Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8501] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As the National spokesman on foreign affairs has indicated National supports the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Clearly the bill will fix some serious problems with regard to the designation process. In fact some time ago those of us who are on the Opposition side of the House did warn that a Government cannot abandon security issues—who is designated and who is not—to the High Court. There were very good reasons for that warning. These issues are not fundamentally judicial issues. Who is designated and who is not are national security matters. The High Court cannot be expected to have the sort of information that the Prime Minister would receive. As has already been noted by Murray McCully the Prime Minister will almost certainly be in charge of the Security Intelligence Service and will receive confidential briefings from it. So one should not abandon the national security of this country to the courts. That matter is primarily a responsibility of the Government and the Government does receive confidential information. 
That point raises another issue does it not? Mr Ahmed Zaoui after 5 years now is still in the court process. I have to say it is remarkable to put it mildly that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has yet to deal with his security status. This area of law is crying out for reform. The Prime Minister raised that as an urgent matter literally years ago in this House but no changes have taken place. It is frankly unsatisfactory that a person like Ahmed Zaoui—who has been convicted in Belgium in a proper hearing of associating with terrorists and of supporting those who had guns money explosives and multiple passports—can arrive in New Zealand and claim refugee status then we have the SIS say that he is a national security risk because of all those convictions yet we are still waiting for that issue to be resolved. That cannot be satisfactory even to the Green Party which is highly sympathetic to Mr Zaoui. Surely we need a better process than one that takes 5 years to try to work out whether someone is a security risk. It would be a good thing given the incredibly short Order Paper that the Government has if the Government actually did something about that part of the law as well as proposing the measures set out in this bill. 
As Murray McCully has indicated New Zealand—or more accurately the Prime Minister—has been entirely guided by the United Nations lists. I want to look at that particular issue. The UN lists by definition reflect a complete global consensus. Every State in the world has to say an organisation is a terrorist organisation and an individual is a terrorist. So on that basis only the most extreme and the worst organisations and individuals are designated. That is the reason why al-Qaeda in its many different forms is so prescribed. No country will come out in support of al-Qaeda. But that raises a further question: does one go for the lowest common denominator list as one’s only list or are there other entities and persons who should be designated? 
Let us take for instance issues in the Middle East. Clearly Saudi Arabia Libya Jordan and Syria are probably going to say no we cannot possibly designate the armed wing of Hamas or the armed wing of Hezbollah notwithstanding that they target innocent civilians. Clearly those countries could not do that in terms of their own domestic politics. New Zealand has ended up being guided by their views as to who should be designated. In contrast Australia Canada and the United Kingdom three countries that the Attorney-General referred to in his address as like-minded countries to New Zealand and as countries whose systems we should adopt have taken a different view—not about the Hamas part of the Palestinian Authority the civil part but about the armed wing in particular which has deliberately not recognised Israel in any respect whatsoever; not even inside the 1967 borders. Those countries have designated the armed wings of Hezbollah and of Hamas as terrorist entities. New Zealand is completely silent on those groups. It effectively means that the countries in the Middle East that cannot deal with Israel—and many of the countries that I mentioned like Saudi Arabia Syria and Libya do not even recognise Israel—in effect dictate New Zealand’s policy because we have bound ourselves into the UN list and into only that list. 
That I suggest does not reflect the way that countries in the Commonwealth—and I specifically note in the Commonwealth—have designated a number of parties. I draw to the attention of members opposite as indeed Mr McCully did that Australia has designated 88 individuals and organisations. Canada which often follows a similar path to New Zealand in international relations has designated 50. New Zealand has absolutely zero designations. 
I want to refer specifically to the Australian list. For instance in relation to Ireland which is hugely important because of the things that have occurred there Australia has designated the Real IRA. The Real IRA was made up from the people who split off from Gerry Adams because they thought he was doing the wrong thing. They wanted to continue the armed struggle as they called it. But in fact they were terrorists who bombed pubs hotels buses and the like. Similarly there is the Loyalist Volunteer Force on the Protestant side—irredentists if you will; people who have opposed the hugely important reconciliation that we have seen on our television screens over the last few days. That was a historic situation whereby the Rev. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams were able to come together and show a new path forward for Northern Ireland. So the irredentists—the people who are opposing that process—should be prescribed. 
There is complete silence from New Zealand on something like that. When we fail to do something like designating those groups we then fail to support the people who are actually building peace in the countries concerned. So we say to the Government that it should not take just the lowest common denominator approach and confine itself to the UN list; it should think more broadly of New Zealand’s national interests in common with those of other Commonwealth countries. We have tough questions to ask in the select committee and we will be asking them. We want the New Zealand Prime Minister—of whichever party—to look after New Zealand’s national interests our security and the security of our friends and allies. 
National supports this bill; it is necessary. But we have serious questions to ask and we expect the Government to answer them.