Twyford PhilADDRESS IN REPLYDebate resumed.Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Government's programme is a lot of stopping things cutting things repealing things reversing progress and taking the country backwards. And one of the areas where there is concern about the direction of this Government is what's looking increasingly like the abandonment of our independent foreign policy. What we're seeing is a 21st century version of the old saying Where Britain goes we go." Except under this Government it's now "When Washington calls and says 'Will you jump?' we say 'How high?' "We saw this in the hasty decision to send six New Zealand military personnel to take part in the bombing of Yemen to punish Houthi rebels there for their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Never mind that there was no UN mandate for this. Never mind that no one in Government can explain how the bombing will make any difference at all. Never mind that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been bombing the Houthis for much of the past decade with no apparent effect. Never mind that none of the Ministers who announced this deployment could tell a press conference whether they'd had any advice on whether New Zealand's participation in the bombing campaign would put New Zealanders at risk. Never mind. You see the US asked us and that under this Government is apparently enough.Today the foreign affairs Minister and defence Minister head off to Canberra for talks with their counterparts and given their enthusiasm for joining AUKUS no doubt that issue will be on the agenda. They're apparently keen to join pillar two of AUKUS—the technology transfer part of the AUKUS military pact of the US the UK and Australia. But as David Parker Labour's foreign affairs spokesman has said Labour is unconvinced by the arguments that New Zealand should join AUKUS.New Zealand of course cooperates with our friends the US the UK and Australia through a wide range of mechanisms. But we in Labour are unconvinced that joining AUKUS would deliver anything more. It does come with some real potential downsides. What is AUKUS? It is a military pact designed to contain the influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region. Its purpose is to protect US hegemony by projecting US war-fighting capability in our region. Do we really want New Zealand to be part of that? This is the same China that is our largest trading partner. It's the same China—a relationship for which successive New Zealand Governments have invested huge amounts of political and diplomatic capital in the relationship. As David Parker has said we don't need to cast China as our enemy.Is there any evidence that China poses a military threat to New Zealand that they have some kind of plan to invade us? There isn't a skerrick of evidence to suggest that. Yes China is becoming more assertive internationally but is that a surprise? They're now close to rivalling the US as the world's largest economy. Surely it shouldn't surprise that they don't want the US 7th fleet patrolling just off their coastline. We might not appreciate the way that China uses loans and diplomacy to gain influence in the Pacific we are highly critical of their record on human rights and the treatment of minorities but is that a reason to join a military pact against them?New Zealand doesn't want to see the Pacific militarised. But since when do we try to reduce militarisation by increasing militarisation? Instead of throwing our lot in with one superpower against another there is a positive agenda that is an alternative. We should work to demilitarise the Pacific. We should strengthen the Pacific Islands Forum and urge our friends from outside the region to respect it and take its lead. We should do more for regional economic development in the Pacific—help Pacific nations to protect their exclusive economic zones and ramp up our efforts and commitments on climate mitigation and adaptation including by giving resettlement opportunities for people whose islands are made uninhabitable by climate change.Labour is not isolationist—we never have been. We are internationalists as I think most Kiwis are. We believe in a strong military that can be deployed in the service of New Zealand's values and to protect our interests. The last Labour Government's investments in updating military hardware speaks for itself as does the strong support that we gave the people of Ukraine in their defence of their homeland against the Russian invasion. But much of New Zealand's foreign policy over decades has been built on soft power: our relationships in the Pacific; our willingness to be an honest broker; our willingness to advocate for small island States international law for peace for climate for and multilateralism. That credibility—the standing that we have built up over decades—could be put at risk if we sign up to a military alliance that most of the rest of the world sees as a bid to hold on to 20th century US military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.The world is in transition. The US is no longer the only superpower. We're in a period when the US and China are competing technologically commercially and militarily. New Zealand's interests lie in supporting peace trade international cooperation the United Nations; not throwing our weight behind one superpower in its struggle against another. If instead this Government wants to join an offensive war-fighting alliance against China it needs to tell New Zealanders this: if there's a war in the South China Sea between the US and China—which many international analysts consider to be a possibility in the next two decades if not a prospect—is it this Government's intention to be dragged into that conflict on the side of the US? And I think that the Ministers who are so keenly advocating that New Zealand signs up to AUKUS they need to answer that question for the people of New Zealand.The question of AUKUS goes to the heart of the debate about our independent foreign policy. To say that our foreign policy is independent just because we make our own decisions misses the point—it's a truism. The "independent" in independent foreign policy has come to mean over decades the way that we independently and carefully navigate a careful path between the superpowers not simply throwing our lot in with one in its competition with another.We've taken a values-based approach based on an assessment of New Zealand's national interests rather than just meekly following behind bigger and more powerful friends. It's certainly been that way since New Zealand became nuclear-free under Helen Clark and it's taken on extra meaning under successive Governments with the growing importance of our relationship with China. If this Government wants to join the AUKUS military alliance on the side of the US the UK and Australia and against our biggest trading partner it needs to explain to New Zealanders how that is consistent with New Zealand's values and in line with our interests and what the costs and benefits will be for our country."