Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill

I move, That the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill be now read a second time. This bill allows New Zealand to exercise criminal jurisdiction over New Zealand Police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of a non - United Nations deployment. It covers the situation that has arisen out of the current police deployment under the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, and will also cover future operations of this nature.

Under current law New Zealand jurisdiction can be exercised for offences committed overseas by New Zealand armed force personnel, under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. Police serving overseas as part of a United Nations force are similarly covered under the United Nations (Police) Act. However, in other circumstances there is no New Zealand jurisdiction to deal with offences committed by police and civilian personnel serving overseas. They may, therefore, be subject to prosecution and possible imprisonment by those countries in which they operate. This bill ensures that such personnel will be able to be tried under New Zealand law, not under foreign jurisdiction, and can be held to account by the laws of our land. It ensures that prosecution takes place in accordance with New Zealand procedures and standards of justice. Equally, it ensures that where there is a bilateral arrangement with the receiving State, and where a person is immune from prosecution locally, that person does not enjoy impunity.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and I understand it has done so unanimously—has recommended that this bill be passed with minor amendments, which the Government accepts. A number of issues were considered by the committee. An amendment is recommended so that the New Zealand Police have the power to arrest personnel covered by the bill, in order that they can be tried in New Zealand. This complements New Zealand’s power to assert its jurisdiction in respect of such offences. The arrest power will also mirror similar arrest powers contained in the United Nations (Police) Act and the Armed Forces Discipline Act.

The committee considered whether it was necessary to include a reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the bill, but in the end decided against it. I concur with that view. The reference in the bill to the arrest provisions in the Crimes Act means that anyone arrested under this new legislation would have similar rights to those set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Another issue was the possible difficulty that might arise with the prosecution of a national of a third country for an offence under New Zealand law that might not exist under the law of that third country. Such a person would be likely to be subject to participation arrangements between the third country and New Zealand that would cover the allocation of responsibility and jurisdiction. It is unlikely that such a situation would arise where a particular offence under New Zealand law was not mirrored by a similar offence under the law of the third country. The bill, in any event, provides for the Attorney-General to withhold consent to a prosecution under the bill. If the situation outlined above arose, the Attorney-General could opt to withhold her consent to such a prosecution if it were judged inappropriate to prosecute that individual.

A further issue raised in a submission on the bill was whether it would be clear to personnel in a New Zealand overseas operation force what law would be applicable to them. The submission suggested that this might not be the case until after proceedings had been brought. The aim of the bill is primarily to ensure that a person is subject to New Zealand jurisdiction rather than that of the country where he or she operates, so that he or she can be prosecuted in New Zealand. Bilateral arrangements between the host and sending States normally make it clear in advance the manner in which jurisdiction will be divided or shared. Further, the practice followed by the New Zealand Defence Force and by the New Zealand Police prior to the current Solomon Islands deployment is to provide information to personnel before departure on the legal arrangements for the operation, including issues of jurisdiction. They are also informed about the requirement to respect local laws and customs, and are normally provided with information about those laws and customs. The provision of such information prior to deployment should be sufficient to address doubts as to what law is applicable to New Zealand personnel.

Another issue raised was the lack of scope for New Zealand to bring a further prosecution if overseas authorities bring proceedings and the individual in question is subject to a punishment that is more lenient than the one he or she might have received in New Zealand. The bill has been drafted to allow New Zealand to exercise jurisdiction over its personnel serving in operations overseas, so that, to the maximum extent possible, they will face prosecution here rather than in the host State. However, if the host State does, in a particular case, have jurisdiction—as in some instances it may have—for acts committed outside the course of official duties, then it would be inappropriate for a person to face a second trial in New Zealand because the penalty was considered too lenient. To do so would be to subject the person to double jeopardy. The same principle is applicable to our defence personnel as set out in the Armed Forces Discipline Act.

This bill will bring consistency to the law applied to New Zealand personnel serving overseas. It will ensure that our police and civilian personnel serving in the Solomon Islands, and in similar future operations, enjoy the same protections as defence personnel and police personnel serving in United Nations operations. This is a non-controversial bill. It was agreed to unanimously by the select committee, and I commend it to the House.

The National Party members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, indeed, the National Party caucus, will support the progress of this bill. There are a couple of points I would like to raise with the Minister of Justice that he might be able to reply to by way of interjections or maybe some comment later in the House.

