Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill

We come to the closing stages of debate in the Committee stage of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. It is important legislation in the context of the stance that New Zealand takes in the international arena. This legislation amends principal legislation that has been in place since 1989.

It is a curious feature of this bill, in my view, that it has two conventions attached to it. In schedule 1 it has the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In schedule 2 it has the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. One would have thought that the principal Act would have the primary convention scheduled to it. That was possibly an oversight, because of the constitutional principle that to implement international law there must be a domestic statute. On the face of it the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 makes it clear that it is all about seeking to implement the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In another call I have taken in connection with this legislation, which National supports, I spoke about what is called the ticking time bomb scenario, and the work of Alan Dershowitz, an American defence attorney and jurist. He has argued that there should be limited support for the idea that torture could be justified. His proposition, in very broad terms, is that if a State is to sanction torture, there should be a regulated procedure through which an interrogator could request what he calls a torture warrant, and that requiring a warrant would establish a paper trail of accountability so that torturers and those who authorise torture could be held to account for excesses. Dershowitz’s torture warrants are similar to search warrants and phone tap warrants, and would spell out the limits on the techniques that interrogators might use and the extent to which they might abridge a suspect’s rights. Fortunately New Zealand will have no part of such proposals.

So we see in the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill the completion of the circle with the implementation into domestic law of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New Zealand, of course, has signed that optional protocol; it did that on 24 September 2003. The next diplomatic step that needs to be taken is that of ratification. The passage of this legislation will permit that diplomatic step to be taken. When we look at the principal Act, which is to be amended, we see that there is, of course, a definition of torture in it. There is also a definition of torture in the principal convention. They are not in exact alignment, but I would say that, for practical purposes, the alignment is sufficient.

The bill itself did undergo some changes when it was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it was recommended that it be passed with a number of amendments, which have been identified. The bill does not go as far as the Green member of Parliament Mr Locke would wish. No doubt that is a sadness for him, but it is certainly a blessing for the Committee, because in his particular proposals there was not seen to be any redeeming merit that would justify the far-reaching and radical changes that he proposed.

The concept—the structure—of the legislation is simple enough. It contemplates that there be visits by a subcommittee, and the setting up of national preventive mechanisms and a central national preventive mechanism. One might think that we would not need such legislation in New Zealand. Assuredly, I hope that that is so. We have other offences on our statute book that deal with the type of event here described. But I think what is illustrated in the passage of this legislation is New Zealand’s readiness to play the role of an international citizen and to set a lead for legislation to be implemented in accordance with our international law obligations. National members support the passage of this law.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 2A agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.