Worth Richard: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3602] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We know what the outcome will be—this bill will be consumed in the fiery furnace just as Nebuchadnezzar’s guards were consumed. That is a reference of course to the story in the Book of Daniel but it is not really what I wish to talk about tonight. Instead I want to talk about three aspects relating to this bill. 
First of all I will pick up the theme that Dr Lockwood Smith spoke about. The reason is that I support his view that the process of this bill now in its second reading exemplifies the cynical abuse of power in the MMP environment. This bill was always going to fail but it came at a very critical point in the parliamentary cycle when the Greens were required by the Government to support its position. So on 8 November 2000 the bill was flicked to a select committee and the plan was simply for it to languish there. It was not a complex issue so some delaying strategies had to be developed. It was a bit like Quintus Fabius Maximus known as Cunctator who waged those highly successful battles against Hannibal utilising delaying tactics. As other members have said in the course of this debate we have seen how successful those delaying tactics were what with two interim reports and now a final report. That is the first issue I wish to identify because the Greens have been had. They were had in the last Parliament and that game has been played out by the Government in this Parliament where the Greens are now seen as more expendable.  
The second issue I wish to touch on is why in simple terms this bill was bound to fail. It was bound to fail because it cuts across a settled constitutional convention that it is for the executive to conclude treaties. Those arguments are well rehearsed in the report on the International Treaties Bill in the life of this Parliament. There are two very good reasons. The first is that the majority of the members of the committee believe that the impact of this treaty-approval legislation would be a substantial and inappropriate constraint on the executive in treaty-making arrangements. It is quite clear that the executive would find itself unable to proceed with some treaty actions on particular issues because the House would not approve those proposals. The second point is the practical consequence of the bill and the expressed concern that the Government would be required to disclose its negotiating position to the House. So the bill was bound to fail.  
The final point I would like to make has specific reference to the bill and its operative provisions. The particular point I wish to refer to in the bill is related to the extent to which clause 8 “National interest analysis” tracks the provision in the Standing Orders. What Mr Locke has basically done is plagiarise those provisions and insert them into his bill. There are only two subtle exceptions. The first I do not seek to deal with as it touches on clause 8(1)(a) but the second is more interesting. If one compares the relevant provisions of Standing Orders 384 to 387 and the national interest analysis provisions in those Standing Orders one sees that clause 8(1)(d) has an addition. If this bill were ever to pass the issue that Mr Locke would have us consider is that in the national interest analysis on any treaty proposal we should be looking to achieve consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi. We saw in that reference by him a vain and fortunately unsuccessful attempt at political correctness. 
I urge members of this House to accept that it is no longer appropriate not to talk in this global way about the Treaty of Waitangi and about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Where we decide as a Parliament to reflect the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in primary legislation we should do so with clarity so that it is absolutely plain to the readers of the statutory language what we intend to achieve. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.