Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7375] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Members of the public who are listening to this debate could be forgiven for being totally confused as to what on earth this Parliament is debating this afternoon. Having listened to the Green member Keith Locke’s rantings they could be fully excused for not having a clue what we are talking about. This bill amends the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act which is the Act that provides for diplomats in this country to enjoy very important privileges and immunities that other citizens of New Zealand or other visitors to New Zealand do not enjoy. Diplomatic privileges are very very important privileges. We all need to be conscious of that. 
Back in the year 2000 New Zealand passed another piece of legislation that implemented a very similar law to this—the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act. Back in 2000 that legislation implemented the necessary law changes in New Zealand following the establishment of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. So we have already put provisions in our law once before in the year 2000 to provide for the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court that some members have spoken about. Subsequently following the establishment of the International Criminal Court and following the Rome Statute the parties involved agreed on a set of privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court. After the Rome Statute established the court a quite recent agreement was reached to establish the privileges and immunities of that court. The legislation that we passed in this Parliament back in 2000—the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act—did not meet all the requirements of that recent Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. That is why this amendment legislation is back in this Parliament right now. 
I was saddened when I listened to one or two of the contributions this afternoon and especially to that of the Green member Keith Locke. We did not hear any debate over the detail of this bill or about the wisdom of the privileges and immunities that this country is about to provide for people involved with the International Criminal Court. We heard Keith Locke rant against the United States of America. All I can say is that that saddens me hugely. There is a risk that people who listened to him might think that that is the view of all New Zealanders. When a member of this Parliament makes those kinds of statements against the United States of America it concerns me that people who listen to them from overseas or even good New Zealanders may think that that is what we parliamentarians think. I want to make it very clear that I and the National Party dissociate ourselves totally from what Keith Lock had to say this afternoon. 
One of the fascinating things with regard to the Green political party here in New Zealand is that what unites it is not a care about conservation—not at all. What unites Green members is their distaste of most of the values of the United States of America and more important than that their intense hatred of some of the values that emanate from that country. For example those members hate with a passion the multinational corporations which I guess tend to emanate more from the United States of America than from elsewhere as it has the biggest economy in the world. It is sad to hear that expressed in the Parliament of New Zealand when the United States of America is one of our best friends and one of the countries that is most important in terms of New Zealand’s future. I simply say to Keith Locke that he does New Zealand a great disservice when in this Parliament he simply emits a litany of condemnation against the United States of America which holds values that are very dear to us. Its values are very similar to ours. It has defended New Zealand in the past and is vitally important in terms of our future. 
Let me come to the detail of this particular bill. The real substance can be found in clause 3. This is a very short bill which has only 4 clauses. Clause 3 replaces section 10D of the principal Act and adds a new section 10E. Section 10D was inserted in the year 2000 when we first had a go at providing for the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court. I do not see any particular problem with that. It makes sense that the International Criminal Court is able to operate should it ever need to in New Zealand. Certainly it may at times have to interview people in New Zealand so it makes sense to provide proper diplomatic privileges and immunity for people involved in that court. I do not see any great question around new section 10D in clause 3. 
To me the more interesting part of this bill—the bit that I would like the select committee to examine in somewhat greater detail—is the part that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade omitted to mention in the publicity statement he issued quite recently. In that statement he said the bill protects the International Criminal Court’s staff. However he omitted to include in his comments about what the bill does those matters that are covered in new section 10E. He talked about the matters in new section 10D which cover the officers and staff associated with the International Criminal Court but he did not mention the matters covered in new section 10E “Privileges and immunities of representatives at Assembly of States Parties or its subsidiary organs”. I am sure that not many people would understand what on earth that is all about. I do not claim to understand exactly what new section 10E does. 
But it worries me that the diplomatic privileges and immunities that this legislation will provide for certain people in our country are very very important and valuable privileges and immunities. They are not to be dished out lightly. They are dished out to international diplomats who have to function in New Zealand; it is an international custom that such diplomats are provided with certain immunities and privileges. Our diplomats receive those privileges and immunities in the countries they work in around the world. However what worries me about new section 10E is that it appears to me to provide for all sorts of hangers-on of the UN to be granted the same vitally important privileges and immunities in this country. Section 10E(1) states: “(1) The Governor-General may by Order in Council confer such privileges and immunities as may be required by article 13 of the Agreement on the following persons:... (c) representatives of States or intergovernmental organisations invited to meetings of the Assembly of States Parties or any of its subsidiary organs.” We are proposing a hugely wide provision and the Minister did not talk about that in his press statement. In this legislation we are proposing to provide the hugely important privilege of diplomatic immunity for a whole range of people who do not require that for the functioning of the International Criminal Court at all. 
That worries me. Why did the Minister not mention that in his press release about the bill? Why did he talk about new section 10D and not about new section 10E? Sure there can be no question that article 13 of the recent agreement requires us to do something in this area. But when the select committee examines the bill I want it to have a good look at what new section 10E provides because it confers very important immunities and privileges on a whole range of people who are not remotely involved in the functioning of the International Criminal Court and who may not require those immunities and privileges at all. I think we should think very carefully about how we implement article 13 of the agreement in new section 10E. 
We support this legislation in principle of course but I want to make sure we have a very good look at that provision in new section 10E because I think it needs further scrutiny.