Street Maryan: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5745] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in favour of the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill which is in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham. I congratulate Dr Graham on bringing this legislation to the House. I will briefly talk about it and then talk about what we have just heard from National in response to it. 
For decades New Zealand has had a very strong tradition of moral foreign policy. We sent Fraser Colman on a frigate to Mururoa to observe and find out about the nuclear tests being conducted there. Our Dame Silvia Cartwright who is a retired judge is now working as a trial judge on the Cambodian War Crimes Tribunal. It is our Sir Kenneth Keith who has been taking the lead at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. We have never been afraid as a country to put up people of enormous competence to lead moral arguments on international law and issues of international justice. 
I commend Dr Graham for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. Parliament could do nothing more serious than to commit our citizens to wars or acts of aggression. It is positive that this legislation could give us grounds to determine whether it is legal whether it is in accordance with United Nations conventions and whether it is in accordance with some kind of moral principle underlying foreign policy. This kind of legislation could lead to that. 
I will never know whether this bill could be improved because National will vote against it. Dr Mapp said that this bill could be improved and that there are ways in which it could be amended. He tried to strike a position of defence of National’s view by saying that the bill is technically inadequate in some respects. But that is why we would send the bill to a select committee. The kind of leadership and approach that a New Zealand Parliament ought to be taking on principled grounds is being stymied by this National Government. This bill will not be given the chance for improvement or refinement whatever that might be. I am not in a position to know how it might be improved; I am not an international lawyer. But as a responsible member of this House I would like the chance to determine whether this legislation contributes to a principled position for New Zealand in the international community. 
I recall having my own bill about ethical trade rejected by this Government 2 weeks ago. Does this Government not realise that progress is made like this with bills like this? Progress is made little by little step by step treaty by treaty and clause by clause—that is how progress is achieved both domestically and internationally. This Government repeatedly refuses to allow us as a Parliament to investigate and interrogate legislation in order to see whether we together as a Parliament can advance New Zealand’s interests and the world’s interests as well. 
It seems to me that this legislation could do that. This legislation could provide some leadership to countries apart from our own that do not have a principled or legal position by which they might determine whether to commit their citizens to acts of aggression. It is a shame that this National Government on no principled ground that I could discern from either of the previous National speakers will prevent this legislation from being interrogated and developed further by sending it to a select committee. That is a shame.