Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Does the Government plan to support the incorporation of aggression as a justiciable crime in the International Criminal Court, as envisaged in article 5 of the 1998 Rome Statute, at the review conference of the States parties in Kampala next May; if not, why not?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):
New Zealand has been participating in negotiations among the affected parties on this matter. These are ongoing, with further discussions to be held during the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court taking place in The Hague over the coming week. Before the 2010 review conference in Kampala, the Government will review progress in order to decide on a negotiating mandate for the delegation.

Dr Kennedy Graham:
In light of that half-hearted indication of intent to support—

Mr SPEAKER:
The member will resume his seat. The member will sit down. Although I do not insist on members starting a question with a question word, to make an allegation like that is simply totally unacceptable. The member will start his supplementary question again.

Dr Kennedy Graham:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister’s response, which indicates a tentative intent to support the crime of aggression being a justiciable crime, will the Minister confirm that the policy he envisages will be consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement to the United Nations in September that “It is a fundamental tenet of our domestic legal systems that wrong doers must be brought to justice. The ICC is the mechanism for applying that same principle to persons accused of the most serious international crimes.”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY:
It might assist the member if I was to explain that I understand that, in the negotiations I referred to, good progress has been made in dealing with the question of a definition of “aggression” as a justiciable crime, but not such good progress in dealing with the interface between the work of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. That is where those discussions are centering at the moment. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Government always acts to give effect to the Prime Minister’s wise words.

Dr Kennedy Graham:
Does the Minister, in light of the policy that his colleague the Minister of Defence indicated during his speech on the first reading of the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill in September, believe that the concept of responsibility to protect, cited by the Minister of Defence as the reason to oppose aggression being a criminal offence—at least, in domestic law—allows all permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, to use force when the Security Council is paralysed by a veto?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY:
I am not familiar with that tract of the speech from the Minister of Defence; I normally would have read it slavishly, which I am pleased to see that member has done. I undertake to rectify that matter immediately after I leave the Chamber. What I will say, in relation to the responsibility to protect, is that it is a concept that the Government does support. We have been engaged in discussions in various agencies and forums about how we might advance that concept, and I am interested to hear of any comments or contributions that that member, and others, would wish to make in that respect.