Goff Phil: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7337] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I propose that this bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. This bill implements the agreement on the privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court. It will allow orders to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act similar to those that already exist for other bodies such as the International Court of Justice. 
The International Criminal Court was recently established as a permanent court in The Hague under the 1998 Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over individuals who commit genocide crimes against humanity and war crimes. New Zealand has long supported the creation of an International Criminal Court. Over the last century there have been regrettably plenty of examples of perpetrators of these grave international crimes who have escaped responsibility. The ultimate aim of course is to prevent these crimes from being committed in the first place but in the event that they do occur an advantage of a permanent court is that it will have the expertise the personnel and the resources to respond quickly. Time will often be of the essence in collecting and preserving evidence. That is important if there is to be justice for the victims. 
Just over a year ago the Rome Statute came into force following ratification by the minimum 60 countries including New Zealand. Now there are 90 parties and others are advancing their ratification processes. In the last few months the International Criminal Court’s key office holders have been elected—the 18 judges the prosecutor who is also responsible for investigations and the registrar. Following the recruitment of specialist staff the court should soon be fully operational. 
Setting up a new international court is a lengthy and complex process. After the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 a preparatory commission was established to work on the various issues that needed to be settled before the International Criminal Court could begin operation. One of the documents negotiated in the preparatory commission process was the agreement on privileges and immunities. It was contemplated by article 42 of the statute but the issues were too technical to resolve at Rome. Although the International Criminal Court is based in The Hague its staff will be involved in investigations elsewhere. The court itself is also able to sit away from The Hague as is necessary. The agreement therefore sets out in detail the various protections that the International Criminal Court its judges staff and others involved in investigations or court proceedings enjoy while in the territory of a State party on official business. It also deals with the situation where the assembly of State parties meets outside the host country. The agreement was adopted by the assembly of State parties last year. New Zealand has since signed the agreement and will be able to ratify it once this bill is passed. 
The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 which implemented the Rome Statute also amended the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1968. However to give full effect to this agreement which was negotiated after the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act was passed a further amendment is needed. This bill therefore adds two new sections to the 1968 Act to enable Orders in Council to be made in four situations. First an order may confer certain privileges and immunities on the International Criminal Court itself should it sit in New Zealand at some point in the future. These include protecting the premises where the court sits. Second an order may confer certain protections similar to those given to foreign diplomats on International Criminal Court judges and staff who are in New Zealand on official business. Third an order may confer a more limited range of protections on others involved in International Criminal Court proceedings—for example witnesses. Finally an order can confer certain protections on persons attending any meetings of the assembly of States parties or its subsidiary organs in New Zealand. Like the agreement itself the orders will make it clear that these protections are given in the interests of ensuring the effective functioning of the International Criminal Court or assembly. They will not be for the personal benefit of the individuals concerned and can be waived. 
The bill also amends section 11 of the Immigration Act. That section currently exempts persons to whom orders under the 1968 Act relate from holding permits. The agreement itself does not require a complete exemption; rather it envisages that although exempt from the ordinary immigration restrictions certain groups like witnesses might still require some sort of permit. The obligation is then to issue them speedily and without charge. The proposed amendment makes the existing provision subject to this qualification. 
The situation in which the protections in the bill are most likely to be invoked is where International Criminal Court staff come to New Zealand to interview potential witnesses. Now that the International Criminal Court is poised to begin its operations it is important that State parties like New Zealand play their part in ensuring that the court its judges and staff have the protections they need to do their job effectively and independently. As this bill signals New Zealand will continue to support the International Criminal Court in its formative years in the hope and the expectation that it will fulfil its potential as one of the pre-eminent institutions of international justice. I commend this bill to the House.