Jones Shane: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8514] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora. Mr Deputy Speaker I begin by commending you for your judiciousness and very refined sense of judgment in looking to this side of the House for the call; not that that comment reflects any personal ill will I bear toward Mr Nathan Guy who has demonstrated that his level of interest in multilateral affairs stretches to being a member of the golden oldie parliamentary rugby team and excelling—well “excel” might be the wrong word but I recall his playing a reasonable game in France. 
I stand to support the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill because underlying this bill is the tenet of multilateralism. Recently the Prime Minister ventured into the hallowed corridors of power and influence exercised enjoyed and projected by the greatest military power on Earth the United States of America. While the Prime Minister was there it was evident that despite our modest numbers we are regarded as a very key influence on the overall war against the spread of terror on ensuring that there are international obligations in terms of security and on improving and enhancing the nature in which all citizens in the free world live. 
Of course other members in the House have rather jaundiced views of our relationship with the United States of America but this bill actually shows that we take very seriously our obligations under the United Nations’ arrangements. Not so long ago we stood very solidly with the arrangements that we are a part of through our membership of the United Nations. Yes our trans-Tasman cousins struck off in a different direction. But this legislation reminds us that we are firstly a citizen of the world community and that the world community embraces by and large the virtue and the central importance that the United Nations represents in terms of mediating conflict and also of having a system whereby all countries can play their role to meet global acts of terror or global problems. 
Obviously the ongoing capacity of those nefarious organisations the Taliban and al-Qaeda to disrupt not only our quality of life but economic security trade and the free movement of people is something that New Zealand should be very proud to stand against. These are matters that should not be confused with the minority view that exists in some quarters of our country that we should detach ourselves from activities where the United States of America might be present. So we play a key role in Afghanistan because that is an action that has been endorsed and is being embraced by such multilateral arrangements as we see evident throughout the United Nations arrangements. 
It may not be immediately apparent but our enabling this bill to travel forward is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is our upholding our duties and obligations as world citizens. We as an exporter—as a key trader in the world with so much of our GDP depending on export earnings—need to play our role in as many places as possible to ensure the free passage of goods and services. The existence of the organisations referred to in this bill represents a threat to that. We disproportionately would suffer if there were continual unravelling of security arrangements. Not only would the ability of large freighters and vessels to carry our produce to far-flung places in the world be compromised not only would tourism—one of the largest earners of foreign exchange currency if not the largest—suffer and be compromised by dint of people’s fear of travelling vast distances to New Zealand but we would slowly but surely lose our status and our quality of life. 
If we want to maintain our quality of life then we have duties larger than those that exist amongst ourselves. We have obligations that are of a global character. The fact that the Prime Minister was able to demonstrate how seriously we are taken despite our modest numerical size in the land of Uncle Sam is a fantastic reflection of the commitment that this Government has—indeed that I think all serious members of the House have—to our fulfilling those international obligations. 
It might be said that our Australian cousins are more aggressive—they are more abrasive—more assertive or some might say more thorough in terms of their particular approach which has more of a bilateral character to it. In some sense that may reflect their proximity to South-east Asia—who knows—but we stand firmly as a part of the broad family that upholds the principles and the tenets of the United Nations. From time to time the United Nations does come out with some reports that do not meet with my personal approval. Indeed we had one written by a chap whose name—although he lives in Mexico—reflects his German ancestry that I did not care for at all and the less I see of it the better I feel. However that aside I tell members that these are matters far more important than his observations about social disparities in some quarters of New Zealand society. 
The United Nations’ call to arms in terms of our fulfilling a role really is an opportunity for us to continue to project our identity internationally and to burnish our credentials because if there is a small country in the world that has been a disproportionate provider of men women sons and daughters in international conflicts then we are it. Towards the end of the year we will have an opportunity for a number of New Zealanders to venture overseas and I hope to assist some of our kaumatua to go to the fields of Flanders the Somme and Passchendaele which are places where we played a role in international conflict in the First World War. In the Second World War we as Maori New Zealanders paid the ultimate price of citizenship by rallying to send the flower of our youth in the Maori Battalion. I personally would like to see the Maori Battalion used a hang of a lot more as a role model for what our young men might do what our young men might aspire to. There should be less fascination with the subculture—the crass negative subculture—that is imported here and more focus on that particular institution which represents a fine example of Maori New Zealanders paying the ultimate price in challenging the forces of global terror fascism and indeed Nazism. There would not be any Maori members in this House just as there probably would not be any other member in the House who do not have a very close relation—a grandfather a grand-uncle an uncle or perhaps even a father—who played a role in those international forays. Of course we could go on to talk about the representation of our people in the conflict in Korea the conflict in Viet Nam and in a host of other fora. 
As I wind up I tell the House that I have been told that prior to my arrival there was an impassioned speech from my whanaunga Hone Harawira. I would like to say that there is one thing we know about my whanaunga Hone Harawira: we will never perish doubting what he said or thought. The fact that I have ended up having a slightly different approach from that of my Te Aupouri kinsman in respect of our relationship with America should in no way diminish the fact that there always has been a very strong streak of independence in our New Zealand identity. This bill in no way erodes or undermines our ability to fashion our identity in the broad context of those nations and communities that wish to uphold the obligations under the United Nations. Kia ora tatou katoa.