Graham Kennedy: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6819] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Government cited three reasons to oppose the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill: it will surrender our foreign policy to a Security Council veto it will divide out nation and it will be blatantly misused. Each of those statements is effortlessly refuted at least in logic. 
The Minister of Defence is irritated by the veto and craves the freedom to circumvent it yet in San Francisco although we argued against the veto we signed the charter in full acknowledgment of its inclusion and we abide by that reality today. Dr Mapp prefers the NATO interpretation that the doctrine of responsibility to protect enables Western powers with New Zealand tagging along behind whenever summoned to intervene militarily without UN authorisation. The same freedom for so-called legitimate if illegal actions of the Kosovo type is not to be extended to China or Russia. That level of hubris predates even 1945. 
The rule of international law is contemptuous of outmoded notions of political superiority. At some stage before long the International Criminal Court will adopt the crime of aggression. New Zealand will agree voluntarily or otherwise and on that day the Government will discreetly forget what it has said in this debate. 
Will this bill divide the nation? Of course not. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 imposed criminal liability on the Prime Minister to respect the prohibition on nuclear-armed warships in our harbours. Far from dividing the nation the warships stopped coming. The nation remains united on the nuclear-free policy. Notwithstanding the historical writhing of the National Party the Prime Minister celebrates our nuclear-free policy before world leaders at the United Nations this week—hardly a nation divided. 
Would the bill result in misuse? There is no greater risk of this legislation being abused than any other. Dr Hutchison has a low opinion of the judiciary; I do not. In fact I find the expression of such a view in this legislature to be quite reprehensible. We should be worth more. 
Finally the Government allowed itself a touching philosophical flourish. The bill is Dr Hutchison said perhaps something that New Zealand must consider in the future. In other words it is ahead of its time. To put the record straight I say to members that this bill is half a century behind. If it is premature to make national leaders liable in criminal law for aggression then this country owes a formal apology to Japan for participating in the trial and execution of its leaders six decades ago. The House should then call upon the Prime Minister to convey that apology immediately after dispatching this bill to the void. 
I am disappointed at the Government’s position on my bill but I am not surprised. The bill would take a major step forward in civilising the world through civilising ourselves. It requires vision and courage so I am not surprised. Nor am I discouraged for it is clear to me whether or not it is clear to my colleagues across the floor that this bill even in this failed incarnation is a beacon to the country and to elsewhere. 
The bill has been distributed to over 100 Parliaments around the world and it is already being seen as a model for other countries to emulate. Work has begun in the Argentine Senate. The disposition of each of those countries to adopt it sooner or later will reflect considerations that transcend the particular reasons so stated in this House for not proceeding today. 
It is never difficult and it is always tempting to find rationalisations for not proceeding with a far-reaching initiative in politics. We can go home tonight knowing we have done our duty to this House. We have considered deliberated and pronounced. The only thing left to do is explain to our children tomorrow why we would not act today. 
Whether we have done our duty to the nation and to humanity is less clear. The Prime Minister and his Government have an opportunity today for statesmanship but recoiled before the mirror. We are what we think even to a lilliputian degree. It is likely that future generations will understand us better than we today understand ourselves. Very well then; let us proceed to the vote.