Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Paragraph 5.77 of the Cabinet Manual describes a treaty as a written agreement between states or international organisations that is governed by international law." The current steps to the international treaty process include submission to Cabinet with an NIA—national interest analysis—before presentation to the House. It is then referred to a select committee the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee referred back to the House plus or minus recommendations and then ratified by the executive. The first point is that the current treaty examination process was agreed in a bipartisan fashion several years ago—bipartisan agreement. Secondly there are already existing opportunities for the House to approve a treaty on the basis that most treaties require enabling legislation which must progress through the standard legislative programme and get approval from the House. In fact if we look at the recent treaties—maybe we will just go to the first one that is in the online system the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States on technology safeguards. If we look at this we can see that the member Fletcher Tabuteau and his party had an impact and offered a view on the treaty through the enabling legislation. In fact if we look at the member's contribution on the first reading debate of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and look at his last sentence in that first reading debate he says the following: "I will acknowledge that this is an amazing opportunity for New Zealand and I do look forward to the select committee process and further contributions on this legislation in the House."—further contributions. The member had a say; his party had a say. I think even more compelling is the fact that a member's bill of exactly this type the International Treaties Bill was introduced in 2000 by Green MP Keith Locke. This was forwarded to the select committee and in 2001 it was resoundingly turned down. If we pull that select committee report who do we see on the committee? Ron Mark from New Zealand First. On that select committee Ron Mark from New Zealand First turned that bill down—turned this policy down. In fact if we look at what New Zealand First said in the second reading debate on that bill which did not progress they said the following and I read from the document. "New Zealand First will not support the continuation of this bill. … I was interested in the submission made by the New Zealand Law Society on this bill. The Law Society indicated it does not support such a revolutionary approach as that set out in the bill. … The main reason that I oppose this bill is as much from the practicalities that are involved as from anything else." The last paragraph of the second reading debate speech from New Zealand First states this—remember this is 2001—"The suggestion that more work should be given to this House when this minority Labour Government cannot currently run the Order Paper beggars imagination. New Zealand First cannot possibly support this legislation". In conclusion (1) the current treaty examination process was arrived at in bipartisan fashion (2) the inevitable enabling legislation means the House gets to indirectly vote on treaties and (3) New Zealand First made the correct decision and has not supported this in the past. I like this member and I commend him for the work he has done to get this bill to this point. I despair though for his party which has left him hung out to dry. It knew that it had turned this down recently and it did not let the member know. It let him proceed with this and hung him out to dry and I am very sorry for that—very sorry for Mr Tabuteau whom as I say I like and I think has done good work. For this and any number of reasons I cannot support this bill any further. Thank you."