Mapp Wayne: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7569] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 If there was ever a bill that proved the failure of a State—the Solomons that is—the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill would have to be it. What we are saying in essence is that New Zealand will retain jurisdiction over the police and all other persons serving in the peacekeeping operation. Normally when people—police and so forth—are posted overseas they are subject to the jurisdiction of the host State. In this case we are saying no for the very good reason that the Solomons is a failed State. 
That raises several concerns not so much about the bill but about the issue generally. One of them is why we let the situation deteriorate to the point where the State totally failed. We deployed 10 police officers over a period of years knowing full well right throughout that time because of the reports that were being received back in New Zealand that they were unable to reverse the situation. I have heard Mr Goff say time and time again in this House that the Solomon Islands police themselves were part of the criminal enterprise that was running that country. Mr Goff would acknowledge that. We were sending our police officers to work with their police even though we knew that their police were effectively part of a criminal enterprise. This issue had been pointed— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No that is not the case. Now the member has got it wrong. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am not suggesting our police were part of a criminal enterprise but that does suggest that we knew whilst our police officers were there and trying to make a difference that that was a vain hope. We knew that a long time ago. 
So I say to the Government that in the future particularly in our region where we have special responsibilities we cannot wait as long as that—to the point that a State has so comprehensively failed that we have to bring in a rushed bill. And this bill is rushed; weeks after the deployment and after the Government has had plenty of time to think about the issue we are now faced in a sense as a matter of urgency with producing a bill because we know as a fact that the courts and the police of the Solomons are thoroughly corrupt. They are part of a criminal enterprise and we could not trust our service people our police officers and our civilians to be subject to their jurisdiction. We must retain that jurisdiction. 
There has been an extensive series of articles in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which I am sure that many other people have read about the state of our defence forces. This whole issue in the Solomons brings it to a head. I know that the Government will say that back in 2000 it did a review that said the defence forces should be reshaped so that they were more focused more effective and more able to do their job. That seemed on the face of it to have some merit. But over the last 4 years that this Government has been in office there have been more and more deployments. Admittedly some of those were not able to be foreseen but the Government had the example of East Timor and it knew of the huge stretch that that deployment imposed on our defence forces. Since 11 September 2001—nearly 2 years ago now—our forces have had to be sent to Afghanistan to Iraq and now to the Solomons and who could possibly say that the deployment to the Solomons was not predictable? 
We know that our defence forces based on this Labour-led Government’s deployments are stretched to excess and that is now leading to a crisis of confidence within the defence forces themselves. There are huge rates of turnover complete failure to maintain critical skills and people leaving through sheer frustration. They are being burnt out. In other countries something was done about that. Australia increased its defence budget. The United States increased its defence budget. So did Britain and so did most countries in Europe. Which country has not done that and which country almost on a pro rata basis has been deploying more people overseas than ever before? It is New Zealand and this Government has a terrible crisis on its hands which it is ignoring. We have seen the level of funding dropping and dropping while the tempo of deployment is increasing and increasing until now we have tremendous burnout. 
There are some sensible solutions that the Government could take—solutions that would fit within the Government’s own paradigm. For instance we could have three frigates. After all the Government sent our only two frigates to the Gulf this year. We have all seen the photographs on television of  
Te Mana 
 and  
Te Kaha 
 stationed in the Gulf of Oman at the same time—just yesterday one of those frigates the  
Te Mana 
 returned. For that time there was not a single combat naval vessel owned by New Zealand under our sovereignty anywhere near New Zealand. In fact our frigates were 6000 miles away from New Zealand. So from the evidence of the Government’s own deployments it needs to understand that it has to change its thinking and increase the spending on things we use. That after all was the message that came out of the  
Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 
. It was to increase spending increase investment—people equipment and so forth—in the things we use most. Well we have news for the Government: it is using the frigates a hang of a lot so it should buy more of them. It is as simple as that. 
It is a similar case with the Army. We know that East Timor was a huge stretch on the Army. We have sent the Army to Afghanistan we have sent it to Iraq we are now sending it to the Solomons and smaller groups of army personnel are scattered around the world. Again I urge the Government to make the investment to recruit more people pay them more and equip them more because we are using them more. It comes back to the Government’s own paradigm. The Government needs to spend money to make investments in those parts of our defence forces we use most. [ 
Interruption 
] The junior Government whip will probably be unaware that one-third of New Zealand’s entire helicopter force will now be based in the Solomons. One-third is a huge percentage. What happens if there is another requirement for that force? What will we do? Nothing? I guess that is the Government’s answer. 
Again I say to the Government that by its own paradigm and by its own experience which perhaps it did not anticipate before 2001 it has to make the investment in those parts of our defence forces that it is using the most but it is failing to do that. We are the only country in the Western World that is dropping expenditure and not making those critical investments that are needed right now. I ask Government members whether we would be able to use light armoured vehicles in the Solomons. What is the answer? What will the next speaker for the Government say to that? We are using our helicopters we are using our soldiers sailors and airmen and they are not being replaced in the way that they should. 
In terms of the whole issue of the Solomons this bill of itself is an indictment on the Government playing catch-up. It rushed this bill in thinking: “Oh gosh there’s a gap here. We’ve got to fix it.” Well that is true it does have to be fixed but it is not the only thing that has to be fixed; there is a whole range of things that have to be fixed in relation to our external commitments and the Government is failing to do that. This bill should be the wake-up call on the much deeper and wider deficiencies that exist within our foreign policies and within our defence forces and it is time the Government got real. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 The United Future party will support this bill for three reasons. Firstly it makes good common sense and United Future supports policies that make good common sense. Secondly it will protect New Zealand citizens who are in a position where they are exposed to huge risk. It is important for us as a country to protect New Zealand citizens who offer their help in international situations. Thirdly it demonstrates a cooperative approach between the Solomon Islands New Zealand and Australia. It is a situation where all three countries are in agreement about the way in which their citizens should be protected. Therefore this is not something that we are endeavouring to foist on some foreign Government but something that other Governments welcome and are entirely in agreement with. 
