Smith Murray: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Murray: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3599] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This bill raises an issue of major constitutional significance: the respective roles of the executive and the legislative wings of Parliament. It is not surprising therefore that the bill has been before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade committee for a period of over 2 years has been given substantial consideration and has come back to the House for several debates during that time. There were no United Future members on the select committee that considered the bill and it is therefore appropriate that United Future commends the members of the select committee for the thorough work that they have done in looking at this bill with diligence and in looking at the broader issues it has raised. They did not just confine themselves to the limited provisions of the bill but also looked at the wider issues of the relationship between the executive and the legislative wings in so far as that relates to the approval of international treaties by New Zealand.  
Under the Westminster democratic system this legislation would constitute a radical departure from the longstanding constitutional convention that gives the executive the sole prerogative independent of the legislative wing of Parliament to approve international treaties. Against that is the MMP environment that has developed in New Zealand where we have become and are becoming accustomed to a greater scrutiny of treaties by Parliament both in general debate and through the select committee process. In my view that is a good move. In the MMP environment we recognise the breadth of views that the House now presents and that environment gives the opportunity for a breadth of view to be expressed even in respect of those matters that would normally have been the executive’s prerogative.  
We have also started to become part of the global village. That term has been used a lot. More and more we are becoming part of the international scene and international agreements play an increasingly large role in the lives of New Zealanders. That is another reason that New Zealanders perhaps have a greater interest in and express a greater diversity of views on both the relationships that we should have with different countries in the world and exactly how those relationships should be expressed. That move goes very much hand in hand with the MMP environment that this Parliament has inherited and again I welcome it. Prior to the introduction of this bill and afterwards there have been developments in the way that the executive has dealt with treaties—in particular the reforms that have been included in Standing Orders 384 to 387 which have provided a measure of involvement by Parliament in the issue of treaties. That has provided a significant measure of involvement by the reference of certain treaties—admittedly not all—to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.  
This bill would go further than that. Firstly it would extend such reference without exception to all treaties and particularly to bilateral treaties. Secondly it would require consideration of treaties during the course of their negotiation and prior to their finalisation and acceptance. The select committee noted that the bill had been introduced only a few months before the reform of the Standing Orders had really come into effect and that those reforms needed a chance to be evaluated. In its interim report in 2001 the select committee suggested a number of issues that could properly be addressed by the executive with regard to treaties and commended those suggestions for consideration by the House. I note that in the final report of the select committee it indicates that even though it is now over 2 years since the bill was introduced members of the committee still do not feel that enough time has elapsed. The number of treaties that have come before the committee has been small and the procedures set out in the Standing Orders have not really had a full test.  
In the view of United Future this bill has some significant problems. The first is the large number of treaties that would come before the House; we have been given the figure of 40 per year. Mr Locke indicated that he thought a number of those would be minor matters that could be dealt with fairly speedily but my experience in the House is that if 40 treaties have to be placed on the Order Paper and considered by Parliament we would have a gridlock situation that would leave the peak-hour traffic position in Auckland looking insignificant particularly with the propensity of members to filibuster and the Greens’ refusal to grant urgency in terms of the House’s time. The effect of considering 40 treaties on the Order Paper would demonstrably stop the House getting through its business efficiently.  
The second major problem is the speed issue. Although there is a provision for urgency and subsequent ratification of a treaty in the bill nevertheless it is important at times that treaty negotiations proceed to a conclusion with a degree of speed. Again the procedure of the House is not always conducive to that occurring. Personally I would prefer to see urgency and priority being given to Treaty of Waitangi resolution bills rather than to international treaties on the basis that we should be getting our own house in order more speedily than developing relationships overseas.  
The third problem is in the area of confidentiality. I notice again that Mr Locke suggested that a treaty in its general form could come before the House and that there could be a debate on the general issue rather than on the specifics in order to protect confidentiality. However the bill does not provide for that. It provides that a treaty must be before the House before it can be accepted. That presupposes that all the wording of treaties both confidential and non-confidential should appear here in the House before treaties are signed off. I see major problems with that particularly when dealing with bilateral treaties in situations where the negotiating positions and the points of view of both sides are publicly notified before there has been a sign-off on the part of the executive.  
In summary I believe the bill would be unduly restrictive on the power of the executive. I do not believe because of the problems that I have alluded to that the bill is appropriate. United Future does not consider it appropriate that this bill should be passed. In practice—and indeed the select committee considered it to be a constitutional convention—successive Governments of New Zealand have not become parties to treaties until after any domestic legislation necessary to implement them has been enacted. In so far as that has developed as a convention in itself that provides some protection along the lines that Mr Locke was looking for.  
Constitutional developments should evolve slowly. That is because of their importance in terms of change and also because the conventions and the positions that have developed have tended to stand the test of time and any changes should be considered slowly. In a sense the bill has defeated itself as many members’ bills do. Its very consideration has raised the issues and brought about the changes sought in a way that is somewhat more measured than the bill itself provides for. This bill has had lengthy consideration. It has resulted in a wide-ranging series of questions coming before the House for consideration in new procedures for things like briefings by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade more Maori consultation a more transparent process for the approval of treaties and a strengthening of the national interest analysis documentation. Mr Locke is to be commended in so far as he has achieved quite a bit of the bill’s intentions—even though the bill itself has not been passed—with regard to providing greater transparency in the process and greater awareness by Parliament and its select committee of what is going on.  
United Future will not support this bill at this point. We believe that the measures that have already been taken do go a long way towards achieving the intentions of the bill and should be allowed to develop before we reconsider the situation. In fact we believe the procedures that have been developed meet the intentions of this bill without the weaknesses to which I have previously alluded.