Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12237] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There have been some very good speeches tonight on this bill and it has been a pleasure to listen to some of the contributions particularly those of Richard Worth and Richard Prebble. Even Ron Mark was interesting and certainly I enjoyed Keith Locke’s speech. I found it very interesting and although Mr Locke and I do not always agree on everything it is always nice to hear his view. Often he makes some very good comments. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about Mr Copeland? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am however stunned that Mr Copeland has told the House tonight that this bill will provide protection for our New Zealand police and non - service personnel overseas. It does not. It does not provide one scrap of protection for our personnel overseas. This bill is all about making sure that those personnel can be prosecuted either in the country in which they are serving or in New Zealand. It does not say at all that they will not be subject to the laws of the country in which they are serving. In fact it says quite the opposite. It says that unless they are being prosecuted in that country they can be prosecuted in New Zealand for the alleged offence. So Mr Copeland has unfortunately made a very grave error. I am sure he did not intend to do so. When I see that the chairmanship of the committee was held by his own party leader the Hon Peter Dunne I would have thought Mr Dunne could have briefed Mr Copeland better on this bill. 
This is unfortunately one of those instances where the bill is only four pages long but has a seven-page commentary from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. That is an indication that an awful lot of talking was going on and maybe not enough listening—and certainly not enough reading if that is the idea that Mr Copeland has about the bill. 
I have to take up the point that this bill does not apply just to our efforts in the Solomons. It applies anywhere that our non-troops—police and other personnel—are serving in overseas operations involving peacekeeping unless they are operating under a United Nations force. Quite clearly the Government is signalling that there may be other instances possibly in the Pacific where New Zealand is called upon to make a contribution even if the United Nations—that great bastion of peacekeeping but not a lot else—is not involved. 
That does raise certain issues. Mr Richard Worth has made the comment that New Zealand traditionally likes to punch above its weight and that drew some derisory comments from a member on the other side of the House Mr Hughes. New Zealand does traditionally punch above its weight in matters international and sometimes that means it actually goes outside its own abilities and stretches itself way more than it can really afford to do. That point was well made by Mr Mark. This bill is not something we should be rushing through tonight in urgency. It could very well have been put through by the Government in the normal course of business as it certainly has the consent and approval of all members of the House. It is a bill that deserved to be treated in that way. 
It is a travesty that tonight on 31 March—although I note that Parliament thinks it is 30 March—we are putting to bed a bill that first saw the light of day last year after our people were moved into the Solomon Islands. I note the comments from Taito Phillip Field who I thought was very helpful in advising the House as to why this bill was necessary—that it was part of a joint agreement between Australia the Solomon Islands Government and New Zealand. I appreciated that comment and I thank him for it because I found it very helpful to know why the bill was needed when clearly it has not been thought necessary before. 
I was also very pleased with the Minister’s comments when she graciously noted my concerns over clause 5(2). I thought she handled that well. I am a bit concerned by the answer that parliamentary counsel gave me which was that that matter should be covered under clause 6. I am a little bit worried about that. The lawyer in me feels there is at least a credible argument for anyone acting for a person so charged under this legislation. I think that maybe that could be looked at further but I guess the Minister is probably thinking that all things going well the Act will not be needed for a long time and hopefully will not ever be needed. 
I take on board the concerns that Mr Worth had in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the fact that people covered by this bill will not have the same rights that they would have if they were arrested and charged with an offence in New Zealand. That is a concern because the people we are talking about are putting themselves in positions of danger at the Government’s request. They are doing so at the request of New Zealand so that we can all take pride in the fact that our little country is able to contribute in hopefully a helpful way towards other countries’ stability. I believe they deserve to have at least the same protection as someone who is accused of a crime in this country. 
Even though National members have those concerns about the bill we will support it and we will do so because it should have been put through months ago. Hopefully we can come back at a later stage and amend the legislation if any of the concerns we have raised do turn out to have been proven. 
Bill read a third time.