Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4620] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Minister’s exposition on and explanation of the bill is certainly laudable. He has thoroughly gone through all the tenets of the international fabric of law that protects our citizens from terrorism. I guess that reflects the whole tone of this Government does it not? It places absolute confidence in the fabric of international law as being the sole means of our protection. That is how it seems to me. The Government will always see the United Nations rubric as the altar of excellence and believe that all pronouncements from there must be obeyed implicitly and explicitly and that New Zealand can never exercise independent judgment. Yet anyone who has any knowledge of international law will know that it is an incomplete and an imperfect system. There is no global police force. Nation States individually and collectively have to enforce international law—and there is some recognition of that on the Minister’s part. 
Our dilemma is that when faced with the great challenges of our time this Government is unable to see clearly where our interests lie. It puts its complete faith in the network—important though it is—of international treaties but will not do the heavy lifting along with our friends and allies that is needed to defeat the centres and sources of terrorism. We have heard in this House of the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom. We understand that; it is important. That was an example of New Zealand working with our friends and allies but naturally it had to be under UN authorisation—as indeed this whole bill is about implementing international conventions. But I will ask some fundamental questions of the Government. Does the Government place all its faith in the network of international conventions to secure our freedom or should we work alongside like-minded allies as the final protectors of the law to do so? We are talking about the final protectors of our freedoms. 
I say that when faced with that clear choice—and we have been faced with it over the last few months—we need to understand where our protection ultimately lies. It does not lie solely and completely with the United Nations; that would have to be a truly false hope given the state of the world today. We have seen—and it is right for me to talk about—the importance of the coalition that is currently defeating terrorism which is one— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill please. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I appreciate the importance of the bill and this is actually a discussion that is related to the bill. The bill sits in a context and that context is about States working together to defeat terrorism. But New Zealand at this stage has opted out of doing that. We have heard our Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no problem about using some arguments as the member has been doing up to now but this debate is not a general discussion of foreign policy. The question in this debate is that this bill be now read a first time. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Indeed it is about the bill on counter-terrorism. That is why the diplomatic efforts that the New Zealand Government makes are so central and so crucial to what this bill is about. 
I say that when a Prime Minister says that we prefer someone else to be the President of the United States other than the duly elected President then a gross breach of diplomatic etiquette has been made. The whole point of this bill is to support and defend a fabric of relationships and conventions. So when the Government cannot even understand that under international law countries are supposed to respect the decisions that other countries freely make how can we then trust the faith that this Government puts in this bill? I appreciate your injunction to stick closely to this bill Mr Speaker and I will but that matter is a key issue that confronts this nation. 
Mark Peck 
: What are you saying? Tell us what you’re saying. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I will answer that interjection because I believe that is my right having been challenged. The member asked me what I am saying. I am saying our Government has turned its back on our traditional friends and allies—the true ultimate ability for New Zealand to defend itself and its interests—and has placed all its faith in a UN system of protection. That is wrong and this nation will pay for it because that is not the way to deal with security matters. So in answer to Mr Peck that is specifically and clearly what I am saying. 
More to the point I say that if the Prime Minister cannot understand that she is supposed to recognise the duly elected President of the United States this nation will suffer badly because of that. Mr Peck knows that which is why he asked that question; he wants that matter to be put on the record. That is apparently what he wants; he wants that to be put on the record. So is that a kind of betrayal by Mr Peck of his own leader? One has to ask that question. 
I accept that the measures in this bill are important naturally. Obviously New Zealand has a responsibility to work in the United Nations to implement counter-terrorism measures. I commend the Government for its work in Afghanistan on Operation Enduring Freedom. But I say defeating terrorism and its source cannot lie solely in supporting international conventions. That is where the Government has made such a serious mistake in its foreign policy and this country will suffer for it. 
I have read this bill carefully and I note that one of the key provisions is about the trafficking in nuclear material. Although I see it as important that New Zealand does implement these conventions I guess in reality New Zealand will not be particularly affected by that issue. I have noticed also the amendments to the Crimes Act. 
But I just say in conclusion that I taught international law for a number of years. While I understand its importance in the international framework I also understand it is an imperfect system. There is no global police force. The enforcement of international law actually depends on nation States lending their sovereign forces to implement the principles of law. Today we are seeing a coalition of our most trusted friends and allies doing precisely that in Iraq. New Zealand is not there. We will pay a price for that because we have said we put all our belief in the United Nations. 
I just want to make a final point— 
Jill Pettis 
: Dead sons are an awful price too. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No one has suggested that— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What’s your policy. What’re your underlying principles? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The ethical issue is that international law has to be defended by States willing to work together and New Zealand opted out of that 2 weeks ago. We will pay a price for that with our friends for a long time.