Pettis Jill: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6280] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 It seems remarkable that in a country such as ours which is a peaceful and effective democracy—and members in this House have only ever lived in peacetime—we should be discussing a bill such as the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. But given the world in which we live and given that we are a responsible member of the international community I am pleased this bill is a reflection of New Zealand’s steadfast commitment to human rights and of this nation’s abhorrence of torture. 
 I agree with what the previous speaker said and of course we believe that the emphasis should be on the “bad guys” but somebody has to commence a protocol before international pressure can be brought to bear. New Zealand has led many forms of international pressure that have brought about positive democratic change in countries that had not experienced democracy—one person one vote. With the support of New Zealand and other kindred countries such positive moves have often occurred. I am proud to have been involved in the select committee process because it showed that New Zealand is continuing to provide leadership in important matters of international human rights. As I said before this country was one of the first nations in the world to sign up to the optional protocol to the convention against torture which was ratified on 22 June this year. 
I want to touch briefly on an aspect that has not been covered by any other member this evening. It concerns the national preventive mechanism for health and disability services because this is an important and sometimes sensitive area as well. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee recommended that paragraph (d) of the definition of a national preventive mechanism in new section 16—in clause 6—be omitted. We felt that it was not appropriate that “persons designated by the Director-General under section 32 of the Health and Disability Services (Safety Act) 2001 to audit the provision of health care services:” be designated as national preventive mechanisms because they are concerned with the safety and quality of health and disability services rather than with human rights issues. The committee felt that for the purposes of health care people may be legally detained in hospitals or care facilities or subject to supervised care in the community for reasons of their own or for public safety. 
Accordingly the committee felt it was important to designate an appropriate institution as a national preventive mechanism for health and disability services. It considered whether the Health and Disability Commissioner could be designated as a national preventive mechanism for monitoring the treatment of persons detained in health and disability facilities. The role of a national preventive mechanism is broadly consistent with the commissioner’s statutory mandate to promote and protect the rights of health and disability service consumers. However for the commissioner to take on the role of a national preventive mechanism the commissioner’s role would need to be extended to include powers of inspection and investigation. This would be in effect a significant extension and would confuse the commissioner’s role as an advocate for patients’ rights. The committee also considered that the Office of the Ombudsmen should be designated as the national preventive mechanism in respect of persons detained in health and disability facilities. 
One of the other aspects of the bill that is interesting concerns frequency of visits. The committee recommended that new section 27(a) in clause 6 be amended to read: “to examine at regular intervals and at any other times the National Preventive Mechanism may decide—”. The frequency and perhaps the irregularity of those visits will be key in ensuring that the proper conditions continue to prevail in a whole range of institutions. 
 As has been said earlier the protocol establishes an international inspection team. Its visits will be important as I have just alluded to because they will act as a deterrent. The team will also be able to provide advice to local authorities. We know only too well that ill-treatment often stems from poor monitoring regimes. Regular inspections must take place in those countries that we have concerns about such as the Sudan where tragic incidents are occurring in Darfur and Myanmar. That is the only way that New Zealand as a member of the international community will be able to help bring about more positive change. 
I was disappointed to hear John Hayes’ comments. Mr Hayes sat on the committee that considered this bill. I thought it was a pity he did not ask the committee the same questions that he raised tonight. It reminds me of that saying: “It is no good being a hero without an audience.” Well sometimes the hard questions have to be asked when there is not an audience and I think it might have been more constructive if those questions had been asked while the officials and experts were in front of the committee rather than his asking rhetorical questions on the debating floor of the House. 
The mechanisms in this bill for reporting to Parliament have now been increased and that can only be seen as a positive. I enjoyed participating in the committee’s consideration of this bill. As the chair of the committee Dianne Yates commented it was a positive debate and we always appreciate that manner of debate in the committee. 
Bill read a second time.