Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11242] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Obviously clause 1 is the title clause. I think it is quite clear when we read the title that it does not tell us anything about the bill. It just tells us that the bill amends the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act but for what purpose? To achieve what? The Government should make titles more clear as to what the bills do. If that were the case it would assist the public in utilising our statutes. 
In essence as I understand it and as the Opposition understands it—and I hope the Government will correct us if we are wrong—this amendment bill once Supplementary Order Paper 190 is adopted will essentially do two major things. First it will extend diplomatic privileges and immunities to the International Criminal Court. That is a quite important matter for New Zealand and there is no reason to hide that fact. There is no reason why it could not be mentioned in the title. As part and parcel of that process the bill also extends such privileges to persons attending meetings of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute or its subsidiary parts—all part of the International Criminal Court. 
The second major issue in this bill once Supplementary Order Paper 190 is adopted is that it also extends diplomatic privileges and immunities to members and their families and staff of the European Commission. Again there is absolutely no reason why the title of this bill could not include that so that people could see at a glance what this bill is doing. It is not amending some of the procedures for establishing which countries what organisations might receive diplomatic privileges and immunities in New Zealand; it is simply adding to the group of States and organisations that do enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. New Zealand is adding to those the International Criminal Court and the European Commission. It is a shame that the Government does not have the title cover that. 
In future when the Government is establishing a title of a bill I strongly urge it to look at what the bill does and if it is at all possible incorporate some element of that into the title so that when people use the statutes they can see what on earth a statute is about. This legislation is not highly controversial but sadly the title as printed in this legislation gives us no guidance as to what it actually does. The Government ought to amend the title. There would not be any great difficulty in amending the title so that it could be seen what the bill actually does. As I have said without such an amendment the public has no guidance whatsoever. The bill could be amending the process or any aspect of that important principal legislation the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act. That is simply not good enough. The title needs to be much more clear. I suggest that the Government should consider spelling out in the title with a simple bracketed addition—“ICC and EC Inclusion” or some such wording—what the bill does to make it clear to people using our statutes what is covered by this legislation. 
I do not think there is anything of great importance in respect of the title clause apart from the fact that the title is so vague as to leave people absolutely in the dark as to what this legislation actually does. Some might say that does not matter too much but it does matter. It is important that people understand whether this legislation just adds new members who will receive such privileges or changes the process significantly because those two issues are very different. If it were changing the process for establishing diplomatic privilege and immunities then there would be far greater need for detailed attention to exactly how it was being changed. But the title gives no guidance whatsoever so people are left in the dark as to what the legislation does. 
The National Party is prepared to support the bill despite that deficiency in its title.