Dunne Peter: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2216] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This is an interesting bill. At first glance it is very difficult to be opposed to the nature of it in terms of stamping out torture and giving rights and freedoms to various groups to identify and report instances of torture. We can all think of various international situations—Guantánamo Bay for example and Abu Ghraib—and various countries where civil rights are routinely and regularly abused where we would see this legislation applying and we would say “And rightly so.” We would say that was entirely as it should be and the United Nations should have the authority to identify those abuses and to bring those countries and the perpetrators of those abuses to account. But I suspect that New Zealanders may have a different view when they realise that the provisions of this legislation apply in this country as well as in other countries. 
For instance if I look at new section 18 in clause 6 I see it states that in relation to places of detention the subcommittee will have unrestricted access to information about the number of places of detention in New Zealand the location of places of detention the number of detainees the treatment of detainees and the conditions of detention applying to detainees. That is a very wide brief affecting those who are incarcerated or detained in this country. Routinely we hear discussion about prison overcrowding. We had a discussion earlier today about the fact that at the moment we seem to be running a minor aviation business in transporting prisoners around the country to escape overcrowding. I wonder how long it will be before a very clever lawyer works out that there is scope to raise with the subcommittee issues relating to prison overcrowding in New Zealand as an instance of international torture. We may dispute that. We may say it is grossly exaggerated and unreasonable but it is just the sort of thing that we would be very happy to point the finger at in respect of other countries and to say it is an outrage that ought to be reviewed. 
I do not oppose the bill. United Future will be supporting its first reading and referral to a select committee. I simply draw attention to the apparent inconsistency in a measure of this type: as a country we are very good at supporting the rights of others offshore but I suspect—and the previous speaker made this point—we are not nearly as good when it comes to supporting the rights of people onshore. 
I wonder what will happen the first time the provisions of this legislation are invoked in respect of a situation in New Zealand as I imagine they will be at some stage. I look forward to the hypocritical howls of outrage that will flow at that time about the interference of the United Nations in the domestic affairs of New Zealand—about how dare our sovereignty be compromised by an international body telling us what to do. Then in the next breath people will be out marching against human rights oppression in China or somewhere else. I guess that is part of the delightful inconsistency of the human condition. But it does highlight the fact that when we enter into international agreements of this type—and I noted from either the preamble to the bill or from another document that I read just recently that New Zealand has been strongly committed in the United Nations to the extension of the protocol to include these provisions; it has been one of the leading nations going back some 3 or 4 years in that regard—the reality for many Kiwis will only strike when they hit at home. 
I can think of many instances over the years. My friend and colleague spoke earlier about Mokomoko. I think many instances more recent in origin than that will arouse concern depending on where one sits. For instance there may be those who would say that people who have been imprisoned as a result of activities for political beliefs in New Zealand in various times could be subject to the provisions of this convention. What about people who have what we may regard as unjust convictions for crimes and who languish in jail for many years? Would they be covered by this provision—an Arthur Allan Thomas for instance? 
 The point I am making is that it will all be in the eye of the beholder. Although we need to stand tall on the issue of wanting to stamp out torture unreasonable detention and unfair limitations on people’s freedom we need to recognise that it starts at home. Like I suspect many members of this Chamber I am a member of Amnesty International. I support it and the causes that it pursues—the horrendous examples that it draws to our attention of abuses that occur day in and day out. Like many members of the House and many members of the public I would be far from comfortable if Amnesty International then started to say it will run a domestic campaign and point out limitations and abuses that occur in this country. 
When the bill refers to places of detention and the location of places of detention we imagine it may refer to prisons. But what about mental hospitals? What about people who are detained long term because they are deemed to be in someone’s judgment a threat to the community? Not very long ago when deinstitutionalisation started to occur we found many examples in New Zealand of people who had been put into such institutions as teenagers and who were forgotten about 30 or 40 years later. Are we opening up the possibility of a United Nations subcommittee now having the power to investigate situations of that type? I suspect that we are. That may be no bad thing but let us be aware of what we are doing so that when it occurs we do not turn round and ask how on earth we got into that situation and why the United Nations is telling us what to do. 
My colleague Mr Hayes would have heard that refrain many many times during his career and would have heard the question: why is an international busybody interfering in our affairs? It seems to me that we are more than happy to give international bodies the authority to highlight abuses in other countries. Going right back to the 1970s I remember Mr Ordia and the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and the UN’s subcommittee on apartheid. We thought it did a great job when it pointed out oppression in the African subcontinent. But when it came here and said our All Blacks should not go to South Africa or it would tell the countries of the international Olympic movement to boycott us at Montreal we had a very different attitude. I do not think that things have moved very far from that in the interim. 
So although I speak in support of the bill—because I think it is the right and proper thing to do—I simply want to enter the caution that we may well find as this legislation is implemented and as individual citizens in New Zealand start to recognise its possibilities that we have uncovered a very uncomfortable situation. And the challenge to our nation at that point will be how we face up to it.