Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11255] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Prior to the passing of Supplementary Order Paper 190 which included new clauses 2A and 2B which really adds the European Union in now as having the same rights and immunities as a State as has been well pointed out I personally was not particularly aware that New Zealand had an enormous degree of difficulty in actually making representations to the European Community in the past and it to us. I think many of us are well aware that European commissioners have visited New Zealand in the past; officials of the European Commission have visited us in the past and it does seem that the idea of this legislation being necessary and urgent to pass so they can open an office is rather a long bow to draw given the 40-year history of the relationship between the European Union and New Zealand. 
The clause we are dealing with now actually relates to the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court. It is crucial that we deal with this clause properly because although much of it is common sense and obviously the immunities and privileges of the judges of the court the prosecutors the deputy prosecutors and registrar go without saying a significant question has been raised about witnesses counsel and so forth. 
I know that the Minister's officials are looking at that and I guess they will have a bit of time between 6 o'clock and 7.30 p.m. to assure themselves that the legislation is correct and make whatever necessary minor amendments are appropriate. The difficulty is that at the moment the legislation as drafted on the face of it places the witnesses as if they were of the same class and category as judges. I realise that if one goes to both the Rome Statute which I have done and to the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court that is not the case. But one actually has to go to those provisions to ascertain that. On the face of the legislation itself that is not apparent. I believe we need to pay greater regard to what the legislation is saying on the face of it the intent. 
So my suggestion to the Minister is that an amendment be drafted—and I suggest there is time before this legislation is voted on—that clearly indicates on the face of the legislation itself without the necessity of the reference to article 48(4) of the Rome statute or articles 18 to 22 of the protocol the separate situation of the witnesses counsel and so forth many of whom will be war criminals themselves gaining immunity to give evidence against a more serious war criminal; but they are in quite a different category from the judges prosecutors deputy prosecutors and registrar. It is simply bringing into the legislation what is apparent in the Rome Statute and the protocols. 
Legislation has an important role in public education. The public of New Zealand ought to be able to broadly speaking read on the face of the legislation its intent; and on things of this nature that is doubly important. I believe there is a relatively easy opportunity which I believe every member would endorse to just make that plain so that it becomes clear. I presume we will be dealing with Mr Locke's Supplementary Order Paper as a separate debate so I will leave my comments until then. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That will actually be ruled out as being outside the scope of the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Thank you. Well that is appropriate. It is worth knowing what Mr Locke wanted to do. He wanted to extend the scope of privileges and immunities to any member of a non-governmental institution as if the person were a diplomat or a member of the European Union or a State party or an official international agency—like the United Nations or one of the agencies of the United Nations. I would have thought that casual observation would tell us that that is wrong. The reason it is wrong is this: what is the purpose of privileges and immunities? The reason is primarily to exempt them from taxes the normal rules of criminal procedures—and I do not believe it can be possibly within the reasonable contemplation of this Parliament that we would in essence extend to private citizens those kinds of immunities. I know that Mr Locke has a particular political point he wishes to make but making that point means he is actually saying to members of non-governmental organisations that they could commit crimes with impunity. That is an extraordinary situation. Are we going to have the cars of members of Greenpeace parked up and down Lambton Quay— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but he really does need to come back to clause 3. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: But Mr Locke's amendment is to clause 3. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is a new clause. I advised the member of that just to be helpful but he cannot speak to that now. The member needs to confine himself to clause 3. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Just as a matter of clarification will there be a separate debate on Mr Locke's Supplementary Order Paper which is actually an amendment to clause 3? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The answer is no because the amendment will be ruled out of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is why I have to be able to take the debate now on that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I need— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I wish to make the point that it is extraordinary that anyone could suggest that members of Greenpeace in their smoky old cars would be able to park up and down Lambton Quay freely without getting any parking tickets or whatever. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I need to bring the member back to clause 3. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I just wish to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am going to terminate the speech if the member does not do that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am just coming back to the issue because I have dealt with that other point now. I would ask the Minister that she does bring back to the Chamber after 7.30 p.m. an appropriate amendment so that it is plain on the face of the legislation without the need for reference to either the Rome Statute or articles 18 to 22 of the agreement that witnesses in the International Criminal Court would have particular immunity. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
 Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was talking about the desirability that the legislation should say on the face of it that the immunity and privileges of counsel witnesses victims and others shall be clearly different to that of the judges prosecutors deputy prosecutors and registrars of the court. I have had discussions with the Minister and her officials and they are of the view that it is not necessary to make such an amendment because there is sufficient reference to article 48 paragraph 4 of the Rome Statute and articles 18 to 22 of the agreement that that is clearly sufficient to show they are different. My objection to that is this: it does not say on the face of the legislation we are passing today that they are different; and they are different. Surely we want to be able to signal clearly on the face of the legislation that someone who has received immunity from prosecution acting as a witness for the worst criminals who have committed grave breaches of humanitarian law does not have the same kinds of immunities and privileges as the court itself and the representatives of the court. 
I do understand the argument of the Minister and I say that we have the opportunity here to ensure that on the face of the legislation when people read the statute itself they know there is a difference. A modest amendment will achieve that. It will reflect article 48(4) of the Rome Statute and it would be read directly into the legislation. I believe that that kind of approach would be beneficial to our law not just in this instance but generally where we do not often make these calls.