Jones Dail: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11178] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I express our support once again for this legislation. I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for writing to the Rt Hon Winston Peters about the matter and indicating the desire of the European Union for example to set up an office here. I understand that it has an office in Australia already and it seems very appropriate that it have one here. Clearly with the expansion of the European Union by an additional 10 members on 1 May 2004 our having a greater number of contacts at all levels with the European Union is very practical and very necessary for our future trade. In so far as the International Criminal Court aspects of this matter are concerned it is disappointing that as I understand it the United States is not a party to this convention. But those of us in the remaining part of the civilised world are only too willing to be a part of it and ensure that there is a multilateral way of dealing with wrongdoers. New Zealand First supports the legislation. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill. It is important to give proper diplomatic protection to all the judges and people involved in International Criminal Court proceedings and international conferences as specified by the Minister and of course UN conferences that may be held here and to extend the immunity to representatives of the European Community. I think it could in certain circumstances put us in an unusual position. For instance under clause 3 which inserts a new section 10D(2)(d) into the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act it states that we would have to give immunity to people participating in International Criminal Court hearings such as counsel witnesses victims experts or other persons. 
Let us take the case for instance of an International Criminal Court hearing that as the Minister said could be assigned to New Zealand. Hearings do not all take place in Europe or The Hague or wherever but they can be assigned around the world. Say there was a hearing of the court in New Zealand on the situation in Algeria where as Amnesty International points out the regime is happy to boast that it has “neutralised”—to use their term—20000 people. The estimates are that tens of thousands of people have been killed mainly by the regime although some have been killed by terrorist groups opposed to the regime. Clearly in terms of the provisions of the International Criminal Court’s own statute the Algerian regime has committed crimes against humanity. It could qualify for a special hearing perhaps in New Zealand on the crimes that it has committed in order to try to bring to justice those who have been part of that regime in committing those crimes many of whom continue in power in one form or another particularly in the military in Algeria today. 
Under this provision one person who might be called as either a witness—he is certainly a victim of the regime—or he could be considered an expert is a chap called Ahmed Zaoui. It would be somewhat ironical for under this provision a person who because of the very bad policy and procedures of this Government has been rotting in jail in New Zealand for 14 months has to be released to appear before the International Criminal Court hearing. That is very possible under this provision. 
There is under the new section 10D(2)(e) to be inserted by clause 3 the provision that representatives of States have to be given protection. Particularly in relation to the international community the role of an organisation called the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)—to go back to an Algerian example—could be interesting. There is a certain parallel for non-State actors to be given some form of diplomatic status. I am referring to the Palestine Liberation Organization which is recognised by 125 States and does have a certain diplomatic status in various countries particularly in Europe and a certain status in relation to the UN as a non-State actor in some senses. 
One could envisage in a certain international climate and the commitment of many States to democracy in Algeria that the FIS could also be given some diplomatic status or attached to a European Union delegation coming to one of the hearings or specified conferences that is held in New Zealand under this provision. There could be the irony of an official representative of the FIS in some form coming to such a conference either as a semi-diplomat in the sense I have outlined or just as a participant in one of these specified conferences or perhaps a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee dealing with the situation in Algeria. There could be official FIS representatives coming here getting all this diplomatic protection who are colleagues of Mr Zaoui yet Mr Zaoui is still rotting in prison even though he has similar status. Possibly the FIS might say that it wants to attach Mr Zaoui to its delegation. Would he be let out of jail and given immunity to proceed in that way? So there are a number of scenarios that could create problems for the Government and I am telegraphing them in the context of the Green Party’s full support for this bill.