Hayes John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12812] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have an idea that it was Bertrand Russell who said something about people getting pleasure in two ways—either by getting pleasure or by trying to impose their authority and gain power. I keep thinking when I look at the way the votes have gone in this Chamber this afternoon—whereby we have 10 votes against the bill and everybody else voting for it—that there is something fundamentally wrong with those who are opposing this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. 
My colleague Wayne Mapp woke up this morning—or yesterday morning or the morning before—and he was listening to the radio. He heard the representatives of the Council of Trade Unions and all other manner of organisations opposing this bill. As it happened I thought to myself that I could have woken up this morning and felt that the Prime Minister was being a touch “Stalinesque” when she said: “I’m going to ban Guy Fawkes.” and last night was our Guy Fawkes Night. Whether she does that remains to be seen but there is a “Stalinesque” quality to that. There is a “Stalinesque” quality to the whole work-for-income scheme to supported families and to putting everybody on the State’s payroll. There is a “Stalinesque” element in the Green Party’s argument that we should be opposing this legislation. 
I am proud to support this legislation because my concern is for the community and the collective protection of the community. Whether or not we like it there are people who wish to commit terrorist acts. Despite the comments made by my colleague Keith Locke earlier today the reality is that there was an incident involving the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 when terrorists from another country infiltrated our border and got back through it again without being caught because we did not have the right rules in place to stop them. 
Hone Harawira 
: No; we let them go mate. 
JOHN HAYES 
: We did not have the right rules to stop them and I am going to come to the member shortly. We have to balance the rights of the bulk of the community against the rights of the individual. Although in an ideal world I would warmly support this legislation being implemented by our justice system the fact is—with a background in foreign affairs inevitably one has had some rubbing up against the intelligence infrastructure in this country and one knows—that the conjecture and the nature of that means that we cannot really expose that information to the court process because if we did we would end up not getting the information in the first place. 
So we have to rely on somebody and in our country the reality is that in our democracy we rely on the Prime Minister whoever he or she is and whichever party he or she comes from. The Prime Minister is ultimately the decider the arbitrator of the security apparatus in this country. Therefore we are comfortable with the fact that the Prime Minister should be adjudicating on these issues. 
When we come to the arguments advanced by the Maori Party members and setting into one parcel the race-based arguments they have advanced in this Chamber today I would like to talk to them a little bit about the United Nations. Whether or not we like it we are part of the collective nations of this world. We are a member of the United Nations along with a lot of other countries. And as my colleague Wayne Mapp says we are a member in good standing. 
One of the obligations and the benefits of belonging to the United Nations is the one bit of that entity that works: the Security Council. We can forget about most of the rest of the United Nations but the Security Council actually still works. It is the only part of the United Nations apparatus that still operates effectively with the possible exception of the World Bank and the World Food Programme. When the United Nations meets in the Security Council which contains a mix of core members who do not get voted in and out and other countries that do get voted in and out there is a balance in the process. Countries can talk to Security Council members. It is in that process that the resolutions defining those entities that are considered terrorists are made. When we look at the infrastructure of the United Nations it is the Security Council that listens to representations from a lot of communities around the world and the council has decided collectively on the list of people who go on the terrorist list. When that is done there is an obligation on this country in the form of a United Nations resolution that requires us to sign up to that. If we consider the case of South Africa the only reason we imposed sanctions on South Africa was because of the collective action of the Commonwealth to which we were similarly obliged to implement such resolutions. We had to do this as we have to in the case of the United Nations’ resolutions; we have no option but to sign up to this process. 
We are not like our colleagues and cousins in Australia—and there are almost a million New Zealanders there—because the Australian Government signed up to this more than 2 years ago. Our Government has been dragging its heels. It was only through our select committee process that we managed to discover this and expose the Government’s fragility for not acting on this issue. Furthermore the Government of Canada signed up to this some years ago and it has 50 people on its list. There are 88 on the list in Australia. What did we do? We did nothing. We sat on our hands. Is it because we have a small foreign ministry? I doubt it. Is it because money was in short supply? I doubt it. The problem was simply that the political will did not exist on that side of the Chamber to move it. The Labour Government has now moved and we commend it for that. We are absolutely in support of what it has done. 
Finally I would like to address some comments to my colleagues in the Maori Party. I feel deeply upset that they are tying this legislation to the activities that happened in the Tuhoe area. I do not know one way or another what is right and what is wrong and I venture to suggest that the Maori Party members do not know either. What is important is that every politician in this House whether from National Labour United Future New Zealand First Maori Party or ACT supports the legal process that applies in this country. It does not matter who we are or whatever. If there is an issue and one goes before the court and is found guilty one suffers the penalty. There has been a very good example of that in the Pacific in the last few days when a former Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands found himself behind bars for instituting a terrorist act in the Solomon Islands in the coup that overthrew Ulufa’alu and the events in the wake of that. 
It seems to me that all of us need to use a measure of common sense and judgment. I saw things in recent events that I did not particularly like but it is not for me to comment. My job—and I venture to suggest the job of the Maori Party members—is to hang in tough and to support due process in this country and then when that process is completed ride hard on whatever the decision is. If we do not do that our country has no future. I do not condone a separatist State here and I am disappointed by the separatist arguments and the race-based arguments I have heard in this Chamber this afternoon. 
Thank you Mr Chairperson. National is fully supportive of this bill and we look forward to its early passing.