It is clear that the purpose of this bill is to ensure that New Zealand police officers and civilian personnel engaged in these overseas operations, which include peacekeeping, the maintenance or restoration of law and order or the functioning of governing institutions, or other activities, are, indeed, subject to the jurisdiction of New Zealand laws for offences against our laws committed overseas, unless there is a good reason for them not to be subject to that jurisdiction. It is worth noting that this bill will have retrospective effect from 24 July.

Members will be aware, and this is the point I want to raise with the Minister of Justice, that the United States has military personnel serving in Japan under an agreement that sees jurisdiction of their prosecution rest with the American Government. However, some years ago a number of those personnel were involved in, allegedly at the time, quite serious sexual offences against young Japanese women. There was a major furore in Japan about the fact that those military personnel would be removed from Japan and be tried under American law. Subsequently, the American Government waived its right to apply its jurisdiction to those military personnel, and as a result they were tried under Japanese law. The point the National Party would like to raise with the Minister of Justice is that if a jurisdiction does require that New Zealand waive its right to have extraterritorial control of a person’s criminal proceedings, is there enough flexibility and facility within this bill to allow the New Zealand authorities to waive that power? It appears to me there may be cases when a country would want to prosecute an offence committed by a New Zealander, and the pressure may be such that New Zealand accepts that that jurisdiction should prosecute the offence. The offence might have happened while the person was on active duty—it was suggested that the American personnel in Japan were on active duty. We would want to make sure there was sufficient flexibility so that if New Zealand wanted to waive the right to have extraterritorial effect on those personnel, it would be able to.

We look forward to a response from the Minister of Justice on that point. The National Party is prepared to facilitate the swift passage of this bill at a later date.

I had the privilege of attending one or two Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meetings on this legislation, and the opportunity to question officials on it. I am concerned about the way in which the wording in clause 6 has been arrived at. It seems to be fairly clumsy legislation in that respect. It jumps around the place a little. Being a lawyer, I like to see things set out much more clearly than they are in this bill. The first subclause of clause 6 refers to subsection (2) then to section 5(3). We have to work our way through the bill. It seems to be a provision under which New Zealanders have the power to arrest people in a foreign country.

Obviously, the bill is clearly set out in that it relates to members of the police and an overseas operation force. The interpretation provisions in clause 4 are good. One can work one’s way through the minefield.

New Zealand First is supporting this legislation. I would have appreciated better drafting of clause 6, but I will be interested to hear what any other Government member or other member of the select committee may have to say. We look forward to the passage of the bill.

I want to take a brief call in support of the bill. The bill is significant in the new jurisdictions it will allow New Zealand to exercise over police and civilians who serve in special operations internationally. The bill is important, and it will have good and full consideration during the Committee stage. I certainly look forward to it returning to the House.

I am pleased to support the bill, and I look forward to receiving further reports in due course.

The Green Party is happy to support this bill. I think it is important that there be proper legal jurisdiction over New Zealanders serving overseas in the police or as part of a civilian component of an operation, such as we have currently in the Solomon Islands. Of course, it does not include people who may be in the Solomon Islands separately from the Government, such as members of non-governmental organisations; they have an independent status. But those who are part of the official Government operation, be they police, civilian, or military, should be covered by this jurisdiction.

It is good the way this bill has evolved. As the commentary from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee states, the agreement in relation to the Solomon Islands that led to this legislation, concerning the operations and status of police, armed forces, and other personnel deployed to the Solomons, was brought before the select committee. It is good that as a result of the consideration in this Parliament by the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence Committee of the treaty examination, flowing from my International Treaties Bill, more attention is being paid to international treaties by this House and its select committees, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is distributing a list of treaties under negotiation, periodically. It allows us to engage with issues like this on a more informed basis than in the past.

This legislation is in the context of status of forces agreements. One of the things we note about status of forces agreements—the agreements that govern the operations of one country in another country, particularly when they concern military and police operations—is that they are different for each country. There are virtually no two status of forces agreements that are identical. They depend very much on the particular situation. If we look at the general picture of status of forces agreements—and this relates to the point Tony Ryall brought up in an earlier contribution—we see there are generally three categories of offences. Firstly, there are offences committed within the overseas force. In this case, this legislation applies mainly to the New Zealand contribution to the Solomon Islands. These are offences that are internal to the overseas force. If one New Zealand police officer beats up another New Zealand police officer in his or her barracks, then that offence is internal to the overseas force, and it is generally accepted in status of forces agreements that any criminal action would be undertaken under the jurisdiction of the country contributing the overseas forces, rather than it coming under domestic jurisdiction.

