Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11343] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is kind of sad during the second term of a Government to see a Minister stand in the House in the third reading on a bill and read a speech that some official somewhere has written for him. Quite clearly the Hon Rick Barker has not a clue what this legislation is doing. He just read parrot-fashion a speech that some official somewhere had written for him and that to me is sad. It shows the shallowness of a Government that really has no depth beyond its front bench. 
The Committee stage of this bill was just a tad messy because what happened was that the Government introduced with support from the Opposition a Supplementary Order Paper to extend the provisions of the bill to cover not just the International Criminal Court and New Zealand’s commitments under the Rome Statute but the extension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the delegation of the European Commission. We have no objection to that because obviously it is in New Zealand’s interests to have the European Commission delegation present in New Zealand but the Supplementary Order Paper 190 that was required to do it required quite a significant amount of amendment. 
What is a wee bit worrying is that I would not mind betting that not many members of the Committee of the whole House actually understood the detail of this Supplementary Order Paper at all. We were told that the Parliamentary Counsel Office added a subclause to it at the last minute and basically the Committee just had to accept the Government’s claim that it would be all right. The Supplementary Order Paper has not been examined by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it really is not very satisfactory when the Government does that. 
The Government should have known that the European Commission wanted to set up this delegation in New Zealand. I understand that personnel are currently in Australia ready to take up this position in New Zealand so the Government should have known that this was required weeks ago and it would not have been very difficult to incorporate this material in the original legislation. It shows a Government that is a bit at sixes and sevens which I suppose is what happens once Governments start to do U-turns. They get in a mess and that is when legislation that is less than satisfactory can slip through the House. 
We have to be honest. While we all agree with the intent of Supplementary Order Paper 190 which is now part read into the bill I do not believe that there are too many members of this House who can absolutely assure the public of New Zealand that no clause in Supplementary Order Paper 190 will have any unexpected outcome that this House has not thought about—especially when subclauses are added by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
The Parliamentary Counsel Office does a wonderful job but it just shows a somewhat messy process. When the Government wants something done the officials and legal people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade draft legislation and then the Parliamentary Counsel Office has to add a bit to it just before the Supplementary Order Paper is introduced into the House. It is not a very satisfactory procedure. 
The other thing that was notable during the Committee stage was that the Green Party tried to introduce its own Supplementary Order Paper. They wanted diplomatic privileges and immunities extended to all their mates in the non-governmental organisations. Keith Locke wanted all his mates in Greenpeace to have the diplomatic privileges and immunities that the embassies and high commissions of other countries have in this country. Keith Locke wanted the Greenpeace wallahs to be able to get tax-free grog and to be immune from criminal prosecutions in this country and all that kind of nonsense. It shows how out of touch with reality the Green Party is. 
I was the first one in this Parliament to say 2 or 3 years ago that it was a shame that someone who cared so much about this planet as Jeanette Fitzsimons did did not spend a wee bit more time on it. Others have copied my comments but I can claim that I was the first to say that in this Parliament. As for Keith Locke I do not think he spends any time on this planet. God knows how his intellectual processes work but I guess coming up with amendments like that and thinking that Parliament would accept them added a bit of humour to the Committee stage. 
However I think the public of New Zealand ought to be wary because it is that Green Party with its weird— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And dangerous. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: —and dangerous ideas that keeps the Labour Government in office. The people of New Zealand need to know how damaging that has been for New Zealand—the transport gridlock in Auckland no progress on the Penlink toll road and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 going nowhere are all Jeanette Fitzsimons’ fault and it is a weak gutted Labour Government that lets the Greens do that to it. 
Let me come to the other issue in the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill that causes me concern. I am someone who has had some experience of international treaties having been a former Minister for International Trade and negotiated treaties on New Zealand’s behalf. During the last phases of the Committee stage I mentioned that I was a great supporter of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements whereby the prerogative to negotiate international treaties is within the power of our executive Government. It holds the prerogative to negotiate international treaties. 
That is not the case in every country. I guess the best-known country that has a different arrangement is the United States of America. In the United States it is the Congress—and in New Zealand it is Parliament that is the equivalent of the US Congress—under the US constitution that has the prerogative to negotiate international treaties. Because it is totally unwieldy for Congress to decide on the detail of treaties from time to time it votes to give negotiating authority to the executive. That does not happen too often. During President Clinton’s entire administration—8 years—the US Congress did not grant him negotiating authority for international treaties. For some reason or other it did not trust President Clinton and his administration to negotiate international treaties. The Bush administration achieved what used to be called “fast-track” and is now called a trade promotion authority but the majority in Congress that voted the executive of President Bush the authority to negotiate trade treaties was not huge. 
Constitutionally that issue is quite an important one. I totally support the constitutional arrangement here in New Zealand whereby the executive has the power to negotiate treaties. Where I have a problem with this bill is in the way it is drafted. Any future negotiation with regard to the International Criminal Court and the articles of the agreement associated with the Rome Statute that the Government enters into automatically becomes part of New Zealand law—as provided for by new sections 10D and 10E. 
We have always argued that it is OK for our executive to have the authority to negotiate international treaties because anything that affects New Zealand’s domestic law is the prerogative of this Parliament. Only Parliament can actually pass legislation that alters our domestic law. The way this bill is worded changes that. As I read it any change to articles 18 to 22 of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court that are within the area of article 48 of the Rome Statute would automatically change our domestic law. 
As someone who supports the prerogative of our executive to negotiate international treaties I believe that is a dangerous move. Only this Parliament should be able to pass legislation that alters our domestic law. This bill will enable agreements negotiated by the executive to change our domestic law and I think that is not wise. Despite that we will support this legislation.