Mapp Wayne: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Mapp Wayne: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:630;Page:2089] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The first motion deals with the membership of the committee. The second motion deals with what the committee actually does which is primarily to examine the activities of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service through the estimates and so forth. 
I want to return to the points I was making earlier and in particular to comment on the speech made by a member of the Maori Party and the role of the Inspector-General of Security. The role of the Inspector-General is intended of course to be precisely the opportunity for the actions of the Security Intelligence Service to be examined critically in an independent and impartial way. That is the whole purpose of that particular entity. As we all know at the present moment the Inspector-General is doing a very careful and thorough job in relation to Mr Ahmed Zaoui and it is not for this Parliament to prejudge the way he does that. We must trust him as a very senior member of the High Court to be able to do that job understanding fully the importance of the rule of law and protecting freedoms. 
 So I believe that the issues raised by the Maori Party were properly dealt with by the very kind of independent inquiry it sought through the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. 
In turning to the issue of David Baragwanath’s paper I point out that he raised two further important points. I say to members of the House that in dealing with an issue of this nature his paper is an important one to read. I know that Mr Brown was critical of the fact that I did not deal too deeply with the membership of the committee but rather went on to talk about the more general issues but this is probably the only time we can do so. It is actually the fundamental issues that we should spend the debating time of Parliament dealing with. In his paper David Baragwanath talked about the balance between protecting public safety the challenge of terrorism and at the same time protecting the rule of law and our fundamental freedoms. 
Further in the paper David Baragwanath makes another two points. The first is the role of civil society to properly examine measures undertaken by the legislature and the executive not just at the time but also on mature reflection. That is particularly important to do because let us be honest those pieces of legislation were passed under the pressure of events—the terrorist acts of 2001 and following—and it is right and proper that they should be carefully analysed. I know that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has done that very task. Dr Lockwood Smith was part of the select committee that undertook that careful examination and the committee made various recommendations. Of course it is one of the roles of university academics legal commentators and others also to undertake that careful analysis. That has also been done in other jurisdictions. 
The judge raised an interesting final point and that was the idea of redemption. It is not a term that one would normally think of in relation to terrorism but the truth is that yesterday’s terrorists can become today’s statesmen. Nelson Mandela is the most obvious example of that. I suggest that in more contemporary times this will have to be dealt with in relation to Israel Palestine and Iraq. The truth is that at some point Israel and Hamas will have to find a way to talk to each other because the alternative is actually just a continuation of violence. The British Government and the IRA were faced with precisely this dilemma a number of years ago and they came to the realisation that they had to move forward and talk and put down the gun. 
I might say that the situation also prevails in Iraq. These are perhaps personal comments. The coalition has won the war. Saddam Hussein was arrested in November 2003 out of the spider hole. He is being tried in a court as he should properly be. Surely there can hardly be a single Iraqi who would now wish to return to the days of Saddam. So the coalition achieved its goal of setting Iraq on the path of democracy. 
One of the things that I suggest now has to be done—and it is a role that New Zealand has within the United Nations—is to think how the current situation can be resolved and the role of the coalition in that. The truth is that the war against Saddam’s regime was won. Iraq is on the pathway to democracy. It had a huge turn-out in its recent elections and it is now time for it to work out its own democratic future and notwithstanding the current turmoil in that country I am sure that it can do so. 
I can see some people looking at me and wondering why I am raising this matter in the context of this debate. It is for this reason: the way in which democracies deal with global terrorism and its other effects tests the balance of public safety and liberty. It is the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee when dealing with issues around the Security Intelligence Service to also assure the New Zealand public that it has a complete and full understanding of that position. Maybe 43 minutes was a bit short—perhaps. 
I conclude on this point: this committee is a multiparty committee. It consists quite carefully of senior members. The New Zealand First Party might go on about Rodney Hide but I have certainly heard another member of Parliament make the same kind of outlandish allegations and that person is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Yet he has always been able to discharge his role on that committee properly. I do not think anyone has ever questioned his role on that committee. I was heartened by the final comments made by Mr Peter Brown when he said that New Zealand First members would give Mr Rodney Hide the chance to prove himself. The truth is that Mr Hide is a robust debater in this House. He uses the freedom of speech in this House. But I also believe that with 10 years’ experience he understands the importance of the role of protecting the critical balance between public safety and protecting our liberties. I guess the one thing we could say about Mr Hide more than we could about most people is that he is acutely conscious of protecting individual liberties and freedoms. That is the very raison d’être of his party. 
So I think that it was fair for Mr Brown to say that Mr Hide should have a chance to prove himself on the committee just as Winston Peters did—and certainly some of my colleagues questioned his appointment 3 years ago. I believe that Rodney Hide will also demonstrate that he is a proper person to discharge the responsibilities of the committee.