At the other end of the scale are offences committed against locals by personnel of the overseas force who are off duty, like an off-duty police officer raping a Solomon Islander. Of course, we do not expect that to happen in the case of our contribution. I think Tony Ryall mentioned sex offending by American soldiers in Okinawa as a background to that. If it is clearly an offence against local people or against the property of local people, then generally the case is prosecuted by the local jurisdiction.

In the middle of these two extreme categories there is often a grey area. The soldier or police officer might be on duty and performing his or her functions but commits a crime, like getting enraged and unnecessarily hurting or killing a local person or destroying some local property. That is a grey area.

The term “concurrent jurisdiction”, which appears in the commentary on the bill and was mentioned by Phil Goff earlier, means, theoretically, that there could be jurisdiction by the local country or by the overseas force there. In the Solomon Islands case, it seems that the intent of this bill in that sort of grey area is to take the jurisdiction back to New Zealand, or even to intrude into the area of off-duty people committing an offence against a Solomon Islander. There are, of course, particular arguments in the case of the Solomon Islands, and although the bill is not specifically a Solomon Islands bill, it is shaped with that particular operation in mind. There is, in the Solomon Islands case, an envisaging that the jurisdiction would be very much New Zealand’s, partly because of the lack of, at this stage—and particularly when the troops and police went in—an operating judicial system; so one could not really prosecute the overseas force through that jurisdiction. But, as we go along, in the Solomon Islands—and in other countries where we might be engaged in similar peacekeeping operations—we want, wherever possible, the jurisdiction in status of forces agreements to be local.

Of course, a status of forces agreement will always envisage some situations where the discipline is that of the foreign force, but we want as much local jurisdiction as possible, because that is part of the process of recognising the sovereignty and self-determination of the country in which the troops, police, or civilians are operating. We want to see that in the Solomon Islands, too. We want to see the Solomon Islands restore its judicial system and its police system so that it can properly prosecute people who commit offences. However, we do have to be wary, and the point Tony Ryall made is an important one—that the local people do not feel that the foreign troops, police, or civilians on their soil are getting away with crimes against the local people or their property. That is the background of the case he mentioned in Japan, I think in Okinawa, where there is a big US base, or else in the Philippines and South Korea, where there have been similar very high-profile cases involving American troops over the years. Those incidents can produce huge hostility in the local populations if they feel that justice is not being done, because soldiers or police are being tried exclusively by the overseas forces and are excluded from access to the court of the country concerned. That is something we have to consider very strongly.

The other tricky point in the legislation, which was mentioned by Phil Goff, is if New Zealand had a third-country national involved in its contingent—and we may have that in the Solomon Islands, particularly in the civilian component of the operation, whereby specialists who are not technically citizens of New Zealand are nevertheless part of our organised force there. It is good that the law provides for the Attorney-General to have discretion as to whether to proceed with a prosecution on a crime that might be a crime under New Zealand law but may not be a crime under Australian, Canadian, or the law of whatever country the person who is part of the New Zealand force comes from.

It is also good that the bill excludes a double-jeopardy situation, whereby if there is some prosecution in the local jurisdiction, then, when the person gets back to New Zealand, he or she cannot be tried again, even though New Zealanders might grumble that the person got off lightly because of the nature of the judicial system or the penalties in the local country. We do not want a situation of double jeopardy.

It is recognised in the commentary on the bill provided by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that the police, for example, have their own system of dealing with misconduct that is not a criminal justice offence, as such, but could involve discipline on top of the offences that a police officer may have committed in a foreign jurisdiction. I think the bill covers most bases pretty well, but I finish with the caution that we want to get to a situation where as much as possible of the prosecution is done in the local jurisdiction and not back in New Zealand’s.

I rise for the ACT party to address the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on which ACT does not have a member, and, accordingly, the report of that committee I have studied with some care. When this bill came into the House I made a number of comments that I want to refer to. I said we should not treat this bill as a mere formality, as a matter that is just administrative tidy-up, because the relationship between locals and occupying forces—the parallel that was drawn by the National speaker and mentioned by Keith Locke—or simply the forces of a country that is exercising a significant influence over another country’s population, is very fraught. Over many years that relationship between the Roman legions and the subject peoples, the behaviour of brutal and licentious soldiery, or the policing personnel, is one of the most likely causes of a destruction of a relationship, the flashpoint, the reason for a breakdown and the eventual embroiling of the contributing country in a very nasty and long-lasting involvement.

