Mapp Wayne: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Mapp Wayne: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2082] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this motion. There will be two debates on this matter today and I imagine that I will be speaking in both. The first point I want to make is that the Intelligence and Security Committee is one of Parliament’s most powerful committees so it properly consists of Parliament’s most senior members: those who are party leaders or who hold as in the case of Dr Cullen very senior office. Under MMP it is deliberately a multiparty committee and currently it covers—or will cover—four parties in Parliament. All but one of the members nominated served on the committee in the last Parliament. 
I note that Rodney Hide is new to the committee. He is there because he is the leader of the ACT party. He brings 10 years’ experience to the committee. The importance of that is that the committee is the legislature’s oversight guardian of our freedoms. It is the way the legislature checks on the executive and because it deals with sensitive issues it is critical that it have highly experienced members. The committee does not usually act in public or under the glare of television cameras—and frankly nor should it. It deals after all with sensitive information. But the committee is intended to give a clear signal to the country that executive action by the Government is subject to legislative oversight by the most senior members of Parliament. That alone serves as a check on the abuse of power. 
Events since 2001 have put rather more focus on the anti-terrorism laws and the role and powers of the committee. That no doubt is why this debate may take a little longer than it might otherwise have done. It is worth noting that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee deals with the legislation pertaining to terrorism as opposed to the operational aspects of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the communications service. 
I want to make some points that I may also make in my second speech. The purpose of the anti-terrorism legislation is to ensure a proper balance between protecting the community and preserving individual liberty. That is a very significant challenge in an era of terrorism because terrorism is not just any crime. The whole act of terrorism is intended to undermine our confidence in our own institutions and freedoms. No other criminal act has that particular intent. That is why terrorism has engaged the democratic nations in the way it has. We have made a clear distinction between the terrorist and what we may call the ordinary criminal and it is proper to do so because the ordinary criminal does not intend to overthrow our society and our values. 
Post-2001 we are no longer talking about what we may call warfare between States. Terrorists operate shadowy networks and are a threat to the whole system of international law and the protection of freedoms because they want to overthrow them. So contemporary terrorism is much harder to deal with than say the attack on the  
Rainbow Warrior 
. Once the French agents were caught and tried the French Government—after a bit of delay—acknowledged its responsibilities and accepted that it was fully culpable and knew the attack was wrong. Has anyone ever heard a terrorist organisation do that? That is not the modus operandi of such organisations and that is why terrorism is such a difficult challenge to deal with. 
How we as a nation deal with the global challenge of terrorism is a measure of how we value our own liberties and freedoms.I refer the House to a paper by Justice Baragwanath entitled  
Liberty and Justice in the Face of Terrorist Threats to Society 
. It superbly illustrates the dilemmas. The paper I believe demonstrates why Justice Baragwanath is rightly regarded as one of New Zealand’s most distinguished legal minds. He sets out very clearly how terrorism challenges modern democracies. 
For instance Justice Baragwanath notes that conventional criminal law will not always be enough to deal with the terrorist—that sometimes special powers are necessary. I am sure that the Green Party member will dispute that but he needs to read that paper and understand why Justice Baragwanath draws that point. The judge makes a clear distinction in his paper from the views of Auckland University lecturer Dr Paul Buchanan who has taken an absolutist view that the criminal law is always enough. Well the truth is that it is not. That is why this Parliament very carefully passed in compliance with United Nations resolutions the legislation dealing with terrorism. 
The judge in his paper contrasts the law of New Zealand with that of the United Kingdom. He says that New Zealand has struck a more appropriate balance than the United Kingdom between protecting its freedoms and being able to deal with terrorists. New Zealand has not been a prime target as yet since 2001 for terrorism. It is not surprising that countries where that has happened Britain Australia and the United States will strike the balance a little differently from New Zealand. Justice Baragwanath treats that issue solely as a jurist. His concern of course is to ensure that the rule of law is observed and that liberty is always protected. That is after all one of the fundamental reasons why we have an independent judiciary. 
But the executive and the legislature have quite a different role from that of the judiciary. We have to often under the urgent pressure of events deal with the overall safety of society. Every member in this House I believe is imbued with the ideas of liberty and democracy. It is after all one of the foundations of our country. It is one of the reasons why we come to Parliament in the first place. When we are passing legislation we always have to keep those values uppermost because they can disappear by neglect. 
But I make this point. If we did have a terrorist event and 20 people were killed for instance would we reject out of hand the notion that we should be able to detain people for 48 hours who are suspected of involvement in terrorism even if they could not be immediately charged? Under our current law we cannot do that. But in Britain and in Australia they can be detained. Why? Those countries face a different threat from New Zealand’s. Are their fundamental values and liberties seriously questioned by that fact? I suggest they are not. 
I conclude this debate by saying that the Intelligence and Security Committee and its membership are charged with protecting our liberties. The country looks to those members to have that uppermost in their minds. They are deliberately chosen as senior members of this Parliament. They are there to protect our freedoms but at the same time to defend public safety—to ensure that we are safe. The experience certainly in my time in the House is that the committee has always satisfactorily fulfilled that goal and I am sure it will in the future.