Goff Phil: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11175] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill implements the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court which supplements the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The bill will allow orders to be made for the court and personnel employed by it under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act similar to those that already exist for other bodies. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has recommended unanimously that the bill be passed without amendment. 
Before turning to the specifics of the bill I wish to flag that I have written this week to all parties in the House to seek agreement to make a further amendment to the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act by a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. The need for this amendment has become apparent in the context of implementation of an establishment agreement with the European Community concerning the office that it is setting up here. The European Community is defined as an international organisation and not a country. For that reason under the current Act the normal privileges and immunities conferred on the families of diplomats do not apply to the European Union mission. The Supplementary Order Paper will simply extend to an international organisation those privileges currently enjoyed by country missions; and the indication I have received so far is that the parties that have replied are in favour of that Supplementary Order Paper. 
On the bill as introduced the select committee received only one submission and that submission supported the bill. The bill adds two new sections to the Act. New section 10D deals with three situations in which privileges and immunities are conferred. These relate closely to the functioning of the International Criminal Court. 
The first situation deals with protections for the court itself. The second relates to protections for the International Criminal Court judges and staff and the third relates to the more limited protection for others involved in International Criminal Court proceedings such as witnesses. These protections help to ensure that the International Criminal Court and others involved in proceedings can perform their functions or role free of interference. But the protections do not mean that the International Criminal Court and its staff can do what they like in New Zealand. 
It is important in order to avoid confusion to say what the bill does not do. It does not affect procedures relating to surrender of persons to the court jurisdiction. The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act sets out the procedure to be followed in New Zealand if a request for a surrender is made. It is similar to extradition involving scrutiny both by a Minister and by a court. The grounds on which the International Criminal Court’s request can be refused include the situation where the person is already under investigation or being prosecuted in New Zealand. 
The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. Under the principle of complementarity States that have jurisdiction over a particular incident have the opportunity to investigate and prosecute. It is only if they are not willing or able to act that the International Criminal Court steps in. 
The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act has made all the conduct over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction an offence under New Zealand law. I expect that New Zealand would of course prosecute any New Zealanders involved in genocide crimes against humanity or war crimes which are the areas of jurisdiction the court has. 
The question that underpins this bill is a narrower one. How do we want International Criminal Court judges and staff to be treated when on official business? Although the court is based in The Hague the reality is that much of its work will be done elsewhere. Those doing the court’s work should have the protections they need to do their job properly wherever they happen to be. This bill shows that New Zealand is willing to give protections to the court its judges and staff if their work brings them here to New Zealand. 
The second provision in the bill is new section 10E which relates to meetings of the States that are party to the Rome Statute. It implements article 13 of the agreement which gives representatives of States who attend these meetings certain protections. It is standard practice for representatives of States who attend international meetings in other countries to have protections similar to those given to diplomats. Generally these protections are given to persons holding letters of credentials from Foreign Ministers or other high-level authorisation. 
Existing orders under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act give such protections to those attending meetings in New Zealand organised by bodies such as the United Nations the OECD and the World Trade Organization. Section 11 of the Act caters for international conferences organised by bodies in respect of which there is no order. It allows a  
Gazette 
 notice to be made extending protection to persons attending a specified conference. These protections are limited in nature and duration. Moreover the protections do not belong to individuals but rather to the State or body that they represent and they can be waived. We would expect these protections for New Zealand representatives who attend meetings in other countries. We therefore need to be able to give them to others in the event that meetings are held here. 
New Zealand has long supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court as a means of ending impunity for the worst crimes. The passage of this bill and early ratification of the privileges agreement will reaffirm New Zealand’s support both for the International Criminal Court itself and for the ideals that it embodies. I commend this bill to the House.