Cosgrove Clayton: InquiryInquiries — Inquiry into New Zealand's Relationship with Latin America Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: InquiryInquiries — Inquiry into New Zealand's Relationship with Latin America Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1868] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I rise to support the report. It is a pity that Mr Hayes does not get another shot because after listening to that speech I think it is obvious to most people here that the trade job in the National Party must be up for grabs again. It was Mr Hayes versus Mr Groser—two diametrically opposed speeches. There was a time I recall in this Parliament—before I got here as an observer—that trade was considered a bipartisan neutral zone whereby we were all on the same team. Mr Groser performed well and adhered to that tradition. He spent a lot of time talking about himself but I suppose that is the nature of new MPs. But apart from that he observed the protocol. 
Then Mr Hayes got up. He is another former diplomat with a similar lineage but maybe not with the stature of Mr Groser. He gave a bizarre speech. I ought to say to new members that there is an old tenet in Parliament—and I think it goes across parties—that one stands by one’s friends in the party. That means that one should look at the report and work out that there are a few mates from the same team on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—that is Messrs Carter Power and the former trade Minister Lockwood Smith—who all unanimously supported the inquiry report. 
Then on looking a wee bit closer at the report we should ask whether there was a dissenter to the inquiry report. Was there a rogue in the National Party? Was there a maverick? Did the National Party put in a minority report for instance? If we look through the report for it—and for the benefit of Mr Hayes it is on page 27; “Minority View” it is called to save any confusion—we realise that the Greens and the Progressives put in a minority report. But there was no minority report from the National Party. 
The report has some interesting recommendations like the one on page 9. The committee recommended unanimously—Mr Hayes might be able to spell that word—“That New Zealand representation in Latin America should be supplemented beyond existing New Zealand embassies in Brasilia Buenos Aires Mexico City and Santiago by the establishment of an additional post possibly in Peru in the next 5 years.” That is amazing because Mr Hayes bagged the idea of giving aid to Latin America and he said something about doing a tango. I do not know what he did when he was a diplomat but it sounds interesting—I do not know whether that happened during working hours. Mr Hayes said that Latin America was unimportant. 
The question I have—and Mr Groser as a former diplomat might be able to assist us—is which speech we send out on the cables to the ambassadors. Do we send out the speech stating the National Party unanimously supported the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with Latin America—and that it was not a bad place that it was worth trading with and that we should support it? Or do we send out Mr Groser’s very self-effacing and humble speech which supported trade with Latin America and which told us of Mr Groser’s lengthy experience in supporting and growing trade in Latin America? Or we have option C— 
Darren Hughes 
: A menu! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—the menu—in which a former diplomat in the National Party bagged the whole thing. And he bagged his mates including Dr Smith a former trade Minister. I wonder whether Dr Smith is listening to this debate. I suspect we can hear the cutlass being sharpened—the bacon slicer is on its way for the new member Mr Hayes. I am sure Mr Hayes is being called into the whips’ office now. The experienced Mrs Tolley may be able to call him in later on point the finger and tell him that it is inappropriate to bag a report that his mates in the National Party support. 
I just wonder not being a diplomat— 
Hon Members 
: That’s true! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleagues say I will never be accused of being a diplomat but I wonder just what sort of a diplomat Mr Hayes was. Did he represent New Zealand’s foreign policy or did he make it up? Tonight we have heard three options from the National Party. We still do not know what its Latin American trade policy is—we have no idea. It was gone by lunchtime or teatime; I do not know. I would like to invite the next National speaker—I suspect it may be Mr Finlayson—to get up and clarify this monumental moment we have here. 
If the ambassadors from Latin America are listening tonight I tell them not to take fright or to get confused: the National Party is not in Government. We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs—and thank God we have foreign ministry officials too—who will be cringing tonight if they are sitting at their desks and listening to Opposition members. I am sure Mr Groser will agree with me that embassies and ambassadors do listen to this stuff—even to Opposition members now and again once or twice and especially to those with the lineage and experience of perhaps Mr Groser and Mr Hayes. They actually take note of speeches that are made by the learned gentlemen and women opposite now and again—maybe not Dr Brash’s speeches but maybe Mr Groser’s. I can imagine the ambassadors sitting around the banquet table tonight by candlelight shaking their heads and trying to work out whether what they have heard from the National Party is true—all three versions of it—and wondering what the National Party’s foreign policy is. 
I can see Mr McCully grinding his teeth to stumps trying to work out how to explain to our Latin American diplomat friends what the National Party position is when he goes to the next set of diplomatic missions down the road. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Smith that he has gone troppo and he can taihoa. The National Party’s position is a bit like Nick Smith on benzylpiperazine or speed or something—it wobbles all over the place. It is a bit like Nick Smith head-butting windows; it is a strange sight to see. 
I am astounded tonight. I say to Mr Hayes that we have all made mistakes—I made plenty when I was a new member—but there is a fundamental rule in Parliament: members come into Parliament with a political party and it often helps their career prospects if they actually stick with that party. It also helps if they support the people who write the reports and who vote for their political party when it is unanimously in support of those reports. It also helps if members read the damn thing before they get up to speak.