Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill

National supports the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill, a short bill of only two parts. Its primary purpose, as the commentary from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee makes clear, is to enable the exercise of jurisdiction over New Zealand police personnel and civilians serving overseas as part of non - United Nations deployments. A number of features of the bill, however, are directly worthy of comment.

I would like, first of all, to refer to the definition of “overseas operations force” in clause 4, which makes it very clear that it does not include any member of the police who is part of a United Nations force and to whom the United Nations (Police) Act applies. The curious point, perhaps, about this legislation is that it was designed with a specific operation in mind—an operation in the Solomon Islands, where we have now been for quite a significant period. In that context, I just reflect on the legislative history of this bill relating to Part 1. The bill was introduced on 29 July 2003. There was no delay at that early stage, because on 5 August 2003 it had its first reading and was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So the delays have set in since then. I suppose we can legitimately wonder what has happened in the interim in respect of the military operations that have occurred in the Solomon Islands—military operations, police operations, peacekeeping operations, and peace-making operations. The answer, it seems, is that there has not been a problem.

I ask the Minister: what is the mischief here? We have had an opportunity to assess the need for this legislation in an environment of danger, where the rule of law is certainly very much at risk. One of the phrases Minister Goff used was that “the Solomons is a failed state”. He said that it was in danger of becoming a haven for terrorists and drug traffickers, that it was close to anarchy, and that any police deployment would need military support. Our presence there comprised police officers, apparently some 40 senior officers, and up to 200 troops, who were added to the Australian contingent. They were armed with Steyr 5.56 millimetre rifles, light machine guns, grenade launchers, and 9 millimetre pistols.

I think we would do well as members of Parliament to reflect that when the Government determines it will not, with speed, advance legislation, then legitimate questions can be asked as to the need for that legislation. It is right to say, of course, that it is intended that the legislation have an effect in futurity, and that was made clear in the commentary; it was not only to apply to the Solomon Islands but also to future peacekeeping and peace-making deployments. Although National supports this legislation, we assert that legitimate questions can be asked on this question of need. It was also very much in the minds of members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when they looked at this legislation and heard the only submission that came to them—a joint submission from Alberto Costi, Fran Wright, and Naresh Perinpanayagam of Victoria University law school—that the police would not be armed. But that, of course, has not proved to be the case. In inviting the House to commend this bill, I note those aspects.

Just following on from my colleague Mr Richard Worth, there are a couple of points I would like to make on this part. First, I note again that this is retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation is, of necessity, something we should indulge in only when we really, really have to. I wonder why, when this bill was introduced back on 29 July 2003—5 days after it was deemed to have come into force—we are dealing with it here under urgency. Is this a situation where basically the bill has been put into urgency because the Government has nothing much else it wants to put into urgency? I have to question whether that is what is happening. There have certainly been other instances of urgency and plenty of other sitting days since the bill was introduced. I believe that the bill has the support of the entire House—it has had it all the way through so far, anyway—and I cannot see why we have waited this long for it if there were any need for it to be looked at.

One of the issues Mr Worth raised related to the Solomon Islands. Quite often our troops and peacekeepers—this only really deals with police and other peacekeeping people, not our soldiers, as I understand it—will be sent to, and are being sent to, places that are extremely unsafe for them, and where there is no adequate criminal law jurisdiction, policing, or any other court system. Consequently, the Government has decided—and, I think, with the authority of the House—that it is important that these people are subject to New Zealand criminal law if they are not already subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the place in which they are operating and criminal proceedings are not brought against them. However, this bill does not protect our service personnel and police from the jurisdiction in which they are operating. That is an interesting point, because if our New Zealand citizens are operating, at our request, in countries where, for instance, a criminal offence might bring with it the punishment of a hand being chopped off, or execution, then this bill will do nothing to help them. So this bill will not necessarily help our personnel, at all—in fact, quite the opposite. It is a bill to make sure that whatever they do will be subject to New Zealand law if they are not first prosecuted in that particular country.

As Mr Worth said, if there were any great and pressing need for the bill, it would have been passed right back in August last year. It was not, and I just wonder why it is taking so long to move through the House, particularly when every party in the House, to my knowledge, supports it.

I am happy to contribute briefly to this bill, which, as indicated by previous speakers, is supported by all parties in the House. It is a very good bill, introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Hon Phil Goff. It acknowledges an agreement between New Zealand and the Solomon Islands on what is necessary for the deployment of personnel to the Solomon Islands. I am very proud of the fact that New Zealand and other Pacific nations are involved in the restoration of law and order in the Solomons.

