Groser Tim: Urgent Debates — Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Negotiations Regarding Waiver of Diplomatic ImmunityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGroser Tim: Urgent Debates — Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Negotiations Regarding Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity[Sitting date: 02 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs):I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has outlined the facts as we know them in a clear way. I will not attempt to replicate his explanation of the facts. But I think we can already draw some conclusions about matters that are actually crystal clear and matters where we have to accept that events are unfolding. All the information is not in front of us and people should be just a little hesitant about reaching hard and fast conclusions at this stage in the process.When I think about what I might put under the heading of “certain facts are already crystal clear” let me start with the issue of concern for the victim. This is of central importance to all members of this House; we all understand that. This is of central importance to this side of the House to this Government and to the Minister’s consideration of the most appropriate steps to be followed. The allegations lie near the absolute height of gravity of offences that can be levelled against anyone in our country. We take this enormously seriously and we are deeply concerned as we would be in any situation where similar allegations were made not only about the situation of the victim but the very real and understandable desire for justice which has lain at the heart of a number of issues of great importance to our society over literally a hundred years or more. So the idea propagated by one member that somehow this shows indifference is bordering on the insulting—bordering on the insulting. We take this concern for the victim with the utmost seriousness and we will do whatever we can to ensure through proper procedures that the victim gets justice in this case.The second reality is that already people are firing bullets far far too early at the New Zealand Police. As a citizen of our country I have developed enormous respect for our police over many years—the incredibly difficult pressures they are put under and the conflicting demands made on them. I along with I am sure a vast majority of New Zealanders hold our police in very very high regard and the central fact is that this matter was investigated by our police officers. I do not know the details around it understandably but this matter was investigated immediately. I am informed that support services were put round this young victim immediately when the police became aware of it. Charges were laid. The idea that the New Zealand police force has somehow fallen off the pace is I think completely wrong. People should sometimes just keep their mouths shut before the facts are known to them and before putting out absurd allegations against honourable members of the New Zealand police force which in this case has followed exactly—so far as far as I can tell—the procedures that any of us would want it to if it were a member of our own family involved in this.The third reality is a complex one. It revolves around the entire practice of diplomatic immunity. Of course there is a whole series of conventions that flow from that including declaring people persona non grata and reaching agrément for ambassadors and it all plays into a very complicated part of international relations. This goes back over literally centuries of bitter experience. There is the need for countries that may be even literally at war to have in place procedures that protect envoys from the interference of the political process through a quasi-judicial process. Although this gives rise to grave difficulties of interpretation as in this case the underlying practice that all countries have accepted is that this is a very special place where you would want to keep politics and the judicial process quite separate. The idea that the Minister should somehow become some operating police officer in his—or had it been somebody else her—right is completely ignorant of the underlying need to follow the very strict procedures that have developed over literally centuries of bitter experience.Different countries have different interpretations in terms of their interests and how they apply these cases. I know that in the case of the United States so grave is the concern over decades or 100 years I think of US State Department policy about the danger of judicial processes being manipulated that in cases where even the most flagrant abuse by its own diplomats has been at least alleged it will always—always—invoke diplomatic immunity. It will never ever grant a waiver. It is a matter of State Department policy and as far as I know it has been a permanent policy position for at least as long as I can recall.With New Zealand we take a slightly more nuanced position in terms of our own diplomats serving overseas. Not only do we expect them to obey the laws of the other country but my understanding is—and I do not have the details on this—I believe that there have been cases where we have waived diplomatic immunity and allowed the prosecution of certain people to take place. I think it has been very rare and I stand to be corrected but that is my understanding. Most certainly on very minor matters involving for example traffic infringements such as minor speeding events it is standard operating procedure—I can assure the House having worked for the diplomatic service over decades—that you are expected to pay the fines as if you were an ordinary citizen of the country to which you are accredited.So there are different interpretations of this but ultimately we have to respect the choice of the Government concerned on how to interpret these conventions that do lie at the absolute heart of international relations and the role of envoys to prosecute matters. Literally as I said even when there is war going on between States we need to maintain avenues and countries have learnt the importance of ensuring that their envoys do have diplomatic immunity for precisely those reasons. This of course understandably gives rise to outrage in a case like this where there is no question of the national interest of Malaysia being involved. But this has meant that very clear procedures are laid out that are designed to protect the process from political interference and the Minister has done absolutely the right thing by letting the process work.It seems—it seems—that bits of that process have not worked correctly. That is why my understanding is that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade has apologised to Mr McCully and a review of the procedures being followed is under way. But the idea that this means that the Minister should have been personally executing this procedure himself is quite the wrong conclusion to be drawn from this situation.The third reality relates to our relationship with Malaysia. The proposition that I have heard through the airwaves and in some of the media today that this has “damaged our relations with Malaysia” is unfounded. We have an incredibly close and productive relationship with Malaysia. We will continue to have a close and productive relationship with Malaysia. The very fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was on the phone to his Malaysian counterpart indicates that that relationship is very strongly in place. This is a highly respectable country. I am not like the previous member going to start to lecture the Malaysian High Commissioner on what she should or should not do.I believe that the Malaysian system is a robust system. We will watch now with great interest to see what unfolds. But in the light of the very clear statement of the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that this serious—very serious—offence calls into question the integrity of the Malaysian diplomatic service albeit the military arm of the diplomatic service it is something that members should take note of. We will watch and see how the procedure unfolds in terms of what we assume will be a court martial. Although I am not familiar with the penalty regimes of the Malaysian court martial system the thought just occurs to me on a personal level that should the allegations be proven it may well be that the person who allegedly perpetrated this may even regret the decision not to be tried in New Zealand. We will wait and see.Events are unfolding. All the facts are not before us at this stage. We know that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade through his offices to keep the Minister informed. Clearly the Minister considers that that obligation has not been fully lived up to in the circumstances. So we will watch this and the key point I wish to finish on is the very clear and I would have to say encouraging statements from the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that further legal procedures including extradition are not being ruled out.