Dunne Peter: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12820] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I tell the member who has just resumed his seat that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee took 1 hour and 55 minutes to consider this bill. It is very straightforward legislation. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Good chairing. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Absolutely and I thank the member for that comment. The bill replaces the Visiting Forces Act which was passed in 1939. So it is a little churlish I suggest to be critical of the failure of this particular Government to implement expeditiously an agreement that was signed some 59 years later in 1998 whereas this legislation actually replaces an Act that was passed 65 years ago at the advent of World War II. Whatever else has changed in the world in the last 65 years it is certainly true that the conditions under which the original Visiting Forces Act was passed have long since changed. 
 In fact 65 years ago Michael Joseph Savage was sitting on those benches over there. I am not sure what he said but it would have been profound and inspirational. It is interesting that he did make the comment: “Where Britain goes we go; where she stands we stand.” The really interesting thing about Michael Joseph Savage’s comment in 1939 because today it has been interpreted as being simply acquiescence was that at the time it was seen as the height of effrontery. For the first time a dominion of the British Empire was staking out a position independent from the empire Government in London. That phrase today is seen as a sort of blind adherence to Britain but at the time New Zealand was the only dominion of the then Empire to state a position separate from the British position at the outbreak of World War II. Those who try to draw parallels with a similar comment made this week miss the point completely. 
This bill is straightforward but I want to pick up on a comment made by an earlier speaker—I forget which one—who said that because this bill would at last enable us to ratify the status of forces agreement signed with Australia in 1998 it was appropriate to talk a little bit about the Anzac military relationship in today’s context. I want to do that because I think there are two issues that get confused. It is certainly true that Australians and New Zealanders have a brotherly relationship like no other on earth. We are the best of friends and the best of enemies and sometimes the lines get a little blurred. I think the answer for both countries in terms of our defence policy is not one whereby each should try to compete with the other to make sure that we go to the right conflicts because we have done that often enough in the past but for both of us to recognise that independently we do not have the military capacity technology or intelligence in a military sense to meet our own defence requirements entirely. 
We need to look at a greater degree of integration between our defence forces. It does not mean that we sacrifice New Zealand command or Australian command in the case of Australian forces but it does mean that we start to work together much more closely to see what New Zealand is good at and can contribute to in an operation where we are together jointly; and what it is that Australia is good at. That is one way in which that new Anzac spirit—which members say needs to be rekindled—can be achieved in a practical way that serves the interests of both nations. This bill will play a small part in enabling that to happen because it ratifies the 1998 status of forces agreement. 
Mr Keith Locke tried to draw some analogies between the threats or dangers inherent in this legislation with what is currently going on in Iraq at the hands of certain elements of the British and American forces. With respect although I understand the point he is trying to make that is drawing a very long bow. Under this bill I do not think it would be contemplated that any forces visiting New Zealand would be in the role that American and British forces are in Iraq or be here for any duration. I know he might make the point about the Deep Freeze operation in Christchurch but that is historical and the personnel are now largely scientists and coastguard officials. So I think the member is drawing a long bow in suggesting we are running the risk that American British or other visiting forces might end up doing to local people the sorts of things that are being done to Iraqi nationals. That is an unfair concern in the context of this legislation. 
Mr Locke did raise a more relevant issue that bears some consideration and certainly it occupied some time at the select committee—namely what happens if people who are detained in this nation under the powers of their own forces are subject to penalties greater than those that would apply in New Zealand or are deported to face a more serious penalty particularly the death penalty in an overseas jurisdiction? The simple answer is that we need to take each case on its merits. I seem to recall and other members of the select committee will correct me if I am wrong that defence officials advised us that in the event of that possibility they would want to take that up with the New Zealand Government at the time it arose to prevent an individual from being placed in that situation. 
Although this bill is 65 years late it is a positive step forward. It needs to be seen as a companion measure to the legislation passed a couple of weeks ago relating to the operation of New Zealand forces in overseas jurisdictions. So with the passage of this bill and the earlier one we will at last have updated our legislation in that area. At the time the original Act was passed in 1939 when Michael Joseph Savage would have been sitting on the benches over there and Adam Hamilton would have been sitting about where Mr Power is sitting we did not have such a concept as status of forces agreements. They are a comparatively recent innovation. Again that is why some of the problem has arisen as to how they might sit alongside the provisions of the original Act. 
This bill is good legislation. It was supported unanimously at the select committee. It is always a telling comment when the only people who make submissions on a bill are the Law Society and even then the submissions were technical and the society did not wish to be heard in support of the bill. So we probably have it about right. I am certainly happy to support the bill and to see it on its way.