Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12779] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is an important bill and I want to put a little bit of context around it. There has been a great deal of misinformation in the public sector I must admit aided and abetted by the Green Party and its member present who does know the truth of this based on what occurred in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I want to make the point crystal clear that this legislation did not come to this Parliament as a result of any recent events. I notice that members from the Maori Party are noting that. I want to make clear to them that at no stage was that ever conceived considered or thought an issue. 
There is a particular reason why we have to deal with this bill now which is that the UN designations of al-Qaeda and the like—and they are referred to in the Supplementary Order Papers—are all about to expire. These designations have to be renewed. New Zealand surely can hardly be in a situation of being a defaulter nation and of not enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions against al-Qaeda and its ilk. That is what has motivated the legislation at this particular time. There has to be a mechanism to renew what are literally hundreds of designations of al-Qaeda and its numerous offshoots and those persons associated with them all of which designations have gone through an exhaustive process in the United Nations Security Council. New Zealand has deep and profound obligations to implement those resolutions. I think that after a bit of reflection most parties—in fact I would like to think all parties—will recognise the importance of doing that. What is the alternative? Is the alternative that New Zealand will essentially opt out of the United Nations system—that we will somehow become a nation that is careless and that disregards our fundamental obligations to all other nations to deal with the most extreme forms of international terrorism? 
So faced with that situation Parliament has had to address it. The issue was how best to address the renewal of those designations. If we did nothing each and every one of them would have to go to a High Court for consideration. The problem with that process is that that is an adjudicative process and people make submissions and so forth. That is entirely inappropriate for UN-designated organisations. The international community including New Zealand has already made a decision about those groups and frankly there is no contest about them. So New Zealand has an obligation to continue those designations as in a sense an operation of Government. 
The issue that motivated the select committee in detail was the issue of how best to continue those designations. The legislation proposed that this should be done by the Prime Minister. I have to say—and members on the select committee know this—that that exercised us to a great degree. We were concerned about vesting all that power into a single individual and I amongst others said that we have to be able to find some method of ensuring there is at minimum a reporting to Parliament of that. The method that has been chosen is the use of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee has the most senior members of this Parliament on it drawn from across the House. I say that that committee probably should be reviewed. Its membership could be reviewed to make it perhaps a little more reflective but that is an issue for another time. The select committee suggested to the Government that there needed to be a change to provide a better level of accountability than the vesting of that decision-making power entirely into the person of the Prime Minister. The committee by consensus agreed that the Intelligence and Security Committee was the right way to do that at this stage and in the future maybe that could be strengthened further. 
But I want to come back to the very clear point that the legislation has nothing to do with the events that have occurred in recent weeks. The public of New Zealand needs to have that assurance. This legislation is entirely related to New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations charter. I would like to think that every political party understands those obligations. Yes they may have quibbles about details and issues of that kind. But surely no members of a political party are going to stand up in this Chamber today and say: “We should ignore the United Nations designations.” I would like to know that about any political party and in particular the Green Party and the Maori Party because I know they are interested in this legislation. Surely those members will not get up and say: “We are completely uninterested in what the United Nations does. We are completely uninterested in New Zealand’s responsibilities to the international community.” Frankly that would be extraordinary. If that is the proposition these members put forward to the public of New Zealand we would have to ask ourselves the basic question of whether they have earned the right in that situation to participate in future Governments of New Zealand. 
Surely it is a fundamental responsibility as a good international citizen—and New Zealand does take pride in being that—and surely it is one our fundamental obligations that we uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions. These resolutions have literally the force of law. They are not advisory and they are not just suggestions; they are obligations on members of the United Nations. They are not discretionary. So when the United Nations Security Council under chapter 7 makes a resolution that states: “These entities are international terrorists and States must deal with those entities.”—and in this instance it was actually about the use of finance and things of that nature by those organisations—New Zealand has a legal responsibility under international law to act. 
I want to say this directly to the two parties whose members have spoken most on this bill. The obligation that we implement United Nations Security Council resolutions that have mandatory force impinges on all parliamentarians. The alternative is international anarchy. I cannot believe that those parties would want that. 
The select committee took its responsibilities on this bill very very carefully. We had a wide-ranging discussion which included all members of the committee and we took on board suggestions from all members of the committee including those from the Green member Mr Keith Locke. His comments and views were not just ignored. Some of the points that he raised were taken on board including the need to have some level of accountability of the Prime Minister. At the present moment we have said that that accountability will come from the Intelligence and Security Committee. Mostly due to the force of time that was done. We do think that is an issue that needs to be looked at more deeply and we have made reference to that in the commentary on the bill. 
This legislation is serious stuff. It is amongst the most important things that this Parliament does. It is not a time and should not be a time to wrap some cheap opportunistic approach around this issue. I know that those parties have issues and I do understand those issues. Perhaps we will end up at least touching on them later in the debate. But let us not try to wrap this bill and our responsibilities under the United Nations Security Council in issues that have occurred this week. 
I want to make it very clear that National does support this legislation. We believe in a world where law prevails and where people have an assurance in their international travels and so forth that terrorists are being dealt with in a proper and lawful way. We support this bill because we think it upholds New Zealand’s responsibilities as an international citizen.