. All of the amendments that are proposed in that Supplementary Order Paper flow from the select committee's process.It is regrettable that the committee were unable to organise themselves—as I said in the six months they had to consider the bill—in a way that presented the bill back to the House in a shape that it was ready to pass. So the Government has picked up the work that they did and we have followed that through and we present the SOP that picks up the work the committee has done.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This process now is a question and answer. If you're following a line of thought I'm quite happy—you don't have to take a call.
Smith NickPUBLIC SERVICE LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I move that this order of the day for the committee stage of the Public Service Legislation Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately you should have done that when you first stood. We are now in committee. You had to do it before we moved into committee. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stood to do so and the Speaker left the Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I realise that but you did sit down and you didn't call the point of order so unfortunately the Standing Orders does not allow that at this stage.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'm assuming that we're now beginning the debate on the committee stage?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No well I haven't—I'm just getting my papers.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'm very pleased to stand briefly to reaffirm the Labour Party's support for this piece of legislation the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. New Zealand has a proud history of standing up for the international rule of law and human rights going back to events such as our isolated stand in the League of Nations to try and defend Abyssinia from annexation; the role of Peter Fraser in the Labour Government of that time at the founding of the United Nations; our own use of the International Criminal Court to stop French atmospheric testing in the Pacific; and many many many other examples of New Zealand playing its part and engaging in a stable and peaceful international order.This piece of legislation is a part of that evolution. It clearly puts into frame a range of awful techniques and practices that should be outlawed and I'm very pleased that we are continuing to play our role following on from that strong history as a country that believes in international human rights. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill at its third reading—a bill which the National Party supports as it incorporates into New Zealand law a number of amendments from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes. I just want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee ably chaired by my colleague Simon O'Connor for the work that they've done in considering the bill and the submissions that have been taken into account. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well for bringing this important bill to this Parliament a bill which expands the list of war crimes subject to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction allowing the court to hold individuals criminally responsible for them. This is the type of legislation which is about ensuring that we maintain the highest levels and standards in this very serious area—war being an area which no one in this House wants us to partake in but standards nevertheless need to be in our legislation that New Zealand needs to be a party of. The amendments make it a war crime to employ the following in a non-international armed conflict: poison or poisoned weapons; asphyxiating poisonous or other gases and materials; expanding bullets; a whole range of microbial agents biological agents or toxins—a range of very serious issues which this bill ratifies and I commend it to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start by just acknowledging the Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters for shepherding this piece of legislation through the House. It's an important piece of legislation and I want to also acknowledge that it's really good to see that it has across the House party support. Everything has been said previously so I just want to finish off by saying I commend this bill to the House.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. Good to have the opportunity to contribute to this the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. My own contribution like that of others will be relatively brief. I do just want to touch on a couple of points under the headings of why what when and who. On the subject of why obviously we are aligning domestic law and international law. A couple of other speakers including the Minister and also the Hon Simon Bridges on our side of the House have mentioned that. It's not merely a matter of aligning the two of course but domestic law is needed to give effect to the international law so from that perspective it's a worthwhile thing that we do to pass this legislation in the House today. As for the what" of course the subject matter has been traversed at least briefly in the House today—very briefly in the case of the committee of the whole House stage. But I did note with interest an exchange between Simon O'Connor on our side of the fence—but wearing his hat I suspect as much as anything as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The Minister was able to answer a question in relation to starvation being a weapon of war essentially which is a sad thing to reflect as far as human nature is concerned. But the Minister noted rightly enough that these things invariably take a lot of time to come to our attention and to be given effect to within the international context. So that's an interesting heads-up I guess for the future that we should expect more of such legislation and international instruments to be updated continually to reflect sadly the inventiveness of the human mind such that we need to continually work to understand the ways in which we find ways to do harm to each other. So that covers the "what" really although I would just point anyone who's interested in more detail to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It's got a commendable amount of detail on these different offences that are being updated within the international criminal context and again as I say our own domestic arrangements. I've covered the "when" aspect somewhat by noting as the Minister had that the wheels do grind slowly and the ongoing nature of these kinds of updates that we need to pass for the reason of updated technology I suppose—just to look at such detail as expanding bullets and microbial agents and toxins and undetectable weapons that injure by fragments and so on. I'll just complete my remarks with an observation on the "who" aspect by which I don't mean the World Health Organization but rather those who are involved. We stand today at the intersection of diplomatic legal and political worlds among others probably. So I do want to acknowledge all those who've been involved including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and others within the broader sense of Government and also the Government of the day as joined by the Opposition. As you will have heard we are having no hesitation in commending the bill to the House."
