Hayes John: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hayes John: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2218] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 There has been a bit of torture imposed around here this afternoon as I have listened to some colleagues’ speeches and I suffer every day from far too much tax and the torture of oppression through that. But that is another issue that I will raise on a different occasion. 
First of all I commend my former colleagues in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for producing this book  
The United Nations Handbook 
 which I commend to every member in the Chamber. It comes out every year and it is a bible. If members have not read it they ought to. On page 202 it sets out issues around the human rights treaty bodies particularly the United Nations Committee Against Torture. On page 202 we see that the optional protocol has not yet entered into force. As at 18 April 2005 it had 34 signatories which is not many out of 196 countries. 
I also drawpages 331-333 which set out the amount of money that various countries contribute to the operation of the United Nations. The greatest amount is paid by our American friends—22 percent—and Japan is soon after them at 19 percent. Many countries are like China with 2 percent and New Zealand pays about 0.4 percent. 
I have also noted other speakers’ comments about the Hon Phil Goff and his press statement on 24 August 2003 in which he stated: “New Zealand will be among the first countries to sign a United Nations optional protocol against torture … New Zealand has actively supported the development of this protocol which reflects our abhorrence of torture and our commitment to human rights … The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture is aimed at preventing torture rather than bringing torturers to justice after the event.” 
I commend Phil Goff’s comments but I have to say that there is a gap between his theatre and the substance. Nevertheless I support this bill going to the select committee stage. That is what National does because National is against torture and it deplores such behaviour wherever and whenever it occurs. 
I believe New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which proscribes torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I think New Zealand has also ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We are complying with international obligation. I will address the background to this optional protocol. My understanding is that back in 1993 our bureaucrats both here in New Zealand and abroad decided to look at establishing this optional protocol. They spent 10 years formulating it—10 years of annual meetings in New York. It is pretty good if one is a bureaucrat and likes going to those places. If one comes from a Pacific Island one likes the allowances one gets. If one comes from New Zealand one likes the opportunity to go and mix on a global stage. But we are not here to bother about that; we are here to focus on what this convention will do for New Zealand. That will be the focus of its attention in the select committee. 
Looking at the process that has been followed here I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I think it was only in 1996 that treaties such as this were referred to the scrutiny of our political establishment. This work began before then. Phil Goff picked it up and because the bureaucrats told him to he pushed it. 
The working-group failed to reach agreement on a draft text for this protocol. The chair then said that he would write one. So after 10 years the chair of the international working party drafted this protocol and it was adopted by a vote. The voting pattern at the United Nations Human Rights Committee showed just how close it was—29 States voted for it 10 voted against it and 14 abstained. What I am saying here is that the process that has led to the document we are discussing today was not a good one. 
I also think that if we are going to pass it then we need to look at what it will do for us. First of all it will ensure adequate recognition of the primary role of democratically elected Governments. I think it is Governments that take on human rights obligations and are responsible for fulfilling them. I do not think it is the role of a non-Government organisation to tell us about our human rights. 
The second concern I will raise when this issue goes to the select committee is the need to make sure that these international committees and their members work within their mandate. In other words as various other speakers have said today we do not want these committees engaged in activities outside their focus. 
The third point is whether this bill will duplicate conditions that already exist. My fourth concern is the need to address how the international committee would be resourced. At the back of the UN handbook we see that the human rights area collects something like US$64 million a year as a budget to employ its international bureaucrats. Those are some of my concerns about this bill and I have no doubt that they will be picked up in the select committee. 
Moving beyond the theoretical to the practical if this Chamber were to do some work on reviewing what the United Nations actually does it would discover that a special rapporteur on torture had been to China and provided a report in Beijing on 2 December 2005. I raise this because I see in my in-tray this week an invitation to a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister for a high-ranking visiting Chinese dignitary. 
I will read now directly from the rapporteur’s report. It states: “The Special Rapporteur recalls that over the last several years his predecessors have received a significant number of serious allegations related to torture and other forms of ill-treatment in China which have been submitted to the Government for its comments. These have included a consistent and systemic pattern of torture related to ethnic minorities particularly Tibetans … political dissidents human rights defenders practitioners of Falun Gong and members of House-church groups. These allegations have been and continue to be documented by international human rights organizations. The methods of torture alleged include among others: beatings; use of electric shock batons; cigarette burns: hooding/blindfolding; guard-instructed or permitted beatings by fellow prisoners; use of handcuffs or ankle fetters for extended periods … submersion in pits of water or sewage; exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold being forced to maintain uncomfortable positions such as sitting squatting lying down or standing for long periods of time sometimes with objects held under arms; deprivation of sleep food or water; prolonged solitary confinement; denial of medical treatment and medication; hard labour; suspension from overhead fixtures from handcuffs. In several cases … such as the ‘tiger bench’ where one is forced to sit motionless on a tiny stool a few centimetres off the ground; ‘reversing an airplane’ where one is forced to bend over while holding legs straight feet close together and arms lifted high; or ‘exhausting an eagle’ where one is forced to stand on a tall stool and subjected to beatings until exhaustion.” 
Our Prime Minister invites us to dine with these people next week on the one hand but on the other hand proposes that this House support the optional protocol on torture—which I can assure the House will do nothing useful for anybody. While I support taking this bill to the select committee I am inclined to think that this activity is a total waste of time promoted by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. I am very pleased that the matter has come to the House because it gives all members an opportunity to address the issues of concern during a select committee process. The protocol gives a permanent standing invitation to a UN committee to visit this country with no permission at all with no balance between the unrestricted rights of these visitors and appropriate checks to ensure that the power of the UN committee is not abused. We support the referral of the bill to the select committee but we retain an open mind. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee