Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I do so hate to disappoint the member who just resumed his seat Paul Foster-Bell but when Kennedy Graham referred to one member on the Government who was a constitutional expert I do not think he was referring to that member. I rise very happily to support the International Transparent Treaties Bill and before I outline some of the reasons for Labour's support I just want to touch on some of the other contributions from members opposite. The first one I want to go to is a comment from Stuart Smith. I do not know whether it was a throwaway or an intended remark but he stood up in this Chamber in which we debate laws in a democratic system that we all treasure and value and spoke about the needless complexity of having a House in which we can democratically debate our laws. He called what we are doing needless complexity". That is all that this bill does—it says that the members of this House should be afforded an opportunity to scrutinise an international treaty that might bind the people of New Zealand and future Governments of New Zealand. Stuart Smith said on behalf of the National Government that that democratic process in this House was a piece of needless complexity and that probably tells us about all that we need to know. Shane Reti chose to draft in Ron Mark for some extra support which I think showed the paucity of his other arguments but the major argument that he did put forward—which a number of the other National members plucked off their speaking notes—was that we already have a select committee process. Of course that is true but to some extent is that not the point? If we already have a select committee process then what is so hard what is so additionally complex about affording the members of this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise and vote upon a treaty that might bind us in the future? If the argument is that it is too hard—and we heard this from Mr Muller in his contribution at the beginning—to bring a treaty back to Parliament where it might be picked apart why is it so hard to do it in this House if we already have a select committee process? That to me was an entirely contradictory position from the members opposite.The other thing that I found confusing tonight particularly coming out of the Budget debate over the past couple of weeks is that this Government's members—I will give them credit—do not lack confidence. They are very happy to march into this Chamber no matter how short-sighted or contradictory the position puff up their chests and confidently advance their position. I do genuinely give them some credit for that. And that is the fundamental point here. If they are so confident of their position so confident of their own world view and intellectual framework then why are they not willing when they choose to sign this country up to a binding international treaty that they believe will be good for this country that will have the effect of binding future Governments—why will they not come into this Chamber and argue it on those occasions and win the debate? What would be so hard about that?My colleague Kris Faafoi expanded on this point earlier on and I thought this was probably the most important point of the debate. Most of the members of this House have a liberal and open world view. Most of the members of this House support free and fair trade. Most of the members of this House support New Zealand being engaged in multilateral institutions and instruments. But if members over there will not open up the debate and include New Zealanders then they will lose the debate. It is so patently obvious to many of us in this House that that is what is happening around the world—when Governments and institutions close the debate and do not bring people with them then the people whom we are elected to represent will lose confidence in our democratic processes will lose confidence in our multilateral institutions and will retreat into nativism. Most of us in this House do not want that but if we do not open up the debate if we do not give proper opportunities for democratic engagement that is exactly what will happen. My colleague Kris Faafoi spoke about how we can do this. Did the China free-trade agreement (FTA) fall over because of needless complexity because the last Labour Government brought it back to this House? No. It strengthened. It built political and civil society support. That FTA had agreement from with acknowledgment to my friends immediately to the left about 90 percent of this House when it came through. It had agreement from trade unions it had broad agreement from civil society and it has proven to be an enduring and important free-trade agreement that enjoys widespread support precisely because we had a democratic process around it. A part of that was bringing that international treaty into this House. I am surprised and disappointed that this Government which supports free trade and says it supports multilateral institutions does not have the same courage that the last Labour Government had in respect of that treaty. Thank you."