Twyford Phil: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
Twyford Phil: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6818] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. Labour believes there is much to recommend in this bill and we support its referral to the select committee. I will focus my comments on clause 9 of the bill which requires a New Zealand leader to obtain the written advice of the Attorney-General before deciding to commit the armed forces of New Zealand to action involving the use of armed force. 
The National Government members who spoke in this debate before me before the debate was interrupted a month ago repeatedly stated their support for the underlying intent of the bill. Dr Wayne Mapp talked about Dr Graham’s deep commitment to the progressive development of international law saying National understands the underlying motivations behind this bill. The other doctor Dr Paul Hutchison said the sentiment behind this bill was extremely worthy and that perhaps it was something that New Zealand must seriously consider in the future. 
But here is the truth: in spite of those soothing words National does not even support the most modest element in this bill. It does not support the idea of having the Attorney-General provide a legal opinion on any proposed armed intervention by New Zealand. This is the most modest element in the bill. It would not constrain the executive it would not prevent the deployment of New Zealand troops to take part in an international intervention and it would not limit New Zealand’s ability to participate in a Kosovo-type humanitarian situation. It would simply require the Attorney-General to produce to this House a legal opinion on the lawfulness of any proposed armed intervention. But this National Government does not want a bar of that. It does not want this bill to go to a select committee where it could be debated and improved. 
Putting aside for a second the issue of the passage of this bill I am told that the National Government has even rejected the idea of supporting the proposal in the bill for an opinion by the Attorney-General to be discussed at a select committee. This idea is not for National but it is good enough for the United Kingdom which is moving to make a legal opinion by the Attorney-General a requirement as a parliamentary convention. This was signalled by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a speech to the House of Commons in June but it is not good enough for National. It is a practical simple suggestion that is designed to enhance public and parliamentary scrutiny of the most heavy responsibility of the executive: sending young New Zealanders to war. 
As advanced by Kennedy Graham the proposal is that 7 days in advance of any deployment except in situations of self-defence the Prime Minister would be expected to table in this House an opinion from the Attorney-General concerning the lawfulness of the deployment and its consistency with international law and in particular with the UN Charter. Why does the National Government not want to have an informed discussion in this House before young Kiwis are sent off to battle? Why does it not want there to be a discussion on that informed by a dispassionate legal opinion by no less than the Attorney-General? The answer is Iraq. National members on the Government side of the House will remember that their party leader the Prime Minister John Key said he would have sent troops to take part in George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. In their hearts they are not committed to international law. In rejecting this provision in Kennedy Graham’s bill they are showing their true colours. They want to be able to send our troops to fight overseas regardless of whether that is consistent with international law. 
We saw with the recent deployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan how susceptible the National Government is to pressure from bigger and more powerful allies. What started out as an international operation to root out al-Qaeda after attacks on New York City has become several years later an unwinnable quagmire. Kennedy Graham’s proposal in this bill would have generated an opinion that surely would have advised that the Afghanistan deployment was consistent with international law. An opinion from the Attorney-General would not have stopped the deployment but if applied in the future it might save National and this country from engaging in unwise interventions. Thank you.