I raised that issue when the bill had its first reading, because I believe that New Zealand is slipping, without being aware of it, into re-colonisation. I see that in East Timor. For example, the Australian Government admitted, as reported in The Economist last year, that it has now spent US$2 billion in its involvement in East Timor. Quite a bit of that, of course, was military, but there is also a lot of reconstruction aid. That is an enormous sum. As far as one can tell, there is no assurance that there is going to be a return on that money, other than a continuation of a very untidy and uncertain status quo, an irritant with Indonesia, and some justified good feeling on the part of Australians and New Zealanders that they did rescue the East Timorese from an oppressor. But whether that converts, without proper colonisation—in other words, without taking responsibility that colonisers learnt hundreds of years ago that they had to take—into a happy experience, is really very much in the lap of the gods. I do not think there is anything in this bill that tells us that any of Mr Goff’s officials have gone back and looked at the experience of colonising powers and the way the relationships, in the end, slipped toward unhappiness on both sides.

Because there is a great risk, in these kinds of involvements, that which seems so simple and straightforward at the start, ends up with each side feeling vastly put upon. The contributing country—in this case New Zealand—may spend an enormous amount of money. It may even incur loss of life or health, or long periods for its personnel away from home; and the locals may, in the end, feel nothing, except resentment.

This bill is obviously attempting to ensure that there is an authority to make sure the locals do not have quite as much reason for thinking the people in their country are affronting them; it does not do anything, for example, about the discipline there should be where the occupiers offend against the religious culture of the land they are in, or immodesty, or drinking, or any of the other offences that tend to create real resentment. It might be argued that that does not matter—if there is a law against it in the host country, then the host country will assert jurisdiction. It may be that the select committee can assure us that this issue has been dealt with. Does the agreement to cede authority extend to those kinds of offences? I do not know. Maybe they have ceded authority only in respect of things that are offences in New Zealand, so that the host countries will retain the ability to discipline soldiers and prevent this kind of often unintended but sometimes very casual and arrogant offence. There is nothing in the select committee’s report that tells me.

I am also concerned that it looks a bit casual that this committee did not deal with the problem of offences that are stupid here and would look even more stupid in the country where they are. Let us think, for example, of the Privacy Act. Are people going to observe the Privacy Act in these foreign countries? Half the job will involve breaching people’s privacy by getting a very good knowledge by any means one can of what is going on, and turning it to good effect in peacekeeping. Are people going to observe the occupational safety and health legislation in all its manifestations? This bill says that they will be subject to New Zealand law in countries where it may simply not be feasible to observe a lot of the requirements that are expected of people in New Zealand.

I think of some laws about to come. This bill would say that someone who gave out the criminal record of an offender who had not been recorded for a crime for 7 years would be subject to a $10,000 fine. It may be argued that the Attorney-General has to consent to a prosecution, and the Attorney-General will know that New Zealand has some pretty stupid laws and will not afflict New Zealanders serving overseas with those silly New Zealand laws when they are in those countries doing a job that probably requires them to ignore some of our more silly laws, such as the forthcoming Clean Slate Bill.

Let us look at it again in policing terms. I seriously wonder whether the New Zealand law would require the policeman over there to apply the Victims’ Rights Act. It is patently unsuitable. There will not be any records there that allow it to happen, but one day we may get a local saying: “You assured us, New Zealand, that your people would be subject to New Zealand law. What did you do to ensure that I got my rights observed as a victim under New Zealand’s victims’ rights law?”. It may seem fanciful. It may seem that the Attorney-General’s discretion will protect in most cases, but it does not really address the underlying question, which is that when we are in someone else’s country, there is inevitably cultural offence, and there will be also inevitable expectations from the people in that country that simply cannot be met. We will not be able to live up to our own standards in the environment we are in sometimes, and I do not see anything in this bill that addresses that.

I am also concerned that the bill does not really address the situation that operation forces, as they are called, often have. They may have, say, Filipinos or Fijians, or seamen from other nations—people from other countries who are part of a New Zealand force because that is their way of life. They go around the world assisting forces in strange and uncomfortable places. The select committee simply says that it feels sure that there is adequate scope for any tensions to be resolved amicably.

