Graham Kennedy: Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8488] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I am most grateful to follow Mr McClay because I think I will not be able to beat him in his record. I do not plan to spend a long time but I want to rise and I take pleasure in doing so to express the Green Party’s support for the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill as we have expressed support from the beginning in the first reading and during the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration of the bill. To us as has been identified the bill is a very encouraging example of cross-party cooperation in the committee. I would like to pay tribute again to John Hayes and Jacqui Dean for their chairmanship and for that matter to officials who gave us a lot of support and advice. 
I think we can take particular pride in achieving with good accord the final outcome of the clause relating to divestment in cluster munitions. It was not the easiest thing to do and I want to pay tribute to Maryan Street for her leadership in that respect and to Todd McClay for his constructive comments as well. 
That said as has been noted I think it is almost a love fest tonight. Peace is breaking out around the House. I do not think we should get too carried away by this. Peace has not broken out around the world and I do not think we want to engage in over-self-congratulations on this either in the House or elsewhere. There are a couple of comments I make in passing. I touched on one or two in the first reading and I will very quickly repeat them. Firstly in the future when it comes to issues pertaining to the use of force or of banned weaponry we need to look at the role of the Attorney-General to whom is given the empowerment to give consent to any prosecution. We do not have much time and I do not wish to pursue this issue too far because I was mindful of the time constraints and the political objective of getting a quick ratification here but I think it is a fundamental constitutional issue that we need to explore if not ideally in a generic sense then in a committee pertaining to another treaty. 
Secondly as I mentioned there is the whole question of the withdrawal clause that members will find in the convention itself I think in article 20. I believe that in the current age it is an outmoded notion that States entering this kind of treaty banning weapons that violate such fundamental notions of human rights should be seen as ius cogens and peremptory norm. There should be no withdrawal from those. But that said we are happy to support it. I have heard some comment that we in New Zealand are leading the way in this. Again I think it is a form of moderate self-delusion to think that we have it perfect in our foreign policy around the world. It is one thing to be in a group that is leading on this issue but let us recognise that all we are doing here is something that we do elsewhere; that is to find that the international community has created new forms of weaponry and then in a fit of contrition find they are so inhumane that we proceed to ban them. That is not a massive step forward in the broader sweep of human history. It is simply a form of clearing away problems that we create for ourselves. 
So we do not need to get too carried away by that. Without wanting to strike too sour a note I think we need to be a little more sober about where we fit in the world in terms of our contribution to international security. We created a nuclear weapon-free-zone yet in certain votes we continue to support nuclear deterrents at the United Nations. We endorse the International Criminal Court and look at the issue of aggression coming down the track in the court but we are not prepared to take a leadership role in importing it into our national legislation in advance or possibly even at all. We commit ourselves to an aid target of 0.7 percent but after 30 years we are battling to achieve half of that target. We commit to the International Criminal Court by way of universal jurisdiction to apply to any person on the planet who has violated laws by way of war crimes or crimes against humanity but if one of the suspects sets foot in New Zealand we tend to get cold feet in terms of how we proceed in that respect. 
I am not wishing to unduly put down this nation or our foreign policy; I think we can be decently proud of it. I do take issue with pretending we punch above our weight and that we are a model United Nations citizen that everyone else aspires to be because that is patently not the case. I do not intend it to be a sour note at this point of adopting the resolution; I just think we need to be a little bit more sober about our own self-appreciation of our foreign policy. With those self-admonitory comments I certainly reiterate the support of the Green Party to adopt this legislation. Thank you.