Worth Richard: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12230] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am grateful for the comments the previous speaker has made in the context of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. National supports this legislation. There are some aspects of the legislation however in respect of which we entertain a degree of reservation. A principal concern would have to be the legislative process that has been followed in this case. The Minister has sought to justify as best she could with all the available arguments that could possibly be mounted the reason that this Act will be deemed to have come into force on 24 July 2003. Generally legislation is prospective. It takes effect after it has received the royal assent. There are specific provisions that provide that legislation comes into force at a future date but not so in this case. Instead this legislation has been backdated to 24 July 2003. 
The Minister has explained to us—or tried to—the reason for that backdating. It is to mark the commencement of the deployment to the Solomon Islands so it is a little unclear as to whether there is a swathe of charges to be laid against police officers and other civilian personnel in respect of activities they may have been involved in in the Solomons from the period 24 July 2003 to the present time. Let us hope that that is not the case. Let us hope that the office of the Attorney-General is not cluttered with decisions to be made in respect of multiple charges and multiple accused. 
This legislation is to some extent a complement to the United Nations (Police) Act of 1964. That legislation which came into force on 14 May 1964 has served New Zealand well and provided a measure of control and discipline for police officers engaged in United Nations service. A gap was discovered and led to the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. This bill allows New Zealand to exercise criminal jurisdiction over New Zealand police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of non - United Nations deployments. So the bill will allow New Zealand to exercise jurisdiction over non - armed service personnel participating in the Solomon Islands deployment. 
It was a very historic step on the part of New Zealand to send troops and police to the Solomon Islands and it might very well be the case that Taito Phillip Field will offer some comment on that. But my recollection as a matter of history was that the last time we saw an entry into this part of the Pacific was probably to suppress the Mau rebellion against New Zealand rule over Samoa. That culminated of course in what some commentators have described as the infamous 1929 “Black Saturday” on which New Zealand troops opened fire with machine guns on unarmed Samoan protestors killing nine and wounding over 50 other personnel. 
I have two primary concerns about this legislation and the first I had an opportunity of briefly touching on in the Committee stage of the bill. That is it seems to me that for no good reason the select committee set its heart against the inclusion in this bill of appropriate reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They certainly turned their minds to that issue but I urge members of the House to reflect on the possibility that those who are charged with offences on foreign soil under New Zealand law should have the full rights that are available to people who are charged under New Zealand law on New Zealand soil. By not making specific reference to that legislation a gap is created and potentially an injustice is done. 
Of course it is beyond the scope of what I seek to say during this third reading debate to offer any detailed view on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But I would note that under Part 2 of that legislation a number of critical rights are given in the area of search arrest and detention. For example there are provisions like section 21 “Unreasonable search and seizure”; section 22 “Liberty of the person”; and minimum standards of criminal procedure are set by section 25. I would have thought that a robust Committee imbued with a proper sense of jurisprudence might well have seen it as appropriate to include reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The sophistry apparent in the commentary of the select committee I would assert is unfortunate. 
The second issue that I believe is worthy of comment relates to this whole issue of territoriality and nationality. New Zealand has generally followed a practice that our laws are intended to have effect within New Zealand only. That has not been the invariable practice in respect of other countries but from a constitutional perspective it seems sound and reflects the well-understood sovereign doctrines in international law. When there have been exceptions they have been made with significant care and I can see members opposite nodding in acquiescence with that comment. There are so few exceptions but I will instance just two. Those two relate to aspects of the criminal law. [ 
Interruption 
] Is it not an excellent outcome that Government members have suddenly become awake and that on the opposite side of the House there is a fertile interest in constitutional law doctrine? 
The two examples relate to the readiness of the New Zealand Government to prosecute for sexual offences committed outside this country and the very deliberate legislative entry we have made in connection with terrorist activities outside this country. 
So I conclude that there was clearly justification for bringing this legislation before the House at the start of the Solomon Islands deployment. However the Government has disgraced itself by the slow passage of this legislation. When one asks: “What is the intended mischief?” the answer is that the passage of time has seen no real mischief created—and why might that be? I suggest that it is because in the international arena New Zealand punches above its weight and that in our peacekeeping and peacemaking operations we show a commitment a care a diligence and a compassion that may well not need legislation of this type. That was apparently not the view of the Government. It seems that on this occasion as on many occasions in recent times the Government was again wrong. So it may very well be that we can move to the early repeal of this legislation which is a further indictment of this Government’s failure to focus on the really important aspects of legislative policy.