The preceding sentence in the select committee’s report is simply incomprehensible. It is on page 4, and it starts: “Such persons should be included by the provisions of the bill, and thereby be able to assert jurisdiction over such persons”. What does that mean? That those third country’s nationals assert jurisdiction over themselves? I cannot tell what the committee was meaning there, and I suspect there is muddled thinking that is reflected in a muddled report.

I am concerned also that clause 5(2)(a) and (b) may be tidy drafting but may be overreach. In the Committee stage it may be desirable to look at whether paragraph (i) of subclause (b) should be omitted, because it appears to me, as it reads, that this Act could apply if a person were subject to an obligation to cede jurisdiction—in other words, the country did have to cede jurisdiction to New Zealand in respect of a criminal act but brought criminal proceedings nevertheless. It seems to assume that it is seamless. If they are obliged to cede jurisdiction, they will, but maybe there is a situation where they are obliged but do not and, as a matter of practice, the New Zealand Government has not been enforcing the delegation. I do not think that is covered. I think that, again, it is taking a precedent relating to the Army and has not looked at it closely.

Lastly, I am concerned about the right to hold a person in custody for as long as is necessary to enable the person to be taken to New Zealand. It does not say that that should be as quickly as possible.

I want to speak briefly in support of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill, which was the subject of reasonable consideration by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. As I begin, I want to pay tribute to the joint submission we received from Alberto Costi, Fran Wright, and Naresh Perinpanayagam of Victoria University Law School, which helped guide us through some of the issues that are relevant to this bill. Despite what some members have said, I think this bill is relatively straightforward legislation, and I think the danger in a matter like this is to try to make it more complex than it need be. It arises from the fact that we now have deployed on an increasing basis overseas, people representing New Zealand who would not come under the normal rubric of the relevant armed forces disciplinary procedures that have been in place for many years, and consequently a new category of operation has, in effect, been created by the description of this bill.

I listened to some of the comments regarding the scope of the jurisdiction, and in that respect I would draw members’ attention to the relevant sections of the select committee’s report, which set out quite clearly what those limits are. I would further draw the House’s attention to clause 5(2)(a) and (b), and clause 5(3) of the bill as reported back. The concern is that situations might arise that require a degree of flexibility in determining whether a prosecution should proceed, although I do not really believe that the Okinawa-type example is one that I could imagine New Zealand wishing to cede jurisdiction on to another country. But that concern is dealt with in clause 5(3), which says, in effect, that no information can be laid against a person unless the consent of the Attorney-General has been obtained. So there is a regulating procedure involved in that.

As to the point that the occupational safety and health legislation, the—dare I say it—new anti-smoking legislation, and various other pieces of our domestic law could suddenly be applied on an extraterritorial basis, I think that that is simply a matter where commons ense would dictate otherwise. This bill is focused not on those silly items but on criminal offences, and in fact that, I suspect, is why the bill is called a crimes and misconduct bill. I think that the scorn that would apply to any New Zealand Attorney-General or any set of New Zealand officials who sought to employ all sorts of pieces of New Zealand domestic legislation that could be deemed to carry offences, to people employed on overseas operations, would be such as to render the exercise of the power unnecessary. It would simply be too much of a farce.

So in reality this bill deals with a limited set of circumstances, and as such it mirrors parallel provisions in our existing legislation in terms of forces overseas and a bill that we actually still have before the select committee relating to forces who may be resident in New Zealand. It is important to see this as part of a trilogy of measures rather than an isolated case. The fact that it attracted only one submission, albeit a quality submission, demonstrates that there is not a huge concern in the wider community. There is some interest but not a huge concern. The fact is that the committee has reported that we dealt with a range of the issues that we imagined might be at the heart of some of the concerns about the bill, and have spelt them out in our narrative report reasonably fully. We had a situation where I gather there was near unanimous if not total unanimous support for the bill, and that demonstrates that the balance is about right. So I think that the House simply ought to proceed, certainly to pass the bill through this stage, and hopefully, before too much longer, pass it through its remaining stages. We will be supporting that.

I am very pleased to contribute briefly in support of the bill. There is a gap in our legislation that needs to deal with particular offences or misconduct that may occur when people are serving in an operation—in this case, the Solomon Islands. We know that New Zealand is contributing to the restoration of law and order in the Solomon Islands, as are other Pacific nations. It is only appropriate that those who go there to represent New Zealand respect the laws of that country, as well as New Zealand law. Through this bill, New Zealand will exercise jurisdiction over police and civilian personnel serving overseas. I am very pleased that the select committee has done a good job, and that there is unanimous support for this bill amongst all the parties. I support the bill.

