Robson Matt: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Robson Matt: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3595] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I found Dr Smith’s contribution strange. I must say that I find most of his contributions strange but his lecture on the American system was one of the strangest of all. He left out large chunks of what that system is. The American revolution which was the second of the great bourgeois revolutions—the English being the first that being the second and the French being the third—was not dedicated to allowing democracy to flourish. Those who led the American revolution with the support of the American colonists dedicated it to protecting the very system that the member upholds: private property including slaveholding. So an enormous number of checks were put into place on popular democracy and the American system is certainly not a system that people would want to emulate now if they wanted to go to the greatest and most advanced form of democracy.  
Let us deal with treaty making in terms of our parliamentary democracy and what we can do. The Progressives are not voting for this bill to go forward but as I have said in all the speeches I have given on this subject the aim of this bill and the philosophy behind it are what we must head towards. As a member of the Alliance I first put this bill into Parliament. Throughout the whole process of this bill I have seen an enormous and continuing change in the way that we handle international affairs. When the bill was put into the House in 1997 it was not drawn in the ballot until the next Parliament. I believe that Ken Shirley from ACT also had a bill in at the same time. Nevertheless there was pressure both from within Parliament and outside to change the process particularly in the light of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which National tried to shove through the Parliament most undemocratically and to the detriment of our people. I pay tribute to Don McKinnon—and I do not normally do that to Don McKinnon—who was then the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He set out adamantly opposed to change but then saw that the tide was for change on this issue and with his foreign affairs officials and all parties in this Parliament we took part in getting the sessional order that we have now. In essence that sessional order allows for all treaties to be tabled so that we have advance notice of them.  
But clearly that is not enough. Genuine concerns have been raised by all speakers and in particular by Keith Locke about what can happen if we do not subject treaty making to the scrutiny not only of Parliament but also of the people of New Zealand. It is in that direction that the Progressives and I particularly want to move but we caution that we need to take such a step in practical ways so that we carry Parliament and the population with us.  
I believe that the greatest step forward towards allowing us as a Parliament to be able to take part in an intelligent and informed way on the treaties before us is to set up a joint standing committee on treaties and in the report I stated that that was the position of the party I belong to. The argument against it—and I know this is an argument that Phil Goff subscribes to at the moment—is that our Parliament is not of sufficient size to be able to support another committee like that. I do not accept that. I believe that such a committee is necessary even now. Such a committee made up of all parties obviously and well-resourced would allow our Parliament to take a step towards being able to—independently of the executive—scrutinise the treaties before us.  
Not only did I find Dr Lockwood Smith’s speech strange—as I am sure I will find the succeeding National Party members’ speeches if we have them—but also I find it strange that those who are fervent advocates of globalisation do not and will not recognise that the logic of putting that position of living in an interconnected world means that more and more our legislation and our policies reflect that. Clearly members of Parliament are not confined just to so-called domestic issues. They must grapple with the larger international issues for the benefit of New Zealand.  
At present we do not have such a joint standing committee. One possible bridge towards that if we are not in agreement that we should allow for such a committee à la the way that the Australians do it is to better resource the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I advocate that we should think about that and I will certainly advocate that the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee be given greater resources. What does it need? At the very least it needs to be able to buy in independent advice in order to scrutinise the number of treaties and agreements that are either before us or that we are thinking of entering into.  
I must take issue with the Greens though in another area. As I say I support the direction of this bill. I ask for the right to be allowed to say that it is not the way forward on this issue. But there is a certain paranoia about what the Government does and does not do. I point to the fact that on the Singapore free-trade bill—the treaty—National and Labour voted for it. In Cabinet the then Alliance which the Progressive party in this Parliament is a successor to differentiated its view and made sure it went through the agreement with Singapore in fine detail. We came to the conclusion that we would not vote for it and we insisted that Parliament be able to debate it and similarly the Hong Kong bill. It does not do a case any good to promote myth and paranoia that behind-the-scenes deals are being done in order to put one over people. In the case of for instance the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the moment there is a need for that to come in front of the population. There is a need to have all the issues regarding GATS subjected to a national-interest test. [ 
Interruption 
] The GATS agreement is before us at the moment and members of Parliament should become conversant with it because it is extremely important to the development of New Zealand—detrimentally if one believes as I do or it could be for our betterment as conservative people believe. But in any case we need to be able to scrutinise those matters in an intelligent and informed way.  
In summary I have a great interest in this bill as it was originally introduced by me and I believe it has played an important role in forcing these international issues upon us. However I believe that we are at the stage in this Parliament and in the country where the most important step we could take at the moment is to set up a joint standing committee on treaties as the Australians have or at the very least to begin that process by better resourcing the present Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.  
At the moment the Australian committee does that. It has been appointed by the Commonwealth Parliament to review and report on all treaty actions proposed by the Government before any action is taken that binds Australia to the terms of a treaty. The committee is specifically resourced for that. Australia has one exception to the rule that treaties be tabled before a binding treaty action is taken. Where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade certifies that a treaty is particularly urgent or sensitive or involves significant commercial strategic or foreign policy interests then that is an exception. But that is also a danger. I expect that when we look at the issue we will see a need to make provision for emergency situations and for situations where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Government have to act quickly but we must not allow that to be something that enables the executive to escape scrutiny.  
In summary I say we will move towards taking the area of making treaties away from being the prerogative of the executive and bringing it under the control and suitable democratic scrutiny of the whole Parliament.