Graham Kennedy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 In our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s report we noted that the new appropriations show a 20 percent increase over the previous year. One might think half a billion dollars is not excessive for foreign affairs and trade for a country that is high on the GDP and the United Nations Human Development Index rankings. Of course our overseas development assistance is down showing the world how miserly we can be even in times of austerity. Tough times are when the poor around the world are in the greatest need. Our response is to pull up the drawbridge export more food to increase income evince an illusory complacency in our ecological surplus and cut our aid. Congratulations to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on being his existential self. 
The ministry is described as undergoing “the most profound structural cultural and technological reform …” in its history. That is one way of putting it. Whatever the change it is not for the better. Transmogrification for “New Zealand Inc.” would be more apt—change with an ideological warp with no stone left unturned with special ministerial eccentricity thrown in. The aim we were told was for the ministry to become more flexible more focused and less expensive. The outcome we can assume risks being more craven more neurotic and less worthy. It appears to be lost on this trader Government that governance is a matter of values. It is a matter of values and values come with a price. Yet values not least in foreign policy are what count and the challenge is to ensure that the price is worthwhile. The price tag appears to be all that this Minister values which makes for a nice ironic circular logic. 
And values have something in turn to do with our international reputation which has something to do with our bid for the United Nations Security Council seat. This is likely to come back to haunt us in coming years. In assessing whether a UN member State is ready for service on the council other countries tend to scrutinise your record. We believe we are among the most enlightened of UN member States. This is because we focus selectively on what we believe we are good at. Others have the temerity to look at the total picture. So curbing our overseas development assistance percentage from an already low ranking will cost against us. So will cutting our contribution to the UN demining project. So will withdrawing from United Nations Industrial Development Organisation whose mission is to assist the 5 billion poor switch to a green economy. So will failing to do our fair share in carbon mitigation. So will telling the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June that the switch to a green economy requires a pragmatic approach not a new paradigm. And above all so will insisting on wriggle room for the use of one’s armed forces. 
In a major public speech recently the Minister sternly warned an unsuspecting world that New Zealand would not lay down conditions for its candidacy. We would not attempt to buy a seat on the council either by spending taxpayer dollars or by changing policy. He need have no fear. Recording 0.26 percent of our official development assistance runs no risk whatsoever of the world suspecting we are buying our way on to the council. It would be more inclined to suspect that of our main rival—Spain spends 0.43 percent. We spend half a billion dollars; Spain spends $6 billion. And there is to be no change of policy. That of course begs the question of what the policy is. During that address extolling our candidacy the Minister refused to confine future national military action to Security Council authorisation. What an extraordinary situation! In advancing a candidacy for United Nations Security Council membership New Zealand will not be bound in its military operations by the United Nations Charter which it has signed up to. Let there be no misunderstanding here. The Green Party endorses a New Zealand seat on the council but this Government fails the required test—that of being a responsible global citizen. 
Recently I proposed to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that it undertake a study on UN reform. It is not too late to adopt a cross-party dialogue about how we might work together iron out a few differences and enhance our candidacy together. 
Vote agreed to.