Yates Dianne: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6268] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I just remind people that we are talking about the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill and the report back on it from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The introduction to the commentary on the bill states: “The Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill confirms New Zealand’s commitment to the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights by providing a regime that enables New Zealand to comply with its obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” As the Minister has said this optional protocol entered into force on 22 June 2006. 
I thank the select committee for the work it has done on this bill. The bill has gone through the usual treaty-making process whereby it was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which has the authority then to defer those treaties that are not relevant to it to other select committees. In this case the treaty was totally within the ambit of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and was dealt with by that committee. 
The committee worked very very well and I thank the member opposite for the comments she has just made. Because we in New Zealand become part of this optional protocol because we are a democratic country and because hopefully we will not experience cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in our country let us not fool ourselves that those things will not continue to happen in the world. But as a member opposite said we are by signing up to this agreement setting an example and making it clear to other countries that this is how the matter should be dealt with; also that those countries that are democratic open and transparent deplore such treatment of citizens of any other country or of New Zealand citizens should they be in any other country. I think those points made by the member opposite were particularly relevant. It is also important in that they show how our committee has worked together. I do not think anyone in New Zealand would agree that torture and other cruel and degrading treatment is acceptable. 
We also want to thank the 23 submitters on the bill who were concerned about the national preventive mechanisms. They wanted to make sure that the processes we have in New Zealand conform not only with the schedules to the bill but also with New Zealand protocols—that they are transparent so we have national preventive mechanisms and inspection processes that are transparent. Where appropriate as has been mentioned by the Minister the people involved should report to Parliament should that be part of their normal processes or otherwise to the Minister and their reports should all be tabled in Parliament. It should be transparent and open. That was one thing the submitters agreed on and pointed out to the committee and their views were taken on board. 
I point out that the national preventive mechanisms are dealt with in a generalised way within the bill and that there are powers of the Minister within that. But the Green member wanted the organisations to be specifically mentioned in the bill. There are difficulties with that of course because organisations can change. We did not want to have to come back and change the legislation if an organisation ceased to exist or was no longer functioning in that particular way. So the committee as a whole thought that the clauses around the national preventive mechanisms as we adjusted them were adequate and would serve the purpose. 
There was some discussion about the health and disability services and the committee asked questions about whether the national preventive mechanism should come under the Health and Disability Commissioner. It was agreed that it should be with the Office of the Ombudsmen and that the Ombudsman’s reporting processes should continue as at present. Those were matters that the select committee looked at in a fairly detailed way in order to come up with its final conclusions. 
As we have said there were discussions about visits by the national preventive mechanisms and the Minister has pointed out that we were also especially concerned about the definition of a place of detention. We wanted to know too that a place of detention—and I thank the member opposite who has just spoken because she was the person who asked about this and had the matter clarified—refers to both public and private facilities whether we should have both in New Zealand whether a place of detention in New Zealand is not only one that is within New Zealand territory but also one that is under the jurisdiction of New Zealand and that the latter whether public or private would be open for inspection by the national preventive mechanism people. That was clarified and it was an example of a select committee working together to bring about the ratification to allow New Zealand to join in with this treaty. 
As I said this was one of the areas where we parliamentarians in New Zealand were in agreement. It was perhaps one of the easiest treaties we have had to deal with because as I have said before I do not think anyone in New Zealand thinks torture is a good idea. We dealt with how the select committee goes about the processes the processes within New Zealand and the protocols on how we treat people in prisons police cells and within medical institutions. It is always good for a country such as ours to examine its own processes because we often make assumptions that New Zealand is almost above other countries in what we do—and it is that because we are constantly vigilant. We constantly look at ourselves in the light of international benchmarks and this process has been one way of us doing that. 
Some of the submissions were on areas not covered by the bill such as around health and other issues but they are matters we constantly have to look at within a democracy. Democracies do not just exist; they have to be carefully maintained and monitored. We have to constantly make sure that we are transparent that our processes are transparent and that our public institutions are transparent. 
Once again I thank the select committee for the hard work that has gone into this bill and into other treaty-making processes. It is good to have on our select committee people who have experience not only as politicians but also in terms of negotiating such treaties and who know in more detail how they come about through the actual processes. Once again a big thank you to everyone who has been involved. We look forward to the smooth passage of this legislation through the House.