Cosgrove Clayton: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12823] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the Visiting Forces Bill and I touch on the final comments made by Simon Power when he called for clear and unambiguous law. That is ironic coming from that member and I will refer to it in a moment when we talk about as Mr Dunne did enhancing the security relationship through this bill. For that member to stand up given his recent statements in the last 3 or 4 days for he is the Opposition spokesperson on defence— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Or was! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —or was—and for him to call for clear unambiguous law and policy is quite ironic. It would be nice if we had from the Opposition some clear unambiguous straight-down-the-line foreign and defence policy. The only thing we have had as we know is the statement that will live to quote someone else in infamy. It was that New Zealand should support our Allies—Australia the UK and the United States—without reservation thereby of course surrendering command surrendering sovereignty surrendering any governance over our defence policy and more especially our own foreign policy. 
The commentary on the bill states: “Consequently the bill will contribute to the enhancement of New Zealand’s international defence and security relationships by providing a clearer and comprehensive legislative basis for the acceptance of visiting forces into New Zealand.” It talks about the enhancement of our security relationship and I know Mr Dunne made reference to that point. 
Let us look at that relationship historically. Historically New Zealand—along with other visiting forces—has always contributed to international engagement to international conflict in support of our allies. Key amongst them—and this is the only accurate thing that Mr Power pointed out—are Australia the UK and the United States. Historically we have followed the lead—some would say “by the nose”—of those allies. But in contemporary times— 
Simon Power 
: Be careful. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is ironic—we have had nuclear power wind power and now we have Simon Power. I do not think I need to be careful. I think that member ought to take the advice of his own leader. 
Historically our relationship with visiting forces and our allies has been one where New Zealand has “followed”. That happened in the First and Second World Wars etc. In contemporary times we have taken a more independent stance which is not to say that we have not engaged and contributed but our foreign and defence policies have been based on our own terms and judgments. That is not appeasement and it is not pacifism. I do not believe in either of those things. I think that pacifism and appeasement are the politics of the naive and foolish. 
Decisions on the placement of New Zealand forces defence and foreign policy in contemporary times have been taken on our own terms. It is not a matter of where the Mother country goes where Australia goes where America goes we will follow without reservation. So does that mean we tell our fighting men and women that regardless of whether the cause is righteous or appropriate regardless of what our own foreign policy is or our sovereign beliefs are as Simon Power says “We’re going.”? 
The Visiting Forces Bill is a bipartisan bill and one that corrects a number of anomalies going back to 1939 and beyond but the question before us as we look at these defence and foreign policy issues is whether we should surrender command. I ask that of the National Party tonight. I see a former foreign affairs and trade Minister sitting behind Mr Power and I ask him whether he shares Mr Power’s view that we should surrender command. We did that at Gallipoli. We surrendered command. We did that in other historic wars. We surrendered command. But in contemporary times perhaps we now know better. 
Simon Power 
: Oh! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Read your history Mr Power! So does Dr Smith agree that we should surrender our sovereignty and be led by the nose by others? Suddenly there is silence. I think that for many New Zealanders that speaks volumes. 
I think this is a pretty basic bill which will enhance the relationship. It will correct some anomalies bring New Zealand law into line with other developments in international law and allow the forces of a foreign State in New Zealand—not just those within our own Commonwealth jurisdictions—to be covered by legislation. Is it not great that we as a country can pass legislation like this thinking for ourselves? Is it not great that as a Parliament we can look across the waters to other countries and pick the best from those countries but at the end of the day members can sit in a Chamber like this debate the Visiting Forces Bill and think for themselves? 
I say to Mr Power and others on the other side of the House that my party has a proud foreign policy tradition. I believe Australia the UK and the United States are our allies. I believe we have proved that as a Government through our international engagements in Iraq and other places. We know that the Opposition went into a frenzy when we would not engage on their terms and blindly send combat troops into Iraq to get a better trade deal. That was the basis of those members’ stance and they cannot walk away from that. That is what those members said. They said they would send our troops because Uncle Sam might give us a better deal and I do not hold the United States responsible for that. I lay that judgment squarely at the feet of the men and women in the National Party and people like Simon Power. 
As the House debates this bill and what it will do in respect of allowing New Zealand to give effect to the status of forces agreement signed in Australia in 1988 to provide safeguards against double jeopardy and allow coronial inquests into deaths arising from the presence of visiting forces what members know now are the real foreign and defence policies of the National Party. That is a party that cannot think for itself. That is a party that surrendered the moment Simon Power made his speech. 
I hope the men and women of our Defence Force some of whom I had the honour to see off to Iraq— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Where was that? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: At Christchurch airport. That member was not there; that member was cuddling up to the bomb. They would not have those members there. I want to see the National Party front up at every Defence Force base around the country and tell our Special Air Services and our Engineering Corps—and it should come down to my region and tell the Canterbury regiments—that it does not matter whether the cause is righteous they are going in. 
Every soldier whether in a visiting force or not wants to know when he or she is sent into battle that what is being fought for is righteous—that what they are fighting for is the defence and honour of their country and their sovereignty. They want to know that their politicians and their country are behind them and that they have not just been sent there for some sort of commercial motive or—and it came out of the mouth of the babe of the National Party—through some sort of traditional archaic policy the National Party dredged up that says that where our allies go we will go without reservation and without question. 
Surely it is the nature of Government that when men and women are potentially sent to die in defence of their country one would question the cause. But not Simon Power; his view is: “Do not question the cause do not question whether it is righteous—send them.” Why? 
Jill Pettis 
: Because he won’t have to go. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Maybe that is true. The only risks we as politicians run every morning—and Simon Power has proved it in this Parliament—is that we open our mouths and make fools of ourselves. People do not ask us to defend them nor do we put our lives in the hands of another man or woman in our defence forces but those men and women go out every day knowing that they might not come back. Simon Power should reflect squarely on that as should the National Party.