Dunne Peter: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7339] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I commend the member who has just resumed his seat for a very cogent argument in favour of both this bill and also the International Criminal Court. I simply observe in addition to what Dr Mapp has said that at this time when there is for instance a minor dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over the trial of people detained in the aftermath of the war on terrorism that the role of the International Criminal Court probably assumes a greater significance. The rather bizarre procedure whereby American citizens or American detainees who are tried by the military courts that the United States is proposing to establish may well render themselves liable for the death penalty—and there has been some agreement that British citizens will not be liable—demonstrates the need for an impartial international court to deal with these types of instances. I think the examples the member drew attention to going right back to Nuremburg underline the point that unless there is a properly established and constituted international court of justice in place with very clear boundaries to its work there is a very grave risk that justice is in effect being meted out by the victors and sometimes within that there is the implication that justice is more about vengeance than about true justice. 
I think the International Criminal Court is a way of getting us beyond that sense of feeling. But for the court to work effectively it needs to have the sanction of the nations that support it and the ability of those nations to enable it to carry out its operations in an unfettered way. That is where this bill becomes relevant. It is a relatively small piece of legislation. In fact I am disappointed that there was not the agreement that would have seen this passed last year by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I think it could have been dealt with much more neatly and tidily in that environment rather than now being in the situation where it will be treated in the normal way as a full bill by this House sent to a select committee submissions invited upon it—they will be few and far between and extremely arcane—and then we will report it back to the House in due course and send it on its way. It seems to me that that is maybe one way of serving the needs of democracy but is utterly pointless otherwise given what this bill seeks to do. 
New Zealand as has been pointed out by the support of both the major parties and most parties in this House has supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court and has pledged its support for the work that court could do. Therefore it is only logical that these technical amendments to extend certain diplomatic privileges and immunities to the officers of the court in the event that they should ever be in New Zealand on court business are entirely and utterly appropriate. 
I do not want to say any more than that other than to wish this bill good luck as it begins its journey and hope it is not too long before we are back here passing the bill through its final stages and getting it into law so that New Zealand’s contribution to the work of the court once it is up and running can be shown to have some demonstrable worth.