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:12223] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill a short bill of only two parts. Its primary purpose as the commentary from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee makes clear is to enable the exercise of jurisdiction over New Zealand police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of non - United Nations deployments. A number of features of the bill however are directly worthy of comment. 
I would like first of all to refer to the definition of “overseas operations force” in clause 4 which makes it very clear that it does not include any member of the police who is part of a United Nations force and to whom the United Nations (Police) Act applies. The curious point perhaps about this legislation is that it was designed with a specific operation in mind—an operation in the Solomon Islands where we have now been for quite a significant period. In that context I just reflect on the legislative history of this bill relating to Part 1. The bill was introduced on 29 July 2003. There was no delay at that early stage because on 5 August 2003 it had its first reading and was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. So the delays have set in since then. I suppose we can legitimately wonder what has happened in the interim in respect of the military operations that have occurred in the Solomon Islands—military operations police operations peacekeeping operations and peace-making operations. The answer it seems is that there has not been a problem. 
I ask the Minister: what is the mischief here? We have had an opportunity to assess the need for this legislation in an environment of danger where the rule of law is certainly very much at risk. One of the phrases Minister Goff used was that “the Solomons is a failed state”. He said that it was in danger of becoming a haven for terrorists and drug traffickers that it was close to anarchy and that any police deployment would need military support. Our presence there comprised police officers apparently some 40 senior officers and up to 200 troops who were added to the Australian contingent. They were armed with Steyr 5.56 millimetre rifles light machine guns grenade launchers and 9 millimetre pistols. 
I think we would do well as members of Parliament to reflect that when the Government determines it will not with speed advance legislation then legitimate questions can be asked as to the need for that legislation. It is right to say of course that it is intended that the legislation have an effect in futurity and that was made clear in the commentary; it was not only to apply to the Solomon Islands but also to future peacekeeping and peace-making deployments. Although National supports this legislation we assert that legitimate questions can be asked on this question of need. It was also very much in the minds of members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when they looked at this legislation and heard the only submission that came to them—a joint submission from Alberto Costi Fran Wright and Naresh Perinpanayagam of Victoria University law school—that the police would not be armed. But that of course has not proved to be the case. In inviting the House to commend this bill I note those aspects.