There are a couple of issues that are a little concerning to me. The first is that this legislation has a retrospective element to it. I understand from reading the seven pages of the report back from the select committee—for what is a 4-page bill—that it is intended the bill take into account personnel serving in the Solomon Islands. That may well be a very good reason, but this should have been done before the personnel went to the Solomons, and I am sure that all parties would have helped to facilitate it.

Retrospective legislation is, by its very nature, something that we should avoid in this country. To tell people that they will be subject to a law that was not in effect when they committed an action or an omission, or undertook to serve overseas, is a very bad precedent. Certainly, I have noticed that in quite a lot of the legislation that has come before the House in the last 18 months that I have been here, an element of retrospective nature has come in often. That points me to the very shoddy nature of the Government and its processes, whereby good legislation is allowed to languish while other rubbish goes through.

My other concern is about exactly how the bill is supposed to work. I look at clause 5(2)—

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I took offence at the member describing the business of the House as rubbish. I think it was quite unparliamentary to refer to the work of this Parliament in that way.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that I certainly was not referring to the business of the House, but to some of the legislation put before it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is perfectly OK.

Coming back to my point, I am concerned at just how this bill will work. In clause 5(2) the tense seems slightly unusual. It states: “If any person to whom this section applies does, or omits to do, any act outside New Zealand”—so if we are talking about the Solomons, an act or omission in the Solomons—“that if done or omitted within New Zealand would constitute an offence”,—that is fine—“that act or omission is deemed to have taken place within New Zealand unless—(a) the person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the place in which the act or omission took place;”—in other words, the Solomons— “and (b) the authorities in that place—(i) are not subject to … cede jurisdiction.”

My problem with this clause is that it means the person must have done the act or omitted to do it. Surely that is something a court of law would have to find before the rest of the clause could come into play. I am just a little confused about that, and I would really like to hear from the Minister, or perhaps the officials are available to give me some advice on that. It seems just a little bit as though someone who is accused or charged under this bill, when it becomes an Act, could say: “I have to have been proved to have done it before I come under it.” It is all a little confusing, and I am a little concerned that with the very best will in the world—which I am sure the House has towards this bill—we might have a bit of a chicken and egg situation, whereby we are not quite sure what is supposed to come first.

One of the things lawyers look at when they are acting for and defending someone charged is this sort of possible inconsistency. I am quite happy to be shown wrong by the Minister, and I would really love to hear from him on this. It just seems as though the tenses are a little bit out.

The other provision in this clause is about the authorities in that place—in other words, the Solomons, in the example we are using—not being subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to the New Zealand authorities. I wonder in what circumstances authorities in another jurisdiction would be obliged to cede jurisdiction to New Zealand authorities. I take up the point of my colleague, the Hon Tony Ryall, in his very good speech about this, who raised the issue of the American servicemen accused of committing an offence in Japan. The Americans wanted to have the case tried in America, and that was absolutely unacceptable to the Japanese. I wonder what sort of situation that would be, so I would be happy to hear from the Minister on that.

The other thing, too, is that we need to make sure that when people are serving overseas—whether they are part of the police or part of the civilian population that happens to be serving—they know full well about this bill, and when it becomes an Act, about it as an Act. That is because this is a totally new situation for our peacekeeping people, and it is very important that they know fully about it. These are people who risk their lives, often for not particularly substantial pay, and they need to know what they are going into. It concerns me that some of them may feel they will not necessarily be subject to it, and we need to be assured by the Minister that current and future personnel in the Solomon Islands will be properly advised of this. I would like to make sure that there is proper procedure to have that documented.

I close now with the thought that this is good legislation, but there are a couple of points I would like to have sorted out during the Committee stage. I really would like to hear the Minister on those points.

I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation.

Was that not a measure of how this Labour Government has fallen? The senior Government whip stood up, presumably to support a piece of Government legislation, and spoke for, what was it? Five seconds, I think. That shows how Labour Party members have lost confidence in what they are doing. They know now that the mood of the country is running against them. They are not even prepared to argue the case for the laws they put in front of this Parliament. David Benson-Pope should be able to do better.

