Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak against the International Transparent Treaties Bill. Mr Tabuteau—dear oh dear oh dear. My 9-year-old told me a joke and said: What's an example of wasted energy? Telling a hair-raising story to a bald man." This is even worse when it comes to wasted energy. In fact to be honest it is hard to know where to start.Let us start with firstly an observation—that I would look at this and see it as so off beam that it borders almost on the bizarre. Firstly let us create the scenario that this bill talks to. A trade Minister who has worked on behalf of this Government of this Parliament of this country negotiating in many cases for many many years often between Governments across Governments on behalf of New Zealand's interests and trade interests—they are in a tight negotiation where they have had many wins and some compromises and they get to the final point of the handshake. Yet now here what we are suggesting is that that trade Minister before he or she can put their signature to the paper that sums up the collective effort of so many people on behalf of exporters in this country would have to say: "No hang on a minute. I've got to stop now and I've got to run back to the Parliament of New Zealand and run it past them before we can sign it."Fletcher Tabuteau: Like half the developed world—more than half the developed world. That's ridiculous.TODD MULLER: That is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Tabuteau you stand there and wave your flag and affiliation to anything with the Union Jack on it. You understandably underpin so much of New Zealand First's constitution as you have outlined. So all those other Westminster democracies of which in other contexts you are so proud to say New Zealand First reflects the same traditions—when they have separations of powers where you have the executive given the ability to go and negotiate on behalf of a Government and then it brings back a negotiated text for the select committee to reflect on and report back to Parliament on somehow you think that is a nonsense. Quite frankly Mr Tabuteau I think you have completely misplayed it here in your suggested bill.Can I just reflect for a moment on why we find ourselves reflecting on a bill so poorly constructed and really I think incredibly weak. It is based on a flawed perspective that somehow our treaty-making process is inherently covert when the opposite is true—the complete opposite is true. We are extraordinarily transparent when the deal is secured. It seems to me that what New Zealand First wants to be is ringside at the negotiations and it wants its particular view of how trade deals should progress—or not progress in the New Zealand First context. That is why it is putting this bill up in front of us here this evening.It is so naive in terms of the context around how trade deals are negotiated—this view that somehow you have got to have total visibility on how we are negotiating because anything other than that Mr Tabuteau is covert. I direct you to your general policy statement which you did not even mention here in the conversation about this bill tonight: "Parliament or Select Committees do not have the right to examine and review the terms of international treaties before or during negotiation." So your view if I read this ill-considered bill that is in front of us tonight is that you expect that you should be sitting there as the negotiations unfold and worse than that that there should be an open visibility from the New Zealand negotiators—up against all these other countries that have their own national interests that they are seeking to promote protect and enhance—that somehow our interests are best served by being completely open about what the New Zealand position is and being able to tell everyone here back in New Zealand as we negotiate through our position. It is naive quite frankly at a level that it is disturbing that we are even having to have this conversation this evening.I think in a very real sense it is a window into the soul of New Zealand First particularly in respect of how it views trade how it views the world unfolding and where it thinks New Zealand's interests are best promoted. In fact if you listen to its rhetoric time and time again it is constantly suggesting that an integrated harmonised global system is not the way of the future. Well Mr Tabuteau you go and talk to the exporters from Rotorua who go to your office and say: "I want the opportunity for non-tariff barriers to be removed to assist my kiwifruit to assist my wood exporters." This is the whole purpose of this country: it is to sell value to the rest of the world; not to listen to your protectionist "pull up the wall" New Zealand First and New Zealand interests above all else. In my view that is sounding somewhat analogous to some other administrations around the country that have pivoted to a more internal more introspective view of the world that this party in particular does not believe serves the values of New Zealand families and exporters. Quite frankly it is a disgrace that we should be having to have a conversation this evening on a bill so poorly thought-out as the one that we have here.I use your words Mr Tabuteau that you graced us with this evening: trade has grown you noted. Trade has grown on the back of the neo-liberal agenda that you somehow believe is now dead. Trade has grown and we have all seen the benefits—precisely Mr Tabuteau. So when you talk about the evils of harmonisation and the evils of a global economy that is increasingly integrated you are doing a disservice to all those people in the communities that you seek to represent whose entire livelihoods and jobs and families' aspirations reflect our ability to be able to trade effectively on the world stage.If you look specifically at this bill it holds a remarkable view around the current approach that we take in respect of dealing with international treaties. It seems to be completely blind to the extraordinarily powerful and critical role that Parliament and its select committees—in this case the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—play in reviewing every treaty of significance that is concluded by the executive. They get introduced here in terms of the final agreed text; we take it out to the community the entire country to have an opportunity to reflect on it and to give us feedback as a select committee; we get official advice; we pore over the national interest analysis (NIA); we make our own select committee assessment on the value based on the submitters' perspectives the officials' advice and reading the NIA ourselves; and then we bring our own report back to Parliament. How is that not transparent? How is that not providing an opportunity for the people of this country to give feedback?It is an absolutely ridiculous construct to suggest Mr Tabuteau that somehow the executive which has been given that power to be able to negotiate treaties on behalf of New Zealand should somehow not be able to do that and have to give it back—at any time through the negotiation. I quote your key words back at you Mr Tabuteau: at any time during the negotiation back to the whole of Parliament. This process that is being considered in this bill is as I say extremely flawed.When you look at the process that we have run—as has the United Kingdom as has Canada as has every Western Westminster democracy like our own—it is a process of negotiation. It is a process where once that negotiation has been completed and concluded Cabinet assessing the national interest analysis then agrees that it should be signed. Then that text is presented in this House and in similar Houses in similar Western Westminster democracies. It is then presented here for consideration which includes a huge amount of public consultation. And then finally ratification.What I think this bill does talk to is a rather distorted view of the way the world is unfolding a view that does a disservice to this Parliament in my view. It is a view that does a disservice to this country and to our expectation that we should always give a firm hand to the trade Minister to be able to negotiate the best deal on our behalf and then for us as Parliament to be able to follow due process to assess it. I strongly oppose this bill."