Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18571] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will speak briefly on this bill and perhaps refer to the prior motion. As has been stated by many this legislation is necessary because of the fact that the designations will expire if it does not happen. Let us imagine the situation if this legislation were not passed. Three hundred and eighteen designations including those of al-Qaeda would lapse. I imagine that even Keith Locke could not support that yet I suspect he will vote against this bill so we will find out. The bill is absolutely necessary. 
However I turn to another point. Over the last few days New Zealanders have been watching on their televisions and reading in their newspapers about momentous events in the Middle East. There looks to be a new breakthrough between Israel and Palestine—the first real hope for many many years of progress in that conflict. There was a huge participation in the vote in Iraq at enormous risk by literally millions of Iraqis. Even those who opposed the war would recognise that that is a real measure of progress. I would go further to suggest that we would not have seen the progress between Israel and Palestine without that same progress in Iraq and we will be seeing it in other Middle Eastern countries. Even in Saudi Arabia there seem to be tentative steps being made towards democratic reform. 
Those are fundamental outcomes of the world’s commitment to anti-terrorism legislation. It is the beneficial by-product of the world saying in unity in the United Nations back in 2000 that terrorism was not the way of the future—it was not the way forward. That is why it was the United Nations that made those designations. Frankly I was surprised to hear Mr Locke being critical of that. I always understood that he and his party with some reservations were supporters of the United Nations. If one is a supporter of the United Nations one accepts the consensus view on those terrorist organisations. They are organisations that by the widest possible consensus are seen literally as the enemies of peace-loving people. They are the people who attack the foundations of democracy and the rule of law. 
So it is right today that we pass this bill to the select committee to maintain those designations because they will expire otherwise. That is the problem. So this legislation is necessary. 
I will turn very briefly to the review. That review will be wide ranging. There is no doubt that the committee struggled long and hard with many of those definitions and it is almost certainly the case that they need a further considered review. The resolution passed in 2001 by the United Nations was very very wide-ranging indeed and a whole range of legislation particularly the counter-terrorism legislation has been a response to that. But I think that most people would concede that the select committee struggled with a range of those definitions so it is time to look at the legislation as a whole to see whether the balance has been correctly struck. So I support both the motion and this bill. 
I want to say this point in closing. The fight against terrorism is actually a fight for democracy and the rule of law and we are seeing expressions of that in the Middle East. I would hope that that would be recognised broadly or unanimously within this Parliament yet there is one party—the Green Party—that consistently turns its face against that recognition. Those members will find themselves arguing against the unanimous voice of mankind the United Nations which has said that certain people are enemies of freedom and the rule of law and that their activities need to be stopped in a lawful and reasonable way. New Zealand has a proud record on this and that is why the National Party is proud and wants to support these two measures.