Mapp Wayne: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20123] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is noteworthy is it not that we have had one call by the Green member who I guess would even be proud to be called a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui and we saw another person in this Chamber Mr Robson seeking the call—also a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui. 
I want to raise this issue; after all Mr Locke put the issue into debate. This bill is about whether this nation is serious about dealing with terrorism. I know that Mr Franks for instance would say that his concern about the bill is that it is actually too weak on terrorism. He raises something that somewhat troubles me about the ACT approach which is their constant criticism of the UN. In the area of terrorism UN conventions are a part of the process of countries working together to deal with the issues. 
This bill does give powers to the Minister to revoke or withdraw the passports of those people who are a threat to national security. Essentially that can be done in two ways; firstly to stop a person from travelling overseas simply by the withdrawing of a passport; and secondly perhaps somewhat more broadly to revoke the granting of a passport gained through fraud. 
It is very important that we have those powers. We are in dangerous times. One has only to see that trial in Britain where a murderer was convicted of numerous terrorist offences of putting not just the one person whom a murderer would normally assail—a family member or someone—but the whole community at risk. That person wanted to kill hundreds of people—poisoning them by smearing door handles and the like—on a completely terroristic basis. He was indifferent as to who would be caught by that; he wanted people to die. That is the definition of terrorism. Surely it is right that this country takes serious action to stop that sort of thing. That is why National is supporting this part of the bill. We are determined to show we are serious about standing up for our freedoms and our values alongside other countries that will do likewise. 
The members who are voting against this seem to be completely unaware of the democratic and judicial protections built within the legislation. A lot of work was put into this. This is not a situation where the Minister has absolute control. There is the ability to appeal to the High Court. That is legitimate and proper. In the traditions of democracy—of a country that does respect the law—we do provide those protections. But as a nation we are also determined—and National always stands very proudly for this—to protect our freedoms our heritage and our nation against those who would wreak havoc against them. Mr Locke and Mr Robson by their votes would seem to be heedless and careless of this. They would give succour and comfort to the terrorist. They will get up and deny that but the reality is that that is exactly what they do by opposing these provisions. 
I just want to say this about Mr Zaoui: he is a man who was found guilty by the court of appeal in Belgium a democratic country of aiding and abetting terrorists—people who had bombs guns money and passports which are the very things one expects to find terrorists with. That is the kind of person whom Mr Zaoui associates with. The judge said that Mr Zaoui was a person who led an unacceptably clandestine life. What do terrorists do? That is the kind of life they lead. The judge also said that he provided moral succour to those terrorists. We do not want people like that—[ 
Interruption 
] I want to complete this point. It is important because basic values of our country are at stake. 
From time to time in our nation we are called on to be judged. Are we prepared to stand up against tyranny? Are we prepared to stand up against threats to our livelihood and threats to our way of life? People are judged. The public judge members of this Parliament by the way they act on those fundamental issues. I believe that the vast majority of members will vote for Part 2. They will do so irrespective of what their party identification might be because there are some foundation principles in our country; they are a respect for freedom and democracy and a stand against those who would attack those values. 
We do have to give our Government the powers to deal with those people. I am appalled to hear people say they would not do that and who cannot even recognise the protections that are built into the legislation such as the independent review from the High Court. There will be an election in a few months’ time. Members will be judged by their actions. They will be judged as to whether they stood up for our country when there was a clear and present danger to it.