Power Simon: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12821] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the contributions towards the bill made by members who sat on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I was interested to hear Peter Dunne call the legislation straightforward and I was also interested to hear Dail Jones say it was a simple little bill. 
Actually the bill is not that simple. It contains some pretty difficult wording in clause 8. Members on the select committee will confirm that a substantial amount of work was done with officials to make sure that the wording in clause 8 which refers to the criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction of visiting forces actually works. I know that some of the comments raised by Keith Locke during this debate concerned issues members raised with officials in some detail during the course of the consideration of the bill. I was surprised to hear Dail Jones refer to the bill as a simple little bill. The ramifications of clause 8 and following on from Mr Locke’s point of clause 9 in particular are far reaching. 
Quite a lot of time was spent by the select committee discussing the relationship between the primary jurisdiction of the forces visiting and the potentially secondary jurisdiction of the host nation. That quite complex and intricate work had to be done so that those matters could be put down in the right order. When I look back on some of the papers presented during the course of the bill I am surprised that members believe it to be so straightforward. The select committee agreed more or less unanimously that in the absence of a status of forces agreement the visiting force would have the primary right to exercise all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred upon it by the sending State. That might not sound particularly earth-shattering but if members take a moment to think about the transplanting of one legal jurisdiction from a country offshore into a host nation for those visiting forces they will realise that it is quite a significant legal issue. 
 Then in the event that the actions by those visiting forces are not within the three categories contained in the bill—that is offences in respect of property or security of the sending State offences solely against the persons or property of other members of the visiting force or offences arising out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty—then and only then does the primary jurisdiction fall back to the host country. Only in those circumstances—in other words only outside the purview of those three offences—does jurisdiction revert to the host nation. Peter Dunne raised the issue that at that point in the absence of the offence falling into the three-pronged system protected by the visiting nation it may well be that that becomes an issue of negotiation between the Governments of the host nation and the dispatcher of the forces. But I ask how good a law that is because it still presents the diplomats of various countries with quite a challenge in trying to determine in the event the offence does not fall into one of those three categories where the jurisdiction lies for the alleged offence. Now that may seem to be a slightly academic issue for members of the House but the question was raised in the select committee as to whether at that end of the equation it was appropriate to have a law in any event that would be solved in the end by negotiation between two countries. 
That begs the question as to what type of certainty we are getting with this legislation with regard to visiting forces because as the offence drops through the tiers set out in clause 8 the decision making ends up back with the diplomats negotiating. It all ends up back in the hands of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials. Although we might consider that to be a satisfactory practice the question has to be asked whether that makes good law. When Parliament tonight is charged really with only one thing—that is to present to the country clear certain and unambiguous law—we do have to ask that question. 
Having said that I say that we in the National Party along with every other party in the House support this bill. On this side of the House we believe that in many senses it is a mechanical bill but it is not a simple straightforward one as described by some other members. It is a bill that replaces I guess outdated legislation from 1939 and it reflects the international practice of foreign armed forces stationed in other countries. 
I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister said would be tabled during the Committee stage. I am not sure whether the chair of the select committee was aware the Government would be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of Tokelau and the like as we were told in the first reading of the bill. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I was. 
SIMON POWER 
: The chair was advised. I look forward to receiving that Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage so we can see that we are not going to get ourselves into further difficulty with uncertainty over the application of those provisions in the bill. 
So although this bill enjoys the unanimous support of the House and yes although on the surface it seems it is just a bill to update an international practice I re-emphasise that the difficult questions around primary and secondary jurisdiction and the arguments around those offences and which jurisdiction applies to them are not straightforward. This bill should not be described as it was by Dail Jones as a simple little bill. It is important legislation. It moves in the right direction to clarify complicated jurisdictional issues between visiting forces their sending nations and the host nation that receives those forces. On that basis National will continue to support the bill.