Jones Dail: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3597] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will not support the continuation of this bill. The Minister of Justice has set out a number of reasons for not supporting the bill. When one reads the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee one can see how clearly the committee looked at the bill and the reasons that it should not proceed. The bill obviously raises a major constitutional issue: the role of Parliament in the approval of treaties. The select committee reported that if implemented the bill would require Parliament to give its approval to any treaty action prior to final ratification of that treaty. Constitutionally speaking under current law the power to negotiate and agree to treaties on behalf of New Zealand is the prerogative of the executive. The majority of the select committee believed that fundamental constitutional position should not be altered.  
It seems to be a feature of the Westminster system that those countries that have devolved their constitutional rights from the United Kingdom share the view that parliamentary approval should not be given for certain types of treaties and that treaties should not be self-executing. I note that the United Kingdom’s Parliament shares the same view as New Zealand Australia and Canada. That seems to be a feature of the way in which we in New Zealand have developed. Other countries such as France the Netherlands Spain and the like take a different view. But that seems to work very well in the Westminster system—and as the previous speaker indicated the British system was probably one of the first modern democracies if we put aside what may have been the situation in ancient Greece.  
The National Party seems to have taken a dislike to Mr Locke as much as it has to the bill which seems to be very unfortunate. I do not know quite why that is. I will say to Mr Keith Locke that as we said in the earlier discussion in this House this bill is probably ahead of its time in so far as the New Zealand Parliament is concerned. I take the comment made by Mr Robson and his view that perhaps we should have a select committee that looks at all these matters but the essential problem facing the New Zealand Parliament is that just as the Parliament itself would not have enough time to consider all the treaties that would come the House neither would a select committee. We hardly have enough members of Parliament to sit on the present select committees and we all know the problems that took place in August and September last year without a two-member party suggesting that we should have yet another select committee. I am sure the major coalition partner in the Government would not be terribly happy with the Progressive party suggesting there should be yet another select committee.  
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. Mr Locke will be pleased to think that his view was thought to be revolutionary because he might fancy himself to be something of a revolutionary type of person though that is not meant to be a criticism of him. However the Law Society does not support such a revolutionary approach to increasing Parliament’s role in treaty making. Rather it supports a more evolutionary approach consistent with recent changes to Parliament’s Standing Orders. The new parliamentary treaty examination process incorporated in Standing Orders 384 to 387 requires the Government to present and refer treaties to Parliament prior to ratification together with a national interest analysis and it provides for consideration of such treaties as has been mentioned by Mr Robson. It was very interesting to read the Law Society’s careful submission on this matter and I should mention in passing that Parliament always appreciates submissions from the Law Society which goes to the trouble of scrutinising legislation at great length and is of great service to Parliament in that way.  
The main reason that I oppose this bill is as much from the practicalities that are involved as from anything else. I have taken the trouble to look at just where we are in Parliament at the moment and to consider where we might perhaps be if we end up examining all the treaties that the Government may want to get into at any one time. Currently we have 33 bills before select committees. Some of those bills even go back to 1992. I see the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill has been sitting in a select committee since 31 July 1992. I just wonder what the local member is doing about it—that is whether the local member even knows he or she is the local member and just what is happening to that bill. All I can say is that in a past life when I was here if a bill had been before a select committee for more than 6 months in my role as either the local member or as the junior Government whip I would have been given hell by the Prime Minister of the day who would have been wondering what on earth was happening with regard to that legislation and why it was not back in the House. Yet that bill has been sitting before a select committee since 31 July 1992.  
We also have another bill—the Kerikeri National Trust Bill—that has been sitting before a select committee since 30 November 1995. It is quite incredible that Parliament has not been able to get on with its work and get those bills under way. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill has been before a select committee since 31 July 1997. We have a Conveyancers Bill and I know that all lawyers would like to know what the future of that bill would be. I have an interest in that area. The Conveyancers Bill is suffocating dying or whatever the expression is before the Justice and Electoral Committee where it has been since 13 February 1998. The Forests Amendment Bill has been before another committee since 10 August 1999. Those bills are stuck in select committees and have not even been reported back to the House. Those are just some examples of the 33 bills that are before select committees. In fact there might be one or two more but when we have 33 who is counting? I then had a look at the number of local bills and private members’ bills and saw we have 15 of those floating around. When I looked at the bills that were before the House at various stages—first reading second reading etc.—I saw there are 44 of those.  
So currently we have 92 pieces of legislation at various stages and we are well behind in what we are doing. To try to get this House to do even more select committee work and debate in this House would really bring this House to an end. There are important bills such as the Commissioner for Children Bill which has been languishing on the Order Paper awaiting a second reading since 5 April 2002. For example the dog control bill was reported back to this House in 1999 and has sat here for almost 4 years doing nothing. It took an unfortunate tragedy to have something done about that although that bill went backwards rather than forwards.  
This House has more than enough work on its hands at the moment. Clearly the administration of the Order Paper has not been handled well by the Labour Government. It is quite a disgrace that we have so many bills hanging fire around this House. We have television bills racing bills and so on. I would have thought that the use of weapons guns and suchlike would be important but the Arms Amendment was reported back on 22 February 2001 and nothing has happened to it since then. The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)—another law and order matter—is still sitting on the Order Paper where it has been sitting since 20 July 2001. The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) was reported back on 30 April 2001. The Order Paper is in complete disarray. It is an indication of how this minority Labour Government cannot run this House. How can we ever expect it to run the country when it cannot even run a simple Order Paper?  
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 although in passing I would like to commend the member who introduced the bill for his courage in bringing it before the House.