In speaking to the second reading of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill, I think it has been made very clear to the House that National supports this legislation. I think it has also been pretty clear this evening that there are members who are a little concerned about the detail of the bill. In some ways, this bill is interesting, because one could almost say it overrules the old law. The old law was: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”, but this bill says: “When in Rome, do as New Zealanders do.”

It pays to think about that a bit, because although it might be a simple argument to say that New Zealanders, when serving overseas, should comply with New Zealand law—and I think that is a very good argument—we have to make sure there are no fishhooks around all of this that the simplicity of the legislation overlooks. Of course, the role of the select committee has been to consider those issues.

My good colleague Judith Collins—a very, very good new member for National—has pointed out that the bill is retrospective. The members of the select committee noted that as well, and sought advice as to the implications of that. It is retrospective as stated by clause 2, “Commencement”: “This Act is deemed to have come into force on 24 July 2003.” That date was over 6 months ago, so there are issues there. What about our servicemen and women serving in the Solomons right now? Are they aware that they will be subject to this law once Parliament passes it?

We were assured at the select committee—and I made notes to that effect on 28 August last year—that New Zealand men and women serving in the Solomons who would be subject to this legislation, and who were not already subject to the United Nations (Police) Act and various other acts that cover our armed forces, were advised prior to deployment. We were told that prior to deployment, clear notice had been given to New Zealand men and women serving in the Solomons, which is the theatre where there is a risk of retrospectivity catching people unawares.

I suppose we in Opposition have to trust the Government on that point—that it has properly advised people serving on our behalf in the Solomons of this new law. It is important, because retrospective legislation, by and large, should not be supported by Parliament. There are good reasons to support it in this case, and one reason worth mentioning is that the old law of “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” could leave New Zealanders serving overseas very vulnerable. If we did not have this new law in place, it would mean that certain New Zealand citizens would not be immune from the idiosyncrasies of jurisdiction in places where they were serving overseas.

Clearly, that could have unsatisfactory ramifications for New Zealand men and women serving overseas. Not all countries—especially where New Zealand men and women might be serving—have the sophistication of law that New Zealand has. I do not want to be unkind about that, but it is fair to say that the standard of law in our country is reasonably sound. It is based on Westminster law and has stood the test of time. There are a number of countries around the world where New Zealand men and women might be serving, where law, as we know it, has been in place for less time and might be less certain. We do not want New Zealand men and women serving on our behalf caught up in a jurisdiction in which the certainty of the law that might protect them is less clear.

The concern about retrospectivity is very valid, and New Zealanders serving overseas—particularly in the Solomons—must have been advised of that, but we want New Zealanders overseas to have the protection of our law, rather than being vulnerable to some of the idiosyncrasies of law elsewhere that might be less sound than our own. To me that is the balancing issue.

The select committee looked at a few technical issues, especially around the implementation of the bill. It is all very well to say that a New Zealander overseas would be subject to the new law, but the question arises of how to give effect to it. Members will note that the select committee recommended an amendment to clause 6 in order to make sure that a New Zealander arrested outside New Zealand could be detained in custody outside New Zealand for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable that person to be brought back to New Zealand. That was a practical measure the select committee saw as being sensible, so that this law could be given effect to overseas.

Issues were raised about how the situation might work when a citizen of a third nation is serving with a New Zealand force overseas, and that is an area where this bill is perhaps least clear. In that circumstance, we have a person working—employed, if you like—with the New Zealand force and, one could almost argue, therefore subject to New Zealand law. Yet I am not sure that that is as unequivocally clear as it might be. That is one issue that the select committee did grapple with a little, and when we get to the Committee stage, I would like to hear Government members comment more on it, because we do not want to put law in place that is really messy around any particular issue. We should not get too neurotic about it, but there is an issue there about how this law technically applies to people from a third nation serving as part of a New Zealand force overseas.

Those are the main issues that occupied the minds of the members of the select committee as we looked at this bill. It is needed legislation. Our servicemen and women overseas who are not already protected by other legislation need to be protected by New Zealand law. They need immunity from the idiosyncrasies of foreign law, and for those who might argue that people overseas might not know about this legislation, that is a good balance. The important thing is that the group it will affect the most are the people serving in the Solomons. We have been advised that they have been given clear notice that this legislation will apply to them retrospectively. In many ways, it provides more security than anything else. That is why the National Party is supporting this measure, and will be voting in favour of it.

I rise to support the bill.

Bill read a second time.