Dunne Peter: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11345] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly to support the third reading of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. Many of the reasons why this bill is being promoted have been canvassed in the debate already and I do not intend to repeat them. Essentially this is a mechanical piece of legislation which gives effect to our agreement under the Rome Statute with regard to the International Criminal Court and also by way of Supplementary Order Paper 190 brings in the issue of representation by the European Commission in New Zealand. 
There is one point from the Minister’s speech that I want to comment on which I do not regard as satisfactory. I was the one who raised at various stages of the debate on this bill the suggestion that we ought to look at the status of the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act and I do not find acceptable the excuse that to do that would be difficult because there is not provision in that legislation—which largely parallels the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act—for agreements with international organisations. It is not a difficult amendment to draft. 
The point I made in the debate on the second reading and at the Committee stage was that it seemed entirely logical given the similarity of those two Acts to combine them into one recognising that there will be situations where both diplomatic and consular privileges are being afforded to nation States—or international organisations in this particular instance—and there will be some occasions where that is not the case. My point was that to continue a situation where two largely similar Acts operate independently in the same area did not seem to me to make a great deal of sense and I do not think that the Minister’s response—admittedly on the advice of his officials—adequately represented that issue. 
I know because I have had an interest in the area for many years how rare amendments to both those Acts are. The circumstances that give rise to them are not common. It is not every day that we ratify an agreement to establish a body such as an International Criminal Court. It is not every day that an agency such as the European Union decides it wants to establish representation in New Zealand. Every time a situation like that arises we have to pass an amendment to the primary legislation. That is not a problem but my point is that we can minimise some of the difficulties because there are some situations today where consular privileges have not been afforded to States that we give diplomatic privileges to and they could be dealt with by dealing with this as one omnibus Act. 
I am disappointed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade through the Minister seems reluctant to grasp that point. It is not a difficult issue. In fact I recall discussing some years ago with the Minister the prospect of a member’s bill to achieve just that goal. I was not told then that that would be horrendously difficult to do so I am very disappointed in the response that the Minister gave in that respect. I hope there will be a time when the issue can be revisited. While it does not arise in respect of an agency like the International Criminal Court which clearly will not seek to have consular offices or consular privileges it may well arise in respect of the European Union. The fact that it is not yet on the European Union’s agenda is hardly an excuse for not doing it and we are also acting a little slowly given that the European Union announced the name of the person who would be its representative in New Zealand at least a couple of months ago. 
This bill is non-contentious. I am certainly happy to support its passage as is United Future but I do make a plea that the issues that have been raised regarding the standardisation of the legislation not be dismissed as lightly as they have been by the Minister tonight. I know that the officials do not like extra work. I am sorry about that but I actually think that that is a logical step forward and ought to be entertained. With those words I am happy to indicate support for the bill.