Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3601] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I have much pleasure in participating in this debate on the second reading of this bill. I also want to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their sterling hard work on this bill.  
The Government does not support this bill having its second reading for both practical and constitutional reasons. Labour believes that the process of entering into international treaties should have as much democratic participation as is practicable and desirable in an open society. However the solution proposed in the bill would seriously compromise the Government’s ability to carry out its international business in a timely manner. There are many treaties that would qualify under this bill. Potentially this bill could swamp Parliament with much more work than it could handle. Parliament would have as much time as was needed to examine a treaty—an open-ended veto on the process.  
Thanks to Mike Moore this Parliament already has great involvement in treaty making. It was Mike Moore as foreign affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party who campaigned for greater parliamentary involvement in treaty making back in 1996 and 1997. In large part because of his efforts Cabinet established a process in late 1997 by which Parliament is informed about the details of proposed treaties and has the opportunity to examine them in detail. In 2000 we made permanent the trial process for the examination of international treaties which increased Parliament’s involvement and the system is generally working well.  
As I mentioned earlier there are both practical and constitutional reasons that the Government does not support this bill having a second reading. The practical consequences are that this bill would require the Government to put before Parliament all treaties to which it proposes New Zealand should become a party. The bill also requires that before New Zealand becomes a party to any treaty there must be parliamentary approval. That has some practical consequences because on occasion we need to ratify trade treaties urgently. Putting those ratifications in the hands of the House could substantially delay their ratification with real and negative consequences.  
The constitutional consequence of the bill in respect of treaty making would be to take authority from the Government and give it to Parliament. With regard to Murray Smith’s comment that has not happened in any other Westminster system. It is not undemocratic for the executive to have the ultimate authority over treaty making. The executive comes from a majority in this Parliament and has the support of the largest single block of the electoral population in New Zealand. It is absolutely democratic that the executive should exercise that particular authority.  
Another practical consequence of the bill is that our Government would be required in the midst of a negotiating session with another country to disclose to the House both our negotiating position and that of the other negotiating party. As our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Hon Phil Goff has said that would put us into a terrible position and would make the situation a nonsense.  
I end by saying basically that the stronger national interest analysis that will be provided will ensure that all perspectives and views are taken into account and that Labour believes that the process of entering into international treaties should have as much democratic participation as is practicable and desirable in an open society.