Although New Zealand’s current role in the Solomon Islands is not entirely unique it is certainly an extraordinary position. It is rare for a country or a group of countries to be invited to enter and take control of another country. The fact that the Solomon Islands has asked New Zealand and Australia principally to do that is a sign of its respect for and confidence and trust in New Zealand and Australia. However it raises a number of new issues. 
It is important for New Zealand that we do not go beyond the mandate that the Solomon Islands has given us. Our job is to help to restore the rule of law. I commend the Government for the cautious approach it has taken throughout the debate on this. It has chosen not to rush into things. It has waited for a formal invitation for the documentation the legislation to be signed off in the Solomon Islands and for an agreement to be reached and signed off instead of taking precipitous action. 
Further it is important for us to act speedily but effectively. Conflict situations are notoriously unpredictable and in this instance nobody can predict just how long our people in the Solomon Islands will be committed there. But our job is to work as effectively and speedily as we can and then to pull out of the Solomon Islands and hopefully allow its people to continue to govern their own country for themselves. In that respect we as a country truly are a catalyst in this instance. We are going to go in change things exit hopefully entirely intact and bring all our people home again without any loss. When we do exit from the Solomon Islands we hope we leave a country that is much changed but that is no longer under the influence of outside powers. 
For the personnel involved it is a difficult job. It is a job with tremendous risk not just physically but legally. We know that that country is currently subject to lawlessness. We know that the legal authorities have proven untrustworthy and we have heard reports of backhanders by police and general corruption. The law is being abused. The question for New Zealand has been how to protect our personnel in this situation. 
This bill started with the Solomon Islands Facilitation of International Assistance Act which was passed on 17 July. Originally under clause 17 of that bill the Solomon Islands was going to give complete immunity from legal proceedings both criminal and civil to personnel involved in the operations of assisting countries. If that had gone ahead this bill would not have been necessary. However the Solomon Islands indicated that it was going to amend the draft bill prior to its introduction to grant immunity only where the offence that had been committed by a person from an assisting country had occurred in the course of the operations or where the assisting country could exercise jurisdiction over that person. It is the latter provision that has made this bill necessary. I do not agree with National’s comments that this bill could have been brought in a lot earlier; it was only because of the changes to the Solomon Islands Facilitation of International Assistance Bill prior to its enactment that New Zealand moved to ensure that it could exercise jurisdiction over its own personnel. 
Currently we have the Armed Forces Discipline Act which covers our armed forces when they are deployed overseas and which gives them the necessary protection. The United Nations (Police) Act gives similar protection to our police but only when they are acting under the auspices of the United Nations. That is not happening in this case and therefore without this bill our police would not be covered. Moreover because there is a possibility that New Zealand civilians may be involved in the reconstruction of the Solomon Islands our civilians would also not be covered. Under this bill police and civilians will be subject to the law of New Zealand with regard to any activities that they undertake whilst in the Solomon Islands. 
There are some problems that arise with this legislation. The first is the fact that it brings an inconsistency between Solomon Islands law and New Zealand law and where there are differences between the two countries’ law it will inevitably be the case that two people may be treated differently. A New Zealander and a citizen of the Solomon Islands may carry out an activity together but receive different treatment under the hands of legal authorities. There may be offences in the Solomon Islands that are different or non-existent in New Zealand. So some inconsistency could be caused through this. However that has to be balanced against the lawlessness and corruption that currently exist in the Solomon Islands. As I said New Zealanders are considerably at risk and they need to have confidence that they will not be subject to false arrest or abuse by law enforcement agencies in the Solomon Islands and that at least that aspect of their willingness to go and assist the Solomon Islands will be taken care of by their own Government here. This bill does that. Despite the inconsistency given the situation we find in the Solomon Islands it is United Future’s view that it is legitimate that effectively we take control of and have jurisdiction over our own people despite the fact that they are in a foreign country. 
 Of course that is not unusual either. Diplomatic immunity has existed for a huge length of time and it provides similar protection to diplomats who are in foreign countries. In that case one hopes that the diplomats will act to a very high moral standard. That does not always happen as we know but nevertheless there is an expectation that it will occur. The onus is therefore on the New Zealand Police and any civilians who are there to meet a high standard. Because they will not be subject to Solomon Islands law it is important that they are honourable in all their dealings and do not prove to be an embarrassment to New Zealand. 
The second issue is the retrospectivity of the legislation. We know that our people have already been deployed and the bill is backdated to when they were deployed. However that has been signalled and the changes have been signalled for some time and United Future does not believe that the fact that there will be some degree of retrospectivity is a factor of concern because it is minor. 
The third issue is the fact that this bill will also cater for future situations—it could cater for a new Bougainville of course—and there needs to be an exercise of caution that when we get into other situations we do not find ourselves in a situation where there is inconsistency between New Zealand law and the law of another country where the other country is in fact in a functioning state. However the tenor of the law is that the overseas operations by New Zealand contingents involved in the affairs of other countries will occur in situations where they need help in order to regain a lawful state. In that respect it is very likely that whenever this bill is enforced similar situations to the one that we find in the Solomon Islands will apply. United Future therefore believes that this is a common-sense measure and we are pleased to support it.