Franks Stephen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11260] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party effectively to endorse the proposed amendment that Mr Mapp suggested to clause 3. Mr Mapp’s purpose is to make sure that the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act records that there is a difference in the kinds of immunity that are intended for diplomats and other heads of missions or heads of State who visit New Zealand and the kind of people who might be called and who might be in New Zealand if there is a court proceeding under the International Criminal Court statute. 
I appreciated the fact that the Hon Marian Hobbs took a call. She endeavoured to explain that the amendment was not necessary because it would simply repeat what she said is already contained in other legislation and in particular in the Rome Statute which is appended to the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act. I do not think she dealt with the issue. The Hon Marian Hobbs did not actually tell us what it is or which provisions it is in those other documents that make this bill understandable. I have tried to follow the cross references. For example there is a cross reference to article 48 of the Rome Statute. It states: “Counsel experts witnesses or any other person required to be present at the seat of the court shall be accorded such treatment as is necessary for the proper functioning of the court in accordance with the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the court.” I do not know what agreement that refers to. Maybe the Minister can tell us there is a very straightforward answer but as I read article 48 it probably refers back to the privileges and immunities in sub-article 2 which relates to the court—that is judges the prosecutor the deputy prosecutors and the registrar. It states that they enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are accorded to heads of diplomatic missions. 
Our argument is that that is inappropriate for witnesses. It is probably inappropriate for some of the counsel whom war criminals might engage. It is certainly inappropriate for the category of people who are called “other persons required to be present at the seat of the ICC.” There is no reason why one of Milosevic’s former henchmen if here for a trial should be immune for example from the obligation to pay duty on his alcohol purchases or customs charges when he comes into the country. There is no reason why a thug should be immune from the ordinary criminal law. I am not saying that they should be exposed to New Zealand criminal law for what they may have done in the past but for what they do while they are in New Zealand even something as trivial as their traffic offences. I do not see any reason why we should be leaving open the possibility that a bunch of Milosevic’s henchmen could ignore even their parking tickets. I would like the Hon Marian Hobbs to explain to us just why that is excluded. 
 It may be that they are referring to another agreement. I cannot find the text of the agreement in the time I have available. But if there is a passage of the agreement that is separate from the Rome Statute that makes this clear it would be a reassurance to know that it did make it clear. 
Certainly sub-article 4 of article 48 which was mentioned by the Minister does not comfort at all. It simply says that they get the privileges previously referred to—I think that is what it is saying—in accordance with the agreement on privileges and immunities of the court. Unless the agreement says that there is something very specifically different for witnesses then we are putting into our law something that is unnecessary. It is a privilege that may come to embarrass. I fully agree that there must be a form of immunity for witnesses and for other people coming in. We do not want the embarrassment for example of someone moving to arrest General Pinochet if he were in New Zealand as a witness for the trial of some of the henchmen who might have done what they did all those years ago.