Worth Richard: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11183] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. It is a statement of the obvious to say that it forms part of wider legislation and that wider legislation is the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act. The bill makes certain amendments to that Act that are needed to implement the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. New Zealand signed a specific agreement in October 2002 and the passing of this bill means that New Zealand will be able to ratify the agreement. 
I have listened with interest to the arguments of the previous speaker from the ACT party but as others have observed the time to raise those arguments has passed. The time to raise those arguments in the New Zealand context passed when we endorsed the plans to set up the International Criminal Court. 
New Zealand is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and under the Rome Statute a permanent court has been established in The Hague with jurisdiction in a number of areas: jurisdiction over genocide jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and jurisdiction in respect of war crimes. It is appropriate to recall the comments of Kofi Annan the current United Nations Secretary-General. In a speech he gave as to the reasons why we should have an International Criminal Court he said: “For nearly half a century—almost as long as the United Nations has been in existence—the General Assembly has recognized the need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide. Many thought … that the horrors of the Second World War—the camps the cruelty the exterminations the Holocaust—could never happen again. And yet they have. In Cambodia in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Rwanda. Our time—this decade even—has shown us that man’s capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide … is now a word of our time too a heinous reality that calls for a historic response.” 
 It has been said by others that the International Criminal Court is really the missing link in the international legal system. Without an International Criminal Court as an enforcement mechanism for dealing with individual responsibility acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. In the last 50 years there has been a number of instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes for which no individuals have been held responsible. In Cambodia in the 1970s an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. In armed conflicts in Mozambique Liberia El Salvador and other countries there has been tremendous loss of civilian life including horrifying numbers of unarmed women and children. Massacres of civilians continue of course in Algeria and the Great Lakes region of Africa. 
It is relevant to reflect for a moment on what exactly diplomatic immunity is. Diplomatic immunity dates from antiquity when the Greek Government extended special status to foreign envoys. The point of diplomatic immunity is expediency not privilege. The underlying concept is that foreign representatives can carry out their duties effectively only if they are accorded a certain degree of insulation from the application of standard law enforcement practices of the host country. 
Others have spoken about the technical aspects of the bill and I do not intend to do that. I would note however that in respect of the grant of immunity the primary treaty instrument—which is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations—allows for diplomatic immunity to be waived. So diplomatic immunity does not have an absolute character. In the relevant article in the primary treaty the immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity may be waived by the sending State. 
Stephen Franks 
: Yes but Nigeria wouldn’t waive it. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: In this case presumably the waiver would be made by the International Criminal Court which is not the illustration that the member of ACT has interjected to offer. 
Finally it seems somewhat strange that whereas the principal Act has a very straightforward statement in respect of privileges and immunities under the International Court of Justice we have somehow seen it necessary to have the number of clauses that are in this bill. The issue was very simply put in section 10 of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act in respect of the International Court of Justice. I raise the question why it cannot be similarly dealt with in the case of the International Criminal Court. That said National will support the further passage of this bill.