I want to point out that in the agreement for that deployment, the Solomon Islands Government agreed to cede jurisdiction only if New Zealand had statute that allowed that jurisdiction for non-military personnel. This bill is necessary in order to ensure that other classes of personnel who are involved in the deployment in the Solomons are covered in terms of New Zealand jurisdiction and law if they commit an offence. As part of that agreement for deployment, it is necessary that we honour what is required under that deployment. That is why this legislation is necessary. I believe that it is well-drafted law. The select committee has done a good job. I support the bill.

I want to take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First to put on record that New Zealand First will support this bill, as we have supported its passage thus far. I also put on record that it concerns us that we have had service personnel deployed in the Solomons since 24 July 2003, and here we are under urgency today moving the legislation forward another step. That is not adequate. Despite the complimentary words that have been made to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that is too slow. Is it any wonder that service personnel whom we send overseas sometimes believe that Parliament has forgotten them?

Probably the irony about this legislation is that, given the situation in the Solomons, it is not the New Zealand police whom we are worried about. It is actually the police force of the Solomons, which the New Zealand police have gone over to teach, train, and guide, and whose culture is quite clearly in need of adjustment. They are the people who have been perpetuating crimes upon their own citizens, and against New Zealand citizens and New Zealand businessmen, which have gone for so long untended. That in itself is a further indictment on this Government, and on past Governments, for their inaction. Probably, and quite clearly, the saving grace is that we have moved on from that.

I would give only one word of caution for those who think that this is a short-term operation—that our people are serving over there and that they will be home soon. I would simply say: “Forget it.” The situation in the Solomons is one that will be extremely fluid for many years to come, and it is my prediction that we will be required to have servicemen over there, working with the authorities in the Government, for quite some time to come. Either that, or we will do what we are becoming renowned for doing: turn our backs and let the Aussies carry the workload, which is something I would not like to see happen.

The bill is essential. It is necessary that any service personnel that we send over to such places as the Solomons, in the circumstances of being outside the auspices of the United Nations, do need to have a clear understanding as to their obligations in terms of their compliance with the law. We support the bill.

ACT New Zealand also supports this bill, but again we would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, to tell us why it has taken as long as it has. That is a valid question, which has been raised now by two people in this debate. Why, indeed, is it necessary, the bill having languished for so long on the parliamentary Order Paper, for it to be rammed through under urgency? I suspect, given the support that all parties have expressed for this bill, there is absolutely no need to take it through parliament under urgency. In fact, it will probably take longer to put the bill through under urgency than it would have taken if we had done it in the normal process of the parliamentary week. Perhaps the Minister will have the grace to tell us why that is the situation, because the reason is certainly not clear.

In essence, this bill is all about the principle of responsibility under the law being based on nationality as well as territoriality. New Zealand, it seems, has not shared the expansion that other countries have had, and the bill is, of course, confined to civilians abroad: to police officers acting on Government directives, and to those people who are not covered by United Nations legal requirements. So it does seem that the bill fills a gap. Certainly the Solomons experience triggered the need for this bill, but, of course, it is not specific to the Solomons—as, indeed, it should not be. I think it is quite conceivable that in the years ahead we will have similar situations arise to that in the Solomons, particularly given we live in what is becoming a quite unstable Pacific region. ACT supports this bill, as, it seems, does every other party in the Committee.

I would like to take a brief call on behalf of United Future to signal our support also for the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. It is a well-thought-out bill. I believe that it means that police and civilians serving overseas, as in the Solomons, will, in respect of crimes committed in the course of their official duties, be subject solely to New Zealand’s jurisdiction. We will have the exclusive jurisdiction over those people in that situation. That, I think, is a very common-sense safeguard so that we do not risk having our police and civilians in the Solomons and other places arrested by the locals whilst trying to exercise their official duties. In one sense it is just simply a question of saying that there has to be one line of authority for such people, and that that line of authority has to be definitely connected through the operational framework back to this nation, since they are our citizens and we have, after all, sent them into places like the Solomons to assist the locals and to bring peace to such nations.

At the same time the bill makes it clear that if those people commit crimes when they are not on their official duties, but are just in their time off—or rest and recreation—they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities. That, to me, also makes sense.

We signal our support for this bill.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Jurisdiction over police and civilian members of overseas operations force