Power Simon: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9158] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the member who spoke before me. He has given me a great deal of material to consider in my contribution this evening and I thank him for that. The Counter-Terrorism Bill bill essentially reflects the unfortunate international environment we now live in. Although I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions and reported back I do have some fairly strong views on issues relating to this bill in two capacities: first as National’s defence spokesperson and second as somebody who stood on top of the World Trade Center in August prior to the September terrorist attack. Those photographs from standing on the top of those World Trade Center buildings are slightly eerie at best when I now look back on them. 
This bill is really about New Zealand doing its bit. This bill is about recognising that one of this country’s obligations in being part of the international community is to take a stand on issues that are serious and difficult and that require the commitment of the country. I often listen with great interest to those in this Parliament who promote multilateralism and are less concerned with the sovereign rights of particular nations. Those members believe that bodies such as the United Nations will be the panacea for all the problems that go on in the world yet when asked to front up to fulfil resolutions such as Resolution 1373 adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 September 2001 they do not believe that that is easily done. 
I say to those members they cannot have it both ways. If they believe in multilateralism and believe that organisations such as the United Nations are worthwhile and if resolutions are passed by those bodies then part of belonging to that international community of interest is to play one’s part and carry out the effect of the resolutions. I note that members in the House who speak against that type of activity are the first to suggest that if the ILO makes a recommendation this Parliament should plough into and pick up on those recommendations and implement them for New Zealand. If the human rights committee of the United Nations makes recommendations there are members in this House who would have those implemented in New Zealand lickety-split. 
I say to those members that this is the same thing because if they believe in the concept of multilateralism if they believe in the concept of the United Nations—it is no secret that I have serious reservations about the role of the United Nations in many respects particularly on security issues—they cannot have it both ways. If they believe that multilateralism is the way forward then that brings with it certain obligations that members of this House have to fulfil some of which they may find unpleasant. That is the nature of the beast unfortunately. One cannot take out just the good. 
I was not surprised to see Phil Goff on 6 September of this year finally concede a fact that members on this side have known for months and even years. He said to the Christchurch  
Press  
on 6 September that we no long live in a benign strategic environment. Well members will recall that this is an issue that I have raised several times during question time with the Hon Mark Burton. Finally—about 6 weeks ago if my memory serves me correctly— Mr Burton Minister of Defence stood up and used that time-honoured phrase of the Prime Minister’s that “things have moved on”; that the “benign strategic environment” no longer existed—on which the Prime Minister had based her entire international foreign policy which was of course grounded on completely the wrong premise. But Phil Goff on 6 September this year finally said: “Yes the world is a less benign place because of the rise of terrorism.” 
Well that means a couple of things. Firstly it means that the decision to scrap the strike wing of the Air Force was wrong. Secondly it means the decision to have our armed forces concentrate largely on being a peacekeeping unit is wrong. It means that there are some serious considerations that this Government should be giving to the armed forces and the way in which they operate when senior Ministers of this Government finally after 4 years of prying from this side of the House have conceded that we no longer live in Helen Clark’s so-called benign strategic environment. This so-called benign strategic environment which this Government refused to move from after September 11 is also a position it refused to move from after the Bali bombings. Only after the attacks in Jakarta did this Government finally decide that it was going to shift its view on whether we lived in a benign strategic environment. 
 What worries me most is that we now have an entire foreign policy built around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. We have defence forces and their capabilities based around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. Finally the Hon Mark Burton and the Hon Phil Goff have said either in this House or in the media: “Actually we got it wrong. We now concede that the world has moved on and that we do not live in a benign strategic environment.” In fact that brings with it a whole lot of responsibility that we should be encouraging this Government to take up and that frankly does not involve using our defence forces as an instrument of foreign policy when the Prime Minister makes a foreign affairs gaffe with the US but using thoughtful strategic planning when it comes to conducting our relationships with regional and international partners. 
I do have some concerns about the bill itself. I am a bit worried I have to say that the police will be able to force suspects to open their computers and reveal their passwords PIN numbers and encryption codes. That is not something I find particularly palatable. That is probably because of my short career as a criminal lawyer on the duty solicitors’ roster on a Monday morning. I am not sure that the police having that type of power sits comfortably with the overriding principles of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—the more foreign policy regional bilateral and international relationships that have to be honoured and indeed the relationship that New Zealand must continue to have with the UN. 
I was concerned to read that the Law Society the Society of Authors—less with regard to the Association of University Staff to be quite frank—all raised concerns about those libertarian issues that there are some civil rights that need to be looked at pretty carefully when this type of legislation is passing through the House. No doubt we will look at that carefully during the Committee stage. 
But I return to my main and opening point. I urge the Government to rethink its current commitment to its isolationist policy with regard to these issues and to think seriously about what this means for its responsibilities in the world. We simply cannot ignore the fact that we are not living in 1974 any more. There are not people walking around wearing beads and polo-necked jerseys sitting on beanbags and listening to John Lennon. Times have moved on. The simple fact of the matter is that if we are going to play a role play our part and if we are going to honour our obligations in those multilateral environments like the UN that members opposite hold so dear then I say to the Government that that comes at a price. 
The words are here for the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Let us now see some action in implementing those things in a way that is constructive and allows New Zealand to play a decent role in international affairs and foreign policy. I say to members of the Labour Government that it is not too late. They should stop fluffing around and make some spending decisions that will equate to the words in this bill.