Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11350] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports this legislation. I feel I must elaborate on this point given the statements by the member from the ACT party. I know that ACT has very strong feelings about the degree of involvement that New Zealand should have with international institutions generally. I think it would be fair to say that ACT takes a sceptical view not— 
Stephen Franks 
: A New Zealand first view. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: A New Zealand first view! I would say a sceptical view in the sense that it does not fully rule out engagement with international institutions. ACT members are realistic enough to know that New Zealand has to have an appropriate engagement but at the same time they remain suspicious of what I would loosely describe as the international project which is the broader extension of international law across the relations between States and also as it applies to individuals. 
This is something of a century-old project and what has been attempted through the course of that project is to provide a complete framework of rules and principles that will ultimately lead to peaceful relations between States. Members might say that sounds all very noble and idealistic and of course it is because the ultimate ambition of such a project is to prevent the scourge of war. 
 Whereas in domestic life crime and violence are always prohibited and are always so to speak outlawed activities in international relations war is permissible for self defence—be it immediate imminent or threatened. The war in Iraq was supported on the basis that there was an enormous risk from weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had the most flagrant breaches of international humanitarian law. Most notable were the gassing of tens of thousands of his citizens and those of other countries and threatening to do the same as well. On top of that he was in gross and continuing breach of literally dozens of United Nations resolutions. 
So the international law framework is quite different. The use of armed force is permissible. It is not as if it is a matter of just the isolated force we might see from a police force. It is wide scale and it allows and accepts that innocent civilians will be killed. Broadly speaking there may not be accountability. So the international project is to try to minimise and ultimately eliminate that scourge of mankind. 
The creation of the International Criminal Court is part of the framework to reduce the scope and breadth of war so that it does not affect civilians to the extent it has in the past. Ultimately the ambition must be to eliminate war and in that sense the International Criminal Court is part of that framework. That is why I have consistently said to the ACT party—notwithstanding its concerns which I believe fundamentally to be imagined rather than real—that it should reverse its position. I certainly would like ACT members to acknowledge that when the House passed the substantive legislation in 2000 they would have then recognised the reality of that and at least accede to the legislation we will be passing today. I made that statement in my first reading speech. 
ACT members have of course raised various serious concerns. Mr Franks to be fair has done something that the select committee failed to do. That was to point out some of the deficiencies of the bill. I think everyone would acknowledge—and Mr Franks himself has acknowledged—it is appropriate that the judges the prosecutors and the registrar have immunities. But why would we extend on the face of the legislation that same kind of immunity to witnesses? It is worth bearing in mind whom those people are likely to be. They themselves will frequently be people who participated in the war crime itself and in a sense they would have been offered immunity to testify against a more serious criminal. Yet in this legislation on the face of it we are extending to them the immunities that might be expected of judges. 
I know that Government members if they chose to take calls—which they have not I note—would say that the immunity is of a different kind; that article 48(4) is different. But no one reading the legislation on the face of it would know that. I believe that because legislation is not just for experts but has important symbolic value accessible to the people then the legislation on crucial issues like this—this is not some passing matter—ought to be plain on the face of it that the immunity of such people is limited only to the extent of giving evidence. They do not have some kind of general immunity. That offer was made to the Government last night. It could have agreed to the Supplementary Order Paper I submitted to it and passed it into law. 
The Minister’s excuse—and it could be seen as no more than that—was that if she did that in this case then on every international convention she would have a statute that was a foot high. Well that is simply fatuous. The reality is that this bill deals with the International Criminal Court and with the most serious crimes imaginable. Surely in that situation it is important that Parliament signals as clearly as possible the difference between the witness who has received immunity to testify and the judge. I am disappointed in the Government that it did not take that opportunity. 
The other point I would like to refer to in passing is the extension of diplomatic immunities to the European Commission. Of itself that provision is perfectly sensible. No one would doubt that. But one has to ask whether it is really necessary to debate a Supplementary Order Paper on the same day it is introduced—that is yesterday—because of extreme public urgency. Is this a body that we have not had any association with for the last 40 years? Is it not the case that European Commissioners and their staff have visited this country numerous times and that we extend to them all the normal courtesies? What on earth was the case for the extraordinary urgency of the Supplementary Order Paper in that instance? It is bad parliamentary practice to introduce to this House legislation that distorts the very purpose of the original bill—which was about using the International Criminal Court—and to use that device to extend privileges to the European Commission as a matter of urgency. 
I would implore the Government to have some respect for this Parliament and to introduce legislation in a proper and timely manner so that it can be sent to a select committee to have the issues properly considered rather than have the extraordinary spectacle of legislation being done in haste—and I would be prepared to bet to be amended yet again by Mr Rick Barker in one of his numerous Statutes Amendment Bills. Those bills will be circulating later this year. He will say: “Oh by the way there was a minor error…” or was it a major error in that Supplementary Order Paper introduced without any consideration. 
I want to conclude on the point that the importance of the International Criminal Court cannot be doubted. It is important that we pass this legislation—but we do so with those caveats.