Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11182] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have been following this debate with a great deal of interest. The reason is that I gave a strong speech back in 2000 supporting the original bill that established New Zealand’s ratification of international crimes and the International Criminal Court. I believe that it was the right thing for New Zealand to do. It is worth remembering that Australia Britain Canada and virtually all the nations of the world have signed up to the statute establishing the International Criminal Court. I am aware that the United States has not and that it has particular concerns but I believe that in time the United States will accede to the statute. 
The statute was established because of the practice of establishing ad hoc tribunals for the gravest of war crimes—those that arose out of the tragedy in the Balkans in Rwanda and in places of that nature. It is those kinds of crimes that the International Criminal Court is charged with dealing with. Article 8 refers to grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and to other serious violations of the laws of armed conflict. It is not intended to be aimed at the minor and the frankly unimportant. There is a high threshold to be observed before the court is seized with jurisdiction. I believe that the precedents set by all the other ad hoc tribunals will play a part and have flavoured the creation of this tribunal. It is noteworthy that two of the major combatants in the Iraq war acceded to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court—namely Britain and Australia. 
It would be extraordinary I believe for a small country like New Zealand which has put a great deal of faith in international institutions and a great deal of faith in international law not to be party to the convention. I listened carefully to the speech made by Mr Franks—a speech not dissimilar to the one he gave some 3 years ago—and I state now as I stated then that his fears are misplaced. It is the right thing for New Zealand to be party to the convention that establishes the court. Today’s legislation is essentially mechanical—to enable the court to undertake its work. 
When the issues around new section 10E are raised as they have been it is worth reflecting on who would get immunity: representatives of States parties representatives of States attending meetings or representatives of inter-governmental organisations. Those people are not from non-governmental organisations; they are from internationally recognised institutions. In reality the people who represent nations at such meetings are invariably diplomats. Diplomats invariably have the benefit of the convention. But of course the agreement is necessary in any event because one would clearly expect judges of the International Criminal Court also to have the privileges and immunities that diplomats have—and that is intended in this case. 
I frankly have to say to the House and to the listeners to this House that the concerns raised by both the ACT party and indeed the extreme Green Party are misplaced. New Zealand has not embarked on some sort of reckless course that surrenders all our sovereignty and places our people at unreasonable risk. We have made a stand saying the worst breaches of humanitarian law ought to be tried and ought not to go unpunished and saying we will play our part in that. I believe that is a very laudable thing. 
One of the things I must also reflect on in passing is the situation of Mr Zaoui. There is a proper process established by the National Government in 1999 for a situation like that to be reviewed and that is through the independent office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security the Hon Mr Greig. That is the protection for whether the certificate is validly issued. New Zealand sits within the tradition established in countries like Britain Canada and Australia in allowing proper and fair consideration. For Mr Locke and indeed Mr Robson somehow to pretend that there has not been due process is simply false. The mere fact dare I say it that we have had such extensive litigation indicates of itself that due process is being observed. 
But I have to say one particular thing: Mr Zaoui could get on a plane tomorrow—he is not incarcerated against his will. He has a choice and every opportunity to leave this country. He chooses to stay in order to take advantage—at huge expense to the taxpayer—of the legal recourses available to him. And he is exercising them. That will cost the New Zealand taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal aid plus all the associated costs of running the High Court. It is simply fatuous for the Green Party to claim that Mr Zaoui has not had the benefit of full legal consideration and the most exhaustive analysis possible. 
I would like to close on this point. This is important legislation—rather the framework of the International Criminal Court is important. This particular legislation is subsidiary legislation that simply affirms that the representatives of the court and representatives of States parties—who would normally be diplomats—will have the usual provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That is hardly extraordinary; that is hardly novel. It is what representatives of such entities invariably have. This legislation being short and the report of the committee being short reflects that ordinary practice.