Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12804] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to reflect on the history of this legislation because I think it is relevant when we consider the tone and tenor of the debate today. Of course this legislation has its origins in September 11. That is why the Terrorism Suppression Act came into being. I note that one particular party in this Parliament—a party that does not exist any more the Alliance—broke apart on that legislation. I guess that the remnants the wreckage of that party are still here. I was listening to the radio this morning as I do from time to time and I heard that there are trade unions that are proud that they are staunch against the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. They claimed that the Law Society was against it in 2002 which is not actually true in fact. Hearing that reminded me of the irredentist left who see this as a reflexive approach. With things as drastic as September 11 when thousands and thousands of people were killed even then the irredentist left could not bring itself to act internationally to deal with it. One particular political party fell apart on that very issue. 
The Green Party I guess we would have to say has been consistent. Right from the get-go it has opposed any and every legal measure to deal with terrorism that arose out of September 11 and al-Qaeda. Those on the left have all sorts of pettifogging legal justifications for that. But we have to look more deeply do we not and we have to ask ourselves why they would always oppose anything to do with dealing with terrorism and September 11. Ironically today is the very first time that I have not heard the Green Party vote against something around this legislation and that was the schedules. Does that mean that the Green members for a change support the schedules? Realistically probably not because their pattern is against this. So we have in this Parliament two parties one of which—the Green Party—is always opposed no matter what because that is basic to its anti-Americanism. Let us be honest about this. The Greens are fundamentally opposed to the United States and whenever they get the opportunity they vote against anything that has anything at all to do with the United States even though thousands and thousands of innocent people were killed in September 11. 
We have to give Jim Anderton some credit on this—actually a good deal of credit. He knew on that day what he had to do. He was prepared to take the risk in the full knowledge that the irredentist left of his party would depart—and it did—and he remained strong right through that process. The Green Party interestingly has taken completely the opposite view. Today we see the Maori Party members—for somewhat different reasons I admit—also opposing the legislation. I wonder whether Mr Hone Harawira’s colleagues would take quite the same view had the events of the last few weeks not happened—Mr Hone Harawira would I guess but I wonder about his colleagues. 
I mention that history because it is actually why this bill is here today. That is why we are debating this bill today. It is not about events that have occurred in the last 3 weeks. It is about New Zealand’s international responsibilities in supporting the mandatory parts of the United Nations and that is an important legal point that I bring to the Committee. Some parts of the United Nations’ activities are essentially discretionary. Other parts are mandatory—the parts that deal with the Security Council. The Security Council has membership from literally across the globe and we know that the member countries do not always see eye to eye but on this particular issue—the need to deal with terrorism particularly by al-Qaeda—there is a unified international viewpoint. That is what we are dealing with today fundamentally. 
National has been totally consistent on this. We take seriously our responsibilities as part of the international community. We know that much of the way to deal with international terrorism is through the proper framework of law and justice. If political parties cannot support those fundamentals we have to ask ourselves whether they even support the rule of law. I was amazed to hear one particular member today in the House—Mr Hone Harawira—saying he does not support the rule of law. Well we have to ask ourselves why he is here. Is he not better outside protesting where he obviously feels somewhat more comfortable? I just make that point. Supporting the rule of law irrespective— 
Hone Harawira 
: Thousands of your wife’s relations put me here. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is true I would have to concede. I know the origins of the Maori Party but surely of all parties because of its belief on the foreshore and seabed it actually does want the rule of law. That was the motivating event—they saw the Government perhaps not supporting the rule of law. I would have to say that irrespective of particular views the rule of law matters and on this issue that is what we are actually debating today. Do we support the rule of law or not? I think the answer is pretty clear. National does support the rule of law. We take our responsibilities as international citizens seriously and that ultimately is the only way we are going to deal with the scourge of international terrorism.