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is just a very short call to acknowledge the Minister and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who has worked on this. As I have heard in the debate today it's a very positive step forward for Aotearoa for New Zealand and it's positive that there is support across the House for it. I commend the bill to the House.
International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill — In Committee
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I take a short call on this and acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs in so doing and also the officials and the advisers and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which I am not a member of but I have substituted in on different occasions and have been fascinated. As is heard the National Party support this bill. I won't go into the detail other than saying that it expands the list of war crimes. These are war crimes that during the course of my lifetime I never factored in. I remember watching movies as a child—I remember my childhood—and a key figure of note on the global scene in relation to breaches of humanitarian and the genocide that was happening was Idi Amin in the 1970s. So growing up that lifted my consciousness around warfare and the atrocities of that. And then moving through watching spy movies—which I thought were so surreal but in today's age are so real. The movies that come to mind of course for many of us are the James Bond movies—growing up watching those and thinking My goodness sci-fi." But it's not; it's the reality of today. So the war crimes that this bill incorporates into the New Zealand jurisdiction: expanding the inclusion of poison or poisoned weapons; asphyxiating poisonous or other gases; expanding bullets; and then of course the microbial agents biological agents or toxins; weapons that injure by fragments that are undetectable by X-rays; and blinding laser weapons. We will also reflect and recall in recent years prior to me coming into Parliament the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning case where by way of the exposure to chemical gas he died within the course of three weeks. Then as recently as 4 March 2018 during the course of our service as MPs was Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia being on a beach in Salisbury being subjected to these toxins that almost took their lives. We have a duty of responsibility on the international global scene as New Zealanders. This incorporates that we deal with this within our own jurisdiction but we are one of a party on the international global world warfare international responsibilities and that duty of care. So I commend this bill to the House with all of the colleagues standing here in Parliament to take calls today. Kia ora."
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. It's a positive step forward. I think the next steps our country needs to take are to criminalise the crime of ecocide and also ratify the Kampala amendment to have a crime of international aggression. These are the next steps we as a country need to take. Kia ora.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a great pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. I haven't actually sat on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; I've only just recently come on to the committee but can I acknowledge the chair Simon O'Connor and the other select committee members that have worked on this bill. Can I acknowledge the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who is in the House and is the sponsor of this bill and just put on the record that that New Zealand has got a very long and proud record of taking strong stands on international bodies.I'd go back to the genocide that we saw unfold in Rwanda. We can be very proud as a nation that we took a stand and said that there needed to be a much stronger intervention in support of at the time the head of the UN mission there General Roméo Dallaire to prevent the type of genocide that we saw unfolding. We stand here today in this House of Representatives in New Zealand right down the bottom of the world in a relatively peaceful country but right now as we all stand here in this House taking calls there are people that are suffering under corrupt regimes that've got no interest in upholding basic human rights and are bullied and suffer terribly under those regimes.The one thing that I think is very important in this bill is the highlighting of poison or poisoned weapons" "asphyxiating poisonous or other gases and analogous liquids materials or devices". It was only recently if you think back just in the last 10 or 15 years when we remember those terrible images of the Kurds that suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime and the contorted bodies of children that had been subjected to poisonous gas attacks—just innocent innocent victims with no ability at all to be able to escape or defend themselves or any chance of survival whatsoever.So I do want to acknowledge the Minister. I do want to acknowledge that this is an important amendment bill in support of what is being passed and just say that we as a country should continue to constantly look at ways that we can even take a—even though we're a small nation constantly look at ways that we can continue to take a lead on the abolition of military-style rifles like the AK-47 that wreaks so much harm and havoc around the world and things like these poisonous gases. So I want to stand in support of this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I'm actually a proud member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I would like to acknowledge our chair Simon O'Connor.So this International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill essentially adds to the current list of war crimes that were agreed at the annual Assembly of States Parties in December 2017. For our information we've added to the list of crimes weapons that use microbial agents biological agents or toxins; weapons that injure by fragments that are undetectable by X-rays; and blinding laser weapons. What the Supplementary Order Paper does is also add the crime of starvation which was a recommendation by the State parties in December 2019.What I want to reassure the House about is that as a select committee we did consult with the public in March regarding the starvation amendment and we actually reported back to the House in May 2020. So the addition of the starvation amendment is pragmatic because essentially our report back would then trigger a piece of legislation. So rather than have a completely new piece of legislation the Minister has added the starvation amendment and I want to note that in our select committee report we did say and I quote The Government intends the treaty to be implemented through an amendment to legislation." So we've been transparent with the public.I also just want to acknowledge that we ratified the Rome Statute in September 2000 so this is a 20-year-old document. Essentially what it does is determines what is an international crime. As we all know starvation as a method of warfare—I just want to particularly highlight that—is about depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival. So we're talking about food and water. It was a crime in international disputes; it's now via this amendment also a crime in non-international conflicts. So this is where there are conflicts internally within countries. