Worth Richard: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2206] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National supports the referral of this bill to a select committee for further consideration but we do express some reservations. I am sure that the work of the select committee in examining the submissions that will be received on the legislation will likely lead to improvement in the form of the bill if it is reported back in a favourable way. 
A good starting point is to say that New Zealand together with like-minded countries continues actively to encourage States on issues relating to the right not to be tortured. That right I would say is one of the core non-derivable human rights and it is therefore of the highest priority. New Zealand traditionally has been an active supporter of attempts to eradicate torture internationally and has spoken out on instances of torture that occur. As the previous speaker said in New Zealand we have enacted the Crimes of Torture Act and on 26 June 1987 the convention against torture—to give it its short name—entered into force. New Zealand signed the treaty in relation to that convention on 14 January 1986 and ratified it on 10 December 1989. 
It was contemplated that more work needed to be done and that is the reason why today we confront this proposal to entrench into New Zealand law the provisions added by the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I note that although we have signed that Optional Protocol we have not taken the second—and in some ways more critical—step of ratifying it because the process of ratification coupled with domestic legislation is the essential element that brings into force international law in this country. 
The previous speaker spoke about what lies behind the Optional Protocol. In summary it provides further measures to achieve the purposes of the convention and its objective is to establish a system of regular visits by international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty in order to prevent torture and other cruel punishment. It is right to say—it must be said—that New Zealand abhors torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Again as the previous speaker said within New Zealand there is a range of protections to proscribe and prevent torture. 
But some basic issues need to be considered in looking at legislation of this type. The first issue that I would identify as to whether to proceed with the implementation of this Optional Protocol is to examine the Government’s approach to the United Nations treaty committee system. Certainly in speaking for myself and for members of the National caucus I say that we remain concerned that the United Nations committees are not focusing on the most pressing of human rights violations. There are many illustrations of that but surely Zimbabwe would provide a great example. It seems to us that the United Nations and other international entities sit back because the issues are difficult. They do not confront human rights violations as they should but instead proceed with the implementation of treaty regimes that effectively do not confront issues that quite clearly should be confronted. 
The subcommittee established by the Optional Protocol will be able to conduct visits to New Zealand facilities—as it will to the facilities of any other countries that implement the Optional Protocol—regardless of whether there are substantive concerns regarding allegations of torture. In a very general way I would say that that is incompatible with New Zealand’s approach which is to allow committee visits only where there is compelling reason to do so and to focus resources in the areas of greatest needs. Second I would say there is no suggestion that the independent National Preventive Mechanisms are inadequate in New Zealand. We have the Crimes of Torture Act as the previous speaker said we have provisions in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and other measures are available to those who assert that there has been a breach of human rights in the context of torture—which I would like to come back to in a moment. 
The third issue that I think needs to be looked at is that there are some procedural and substantive concerns with regard to the Optional Protocol. It is a statement of fact in connection with the procedural concerns that the Optional Protocol was developed without widespread consensus and it was certainly not considered in detail by the working-group that was established to consider the draft text. The substantive concerns relate to the need for United Nations treaty bodies to operate effectively with committees focusing on areas of greatest human rights violations. As it stands the Optional Protocol will allow visits to any member State regardless of whether there are concerns about allegations of torture. So there will be a temptation for this committee to embark on a series of junket trips around the world and to come to countries like New Zealand or Australia where torture is not an issue of substantive concern rather than to focus on those countries that demonstrate a flagrant disregard for human rights and the rule of law. As a balancing comment to those three observations I have just made I would certainly accept that in the implementation of the protocol we would be sending a message setting an example if you wish of human rights. But that in itself is not a compelling reason because New Zealand is already regarded as a leader in human rights standards. 
There are three key measures in the legislation—first the setting up of a subcommittee of the existing committee to exercise its functions in New Zealand. As the previous speaker said that includes visiting jails and other detention facilities allowing unrestricted access to information and conducting private interviews with prisoners. The second key part is to authorise the Minister of Justice to set up what are called National Preventive Mechanisms to make recommendations for improving conditions of detention and prisoner treatment. I am not sure we need that; I believe that the changes that have been passed through this Parliament in recent years provide appropriate condition standards and indicators of what should be appropriate prisoner treatment. 
The third issue is to designate a Central National Preventive Mechanism to coordinate the activities of the National Preventive Mechanisms and to liaise with the United Nations subcommittee. We have recently passed legislation in New Zealand that establishes a code for prisoners to sue in respect of alleged breaches of their rights. We did that in broad terms in the context of this torture convention to which as I have said New Zealand is a party. But we did it with a very important saving and that saving was that we entered a stipulation that the Government of New Zealand reserved the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the convention only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand. We went further in fact than our clear international treaty obligations. So I express the hope that when the select committee looks at the merit of this legislation it will judge it on those three parameters which as I indicated in the course of my speech are the truly critical ones.