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:12226] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 2 and I am certainly looking forward— 
Darren Hughes 
: Thank you! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I thank the junior whip on the Government side of the Chamber. I am certainly looking forward to the contribution of the Minister on this part because this is where the substantive regime in respect of crimes and misconduct prosecutions is founded. A number of issues arise in connection with this part. First of all a distinction is drawn between police officers and civilian members of an overseas operations force. I doubt whether that is in fact an appropriate distinction to draw. All people are equal under the law. Why should one class of person be subjected to a different regime from another class of person? I am speaking of police officers on the one hand and civilian members on the other. It is all very well to say that military personnel may be in a different class because of the range of responsibilities their task entails. But I would not have thought that it is necessarily a logical argument to create the division that occurs in this part. 
Of course there is an aspect of protection in this part in that no information—no charge in other words—is to be brought against any person without the consent of the Attorney-General. It is difficult to see how the present Attorney-General would be a fit and proper person to make such a judgment but presumably it would be founded on the view of her advisers. One would certainly hope that in the context of the decision-making roles that the Attorney-General is asked to perform there would be well-supported advice before she made such a decision. That is certainly important as I reflect on some recent issues that have occurred. 
There is a constitutional issue however that is perhaps worthy of brief comment and an earlier speaker touched on it. The issue is that in general terms New Zealand has taken the line consistent I think with high constitutional principle that the basis upon which jurisdiction should be exercised is not nationality but territoriality. We just need to reflect on that by testing the proposition that a New Zealander on a Belgian ship in a French river should not have New Zealand law apply to him or her. Where however it has been decided that the territorial principle is the correct approach to take New Zealand has been hugely reluctant to extend that to a principle of extraterritoriality. We have made some exceptions—for sex crimes for example—where we have seen New Zealand law reach out into the country where a particular offence has occurred. We have also seen that in the area of terrorism. But it is truly rare. 
I would argue in respect of civilians in another location that the primary inquiry should always be about the nature of the criminal justice system in that particular country. If there is a stable legal system should it not be the case that an offender a New Zealander or otherwise should be dealt with in accordance with the laws of that particular jurisdiction? I do not wanted to be churlish about these issues of course and as I have said National supports this bill. But when one reflects on the constitutional implications of some of the things that are planned then I guess a degree of reservation must be entertained. 
Another point relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which briefly considered this legislation contemplated that there should be incorporated a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act standard. It seems to me that the commentary which discusses the necessity of having a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is at the least weak. It states that the people who are dealt with by New Zealand law in foreign countries would have exactly the same protections as New Zealanders who are dealt with in this country and it seems inappropriate to include reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So there is an aspect of disadvantage for those people who are in foreign countries.