Mapp Wayne: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mapp Wayne: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The National Party of course is supporting the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. We recognise that this is an important update of New Zealand’s armed forces law. 
I want to reflect on the unusual coincidence today. Earlier in the day we were talking about the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and I want to touch on that briefly. Later we dealt with the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and now we are dealing with this legislation. They are all about the rights of citizens in each and every case. 
One of the things that concerns me is some of the quite extraordinary statements made in the House today by some members of political parties who should know better. They have sort of confused if I can put it that way genuine intent around issues of Maori self-determination and so forth with actions of the legislature today that actually deal with international terrorism. 
I want to reflect on the very high level of threshold that international terrorism must meet. These are the issues that our armed forces are dealing with overseas—in Afghanistan at this time and elsewhere. Indeed Corporal Willie Apiata got a Victoria Cross in relation to New Zealand’s operations in Afghanistan which were all about international terrorism. I say to the Maori Party the Green Party and to my surprise I must say the ACT party that the legislation on terrorism that was debated today was actually about international terrorism. It was about designating groups that the United Nations by unanimous consent had designated as international terrorism organisations. No country including Iran dissented from the categorisation of those entities as international terrorism organisations. To find that parties in this Parliament today are essentially saying they want New Zealand to opt out of our international obligations which were agreed to by virtually every State on the planet beggars belief. 
When I hear Mr Hide declare that the United Nations’ designation of these entities as terrorists—the very people who committed the acts on September 11—was some kind of fascist legislation I think it beggars belief. That speech has to be one of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever heard in this House on an issue on which we expect people to lift themselves up a bit expect people to take their role as legislators a little more seriously. I sort of have an understanding I think of the New Zealand Maori Party which has deep-seated issues that arise from the Tuhoe people and their very particular history in New Zealand extending over 100 years and involving the confiscation line. Clearly there are issues of sensitivity around that and I well understand that. But we have to remind ourselves that fundamentally there was not a conspiracy no more so than it was a conspiracy that we ended up debating today these three pieces of legislation. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill and the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill are not part of some sort of perfect storm of conspiracy; they just happened to arrive in Parliament all precisely at the same time. 
I really do ask members of Parliament to lift their sights and take these issues a little bit more seriously. I know that the smaller parties have particular issues and objectives but surely they must recognise that New Zealand as a democratic country in the family of nations and as an ardent member of the United Nations has responsibilities under the United Nations when it comes to international terrorism. Surely those parties recognise that reality. I ask them to show some recognition of that reality if not in their votes then at least in some of the language they use. 
Turning specifically to the legislation arising from the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee worked long and hard on it and I think that would be conceded by members of that committee. We knew we had a once-in-a-generation chance to get it right and we were concerned to ensure that individual service people—men and women deployed overseas in particular but also in New Zealand—had full access to their civil rights. That means putting in place a modern judicial system. I think New Zealand as a nation has been very careful to ensure that those rights are fully protected so that for instance future courts martial will look like proper courts of law. I would have to say that in the past they did not always meet those thresholds. 
I see Ron Mark who had long and deep experience in the military acknowledging that point. He made some very pertinent points I must say during the Committee stage on how rights have been ridden roughshod over and people have been effectively required I would go so far as to say to plead guilty to things they did not do. One of the important points of proper procedure is that people’s substantive rights actually are protected. 
I come back to the issue that we were discussing earlier today—the importance of procedure in protecting substantive rights. The United Kingdom Australia and the United States—admittedly countries much closer to the sources of terrorism—have changed the basic procedural rights of their citizens. The fundamental change that they have made has been to give the authorities—particularly the police—the ability to question people before they are charged. They can haul them in as suspects and detain them for a lengthy period of time and it is not just to give them lunch; it is to question them intensively. We have seen examples of the nature of that questioning. It can be extraordinarily coercive. How can substantive rights be protected when we ride roughshod over procedural rights? 
I said earlier that the fundamental rights of New Zealanders are protected that the police cannot arrest people without charge—and a charge means that people have to be brought before a court and the charge has to relate to a particular offence in a statute. That is a huge protection that all New Zealanders have and at no stage has this Parliament or any political party ever given even a thought to infringing those basic rights. So the whole point of this legislation is to protect the procedural rights of service people be they in summary charges or in court martials because as a very wise person in this Parliament said—a person who has deep experience of international negotiations—arguments about procedure are actually arguments about substance and if we take the time and trouble to protect procedural rights then we actually protect people’s substantive rights. 
We have done that in the terrorism suppression legislation and I want the smaller parties to recognise that reality. We have tonight literally repealed sedition laws in order to protect people’s rights. And today I am pleased to say that the National Party is taking its part and its role in protecting the procedural rights of service people so that their substantive rights are preserved for at least another generation. I believe that this legislation will give our service people whether serving in New Zealand or abroad—including those dealing with terrorists who attack the very foundations of our democratic society—the rights that they are actually defending.