Visiting Forces Bill

At first glance this bill is a reasonably straightforward and uncomplicated piece of legislation. In fact, during the second reading a number of members referred to it as such, describing it as legislation that was straightforward, simple, uncomplicated, and a reasonably simplistic instrument. I can tell the Committee that the work that went into getting this bill to where it is does not in any way reflect that this is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation. Whilst the bill itself might be small in size, in the sense of the number of pages that it contains, it certainly is not uncomplicated.

There are, indeed, complicated matters relating to jurisdiction, contained in the Visiting Forces Bill; and although in its simplest and purest form it is designed to update and amend the law relating to recognised international practice, and to enable New Zealand to give effect to status of forces agreements concluded with other States, and to repeal the Visiting Forces Act, the jurisdictional questions contained in the bill, I would submit—and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—are not straightforward, actually. I know that the officials did a fine job of trying to explain to members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee over and over again, how the primary and secondary jurisdiction was to work in the absence of a status of forces agreement—or a “SOFA” as it quickly became known. I suspect that that is like military lingo, but, nevertheless, it was a term that was adopted by the committee very quickly.

The guts of the Visiting Forces Bill is contained in Part 2, but I just forewarn members—and no doubt the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Peter Dunne, will have a view on this—that although the bill looks simple, it contains quite complicated messages. It is not a straightforward measure. National has indicated it will be supporting this bill, and will continue to do so through the Committee stage. The bill does do those things that are set out in the purpose clause.

I do not want to say anything more than that at this stage, other than to say that Part 2 contains the complicated and in-depth jurisdictional questions. I am sure the Minister, if he has a quick flick through, will be interested to see what the new clause 8 definitions do, because it is not straightforward. I imagine for soldiers on the ground a quick look at clause 8 would not solve the questions they had in their mind about jurisdictional issues, at first glance. It is the sort of thing that takes a bit of getting one’s head around.

I do not propose to add anything further in respect of Part 1, but I look forward to taking a call this evening on Part 2 and discussing with other members of the Committee of the whole House the provisions contained therein.

I want to take a brief call on Part 1, partly in response to the comments the previous speaker has made. This bill, on the face of it, is relatively straightforward legislation. It has been promoted as an amendment to replace the Visiting Forces Act of 1939 and to update law and practice regarding visiting forces coming to New Zealand. It is very difficult to argue against that. I think it is true that although all parties, as far as I am aware, will be supporting this measure, there are some issues that the member has alluded to that will take maybe a little bit of time as we move through. I do not say that in any sinister sense, but if I draw particular attention, when we get to Part 2, to some of the provisions around clauses 12 to 14, they will be the issues that attract attention.

In essence what this bill seeks to do is recognise the arrangements whereby forces that are, for some period of time, stationed in New Zealand are subject to the law and discipline of this country in respect of activities they take on outside the terms of their attachment. In that sense the bill is parallel to some of the legislation we have been passing recently, dealing with cases where New Zealand forces have been deployed overseas. It is a normal practice. It is good to see the concept we have of status of forces agreements, which are concluded on a case by case basis with visiting forces, now being given, in effect, some form of regularity by this bill. It is updating legislation that is over 60 years old, so it is very timely in that regard.

But I do draw to members’ attention—not that there are problems or massive difficulties or even divisions over the clauses I referred to in Part 2—that there were provisions that exercised the select committee’s mind quite intently and they are ones that need to have issues around them teased out rather thoroughly. Because it is one of those cases, I think, where we all know the end point we want to end up at—it is a matter of how we get there. We do not want to see people who are in New Zealand who commit crimes in New Zealand, inadvertently placed in situations whereby they might be subject to a higher penalty in another country—particularly the death penalty—nor do we want to see a situation where they slip through the cracks and escape any potential penalty. So those provisions are very critical in the bill, and, as the previous speaker has said, and I concur with him, when we get to Part 2 they will be ones, I suspect, that the Committee will want to debate in some detail.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Visiting forces