Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9345] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Chairperson is right; this debate is on the commencement clause. I am not sure from the previous speech what Mr Ahmed Zaoui had to do with this but I do want to speak very briefly about his case because as a number of members will know—certainly Mr Locke—I have had a little to say about it over the last few weeks. It is important that some of the facts come out—facts that are on the public record. 
Ahmed Zaoui was convicted in Belgium after a 5-day hearing—a bit like a District Court or High Court hearing in New Zealand—of having associations with the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). He was then sentenced and deported. He went to Switzerland and was deported from there. He was convicted in absentia in France. Well perhaps that is a questionable procedure but the key point is that he was convicted after a full hearing in Belgium. Yet the Refugee Status Appeals Authority felt that it could sit in New Zealand and adopt some kind of appeal court process for Belgian proceedings. In the absence of any evidence out of Belgium was the prosecution evidence from Belgium presented in New Zealand? The answer is no because there was no evidence from the prosecution in Belgium. We effectively had the Refugee Status Appeals Authority acting in practical terms only on information from the defence. I guess that if one hears only from the defence one may well believe them. 
But there is a more serious issue here and all the defenders of Mr Ahmed Zaoui neglect it entirely. In New Zealand we have a two-stage process. The first is the issue of the national security risk certificate. It is worth bearing in mind that Mr Zaoui is not a resident or a citizen but a person who entered New Zealand illegally and we are entitled in this country to ask whether people who enter our country constitute a national security risk. After the certificate is issued we go further. We then have a special procedure that is dealt with by an independent person the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. That person is not a bureaucrat I might add but a highly respected retired High Court judge whose job it is to assess independently the issuance of that certificate. I am on the record as are others as saying the decision of that person Justice Greig should be the determinant of the case and that he should be able to be left alone to get on with his job. He is appointed for that very purpose. 
One would think on hearing from Mr Locke that Mr Zaoui’s lawyers cannot make submissions to the Inspector-General but they can. Further we heard in the Chamber today that there is a synopsis of what has occurred against Mr Zaoui. So I think it is important that we stick to the facts but recognise that in the case of Mr Zaoui we let the proper processes take place and he gets an independent assessment from the Inspector-General. 
It is wrong for those who support him—Mr Locke and Mr Robson—to pretend that we do not have fair processes. We do. 
This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars—through legal aid through a lengthy hearing in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and now before the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—taking Mr Zaoui’s interests into account. But more important given that he is not a resident or citizen we should be taking the interests of this nation into account. This is not the time to look at these issues through rose-coloured glasses. We have to take a realistic approach. I trust retired High Court Judge Greig to do the right thing and Mr Locke should do likewise. That decision should be determinative. I do not expect Mr Locke to say should the decision be adverse to Mr Zaoui that we should then continue to defend him. The question here is whether we trust our institutions to protect public safety.