Mapp Wayne: Third Readings 
Mapp Wayne: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9378] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports the legislation soon to be Acts and we recognise that it does represent New Zealand adopting a whole network of conventions. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade noted earlier there are 12 of them. I appreciate that some people do have concerns about networks of conventions but I want to put on record that as a nation we do make common cause with the international community in this. In many respects the United Nations still represents the only effective mechanism whereby the community of nations can come together to represent its abhorrence against international terrorism and do it by conventions drafted by the most learned international lawyers and specialists in the world. It is right that New Zealand does adopt those conventions. 
I also want to put on record that I found it truly extraordinary that earlier this evening the Green Party could vote for the two conventions in the schedule but not do anything that would enable them to become part of the domestic law of New Zealand. If Mr Locke had understood our constitutional framework he would appreciate that one has to vote for the domestic legislation represented by Part 2 in order for the international conventions to have any effect whatsoever. 
I also want to refer to the fact that very recently the leaders of the Asia-Pacific nations at the APEC conference recognised the linkage between defeating terrorism and economic prosperity. The reality is that liberty and prosperity cannot thrive in a climate of fear. The objective of the terrorist is to have ordinary citizens communities and nations under the yoke of fear. It is a terrorist’s desire that doing so would create a climate of fear and repression. That does impose a challenge to democratic countries to find that balance between protecting our freedoms through defeating terrorism—and I stress that we have to defeat terrorism to protect our freedoms—but at the same time not legislating away those very freedoms that are the reason we are trying to defeat terrorism. I believe that the legislation does not do that and that the fears raised by the opponents of the legislation are fundamentally misplaced. They read into the motivations of our community the police the courts and this Parliament that they are agents of repression out to deny the liberty of subjects rather than serving the interests of our community and I have to say that is such a flawed approach. 
 National does believe that issues of this nature should be done on a bipartisan basis. It is important that Parliament as a whole expresses our defence of our basic freedoms. Those are things that should unite the parties across the House—the fundamentals of our society—and on those kinds of issues there should be an overwhelming position of support. On some provisions at least one would think that there would be unanimous consent. Even if there are some questions people should be able to put those aside and recognise the bigger goal. 
I also say that defeating terrorism requires that we work with friends and allies. I acknowledge that the Government has done much of that but I also say that there are caveats. This is a Government that still believes—and has said so through the Prime Minister—that there is a benign strategic environment. That is false. The strategic environment is not benign. It does not matter if Government members say: “Oh we mean it at a State level.” I ask Government members what they think was happening in the Solomons. Was that just a few people off to one side or was the very integrity of the State of the Solomons at risk? Surely they would recognise that it was. Similarly in relation to Afghanistan the very integrity of the State was at risk. The issue of a benign strategic environment is not just about a few extreme elements; it is about the fabric of unstable States threatening other nations. 
It is necessary that we look at the tools we have to defeat terrorism. I refer to our Defence Force which is not properly equipped. It is all very well for the Government to say: “What about when National was in office during those 9 years? You didn’t do enough.” The first thing members should recollect is that the beginning of the National Government represented the end of the cold war. Every single Western nation—in fact probably every nation—reduced defence expenditure during that period. Most nations then learnt the lesson that they had gone too far so by 1997-98 there was a build back. We are different; we have not done that. Our defence expenditure is now only 1 percent of gross domestic product and going down. 
Members on the Government side of the House may say that we are still doing enough but let me put these facts to them. Earlier this year the Government deployed the two Anzac frigates to the Gulf of Oman. We all saw the photographs on television of the two frigates side by side in the Gulf of Oman. That meant that there were no frigates at all in New Zealand. The point of that is that the deployment was about defeating terrorism and we denuded New Zealand. Surely a sensible Government would have taken some lessons from that and realised that it had gone too far; that our defence assessments of 1999-2000 were done in a different environment and we have to spend more. The Army is a similar case. Is a two-battalion Army which was perhaps realistic in the 1990s realistic today given the pressure on our defence forces? 
We do say on our side of the House that passing the legislation is a good thing—we need it—but we also have to take the practical steps to build our defence forces so that we can work effectively in cooperation with long-standing friends and allies—Australia the United States and Britain—and so that we can make the proper contribution. Far too many people are saying that we do not. 
I close on one point. Why has the Government not designated Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation when Australia has done so? Why have our two countries on something as fundamental as who is a terrorist taken different paths? So I want to say yes the legislation is good but we do have serious caveats and things of that nature. The designations and the state of our defence forces say there is a good deal more that has to be done if the Government is serious about defeating terrorism in concert with friends and allies. We look forward to when there can be a bipartisan approach on those things as well.