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just a few observations on this bill. National's been very supportive of the changes. I think it echoes what actually previous speakers have said which is this Parliament supporting multilateral efforts. But that's probably the area I want to put most of my time into. Just around the bill itself and the amendment around starvation it all makes a lot of sense just for the public to once again understand that it's really important as an exercise of New Zealand's sovereignty that we pass domestic legislation in order to bring international treaties into effect.So can I acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and all its members who worked hard on both of these. This came through if you will in two tranches: one around the likes of poisoned weapons expanding bullets and so forth and then a little later around starvation. I thank obviously the officials. I'm mightily impressed with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials I have to say and through the Minister to thank them for their work not only on this but also certainly the briefings and the insight that they give me in my role.I will say that the process to get us here was a little untidy. I think it's good that we've had a Supplementary Order Paper to resolve the starvation matter but in terms of parliamentary process it has been a little untidy if not resolved today.Two last points: international crimes and the International Criminal Court sit within a framework of multilateralism and rule of law. We must continue to work hard and stridently to support that. I would add we need to do that along with our allies. There are growing malevolent forces out there in the world who are not playing by the rules who believe they are a rule unto themselves and who are quite prepared to use their strength and clout—military economic or otherwise—to push us around. They know who they are. I'm going to give them the dignity today of not naming them but those actors need to be warned and New Zealand needs to stand very strongly with its traditional allies and those who do support multilateralism and the rule of law.The final call is that the Minister is clearly enthusiastic for passing bills like this. I would ask in our final two weeks that the Autonomous Sanctions Bill be put on Order Paper No. 1. In fact I see the Leader of the House here. Throw it into the urgency motion. New Zealand needs this. Here is your opportunity to be remembered and to give me a chance to do another speech praising the Government for its actions. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon Aupito WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Rt Hon Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the role that he plays on behalf of New Zealand not only throughout the Pacific region but globally and commend him for moving the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill quickly at its third reading. This is evidence of the Government's quick action on updating our international commitment and obligations and is further evidence of what good governance looks like. It also demonstrates what good political leadership looks like and I commend this bill to the House.
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National supports the passing of this bill to incorporate into New Zealand law a number of amendments as the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee conducted an international treaty examination of the war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court early this year and recommended a bill be passed subsequently. Domestic legislation is required to bring any international treaties into force and as a result we support as I say the passage of this bill today. We welcome the war crimes amendments and hope they will discourage the use of inhumane weaponry.I wasn't on the committee and I came to the foreign affairs spokesperson role for the Opposition relatively recently. I am not either an international jurisprudence expert. I am sure Mr Peters is; he's an expert in most things—just ask him. Humility is his middle name and I'm sure he's all over this like a rash.I'm not. But what I would say is just two brief general comments. The first and it's a good thing about New Zealand is that all parties more or less in this Parliament and probably actually most of them outside this Parliament as well support multilateralism support the rule of law and support international bodies with power with teeth and the ability to do things. That's true whether it's the World Health Organization the World Trade Organization the UN or many others besides. It's certainly also true of the International Criminal Court.I wouldn't say I'm cynical; I would say though I think as a former UN secretary once said These bodies aren't going to get us to heaven but they can save us from hell." So we in supporting this bill stand up as a small country and as the Opposition for multilateralism the rule of law and supporting these international bodies in what they do—their important work. The final point I simply wanted to make was that I think we can all if we think about it agree that the means and ability of humanity to hurt each other and to inflict misery and sadness tragically regrettably can be infinite. If you see the amendments that we've made they are a step and a way in which we as a Parliament can stand against that misery and those ways of inflicting as I say misery hurt death on people around our globe. The Ministers referred for example to the amendment around starvation. If we thought about that and dwelt on that for very long I think we could all agree what an awful state of affairs it is that an amendment like that is necessary or desirable in this bill. But there it is. In passing this law today the New Zealand Parliament I'm sure as one—certainly from the Opposition's perspective—stands up against such inhumane international crimes."