Goff Phil: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3592] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I welcome the report to the House of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and support its majority recommendation that the International Treaties Bill not proceed. At earlier stages of the House’s consideration of the bill I indicated that the subject-matter was important that the issues arising out of it merited scrutiny and discussion but that the Government would likely not support its proceeding beyond a second reading debate. The opportunity to examine thoroughly the international treaty examination process of Parliament has been a productive exercise. It followed the trialling of the current parliamentary treaty examination process which began in 1997 and which was formally adopted as a permanent part of the House procedure in 2000. The select committee has been able to reflect on the effectiveness of that process and also to discuss possible improvement to it.  
As a result of this exercise the Government has made a number of enhancements to the process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now provides the select committee with a 6-monthly list of international treaties both multilateral and bilateral which New Zealand is involved in negotiating. Briefings are offered to the select committee on the background to any of those negotiations that the select committee wishes to receive. The list of treaties is publicly available and that also allows wide input into the process. It means that the committee rather than having to go through the time-consuming process of examining every bilateral treaty can focus its examination on those that it believes to be important.  
As Minister I have provided to the select committee the criteria used to determine which bilateral treaties should be submitted to the parliamentary examination process; the criteria I believe are relevant and appropriate focusing on subjects that are likely to be of most interest to the public; treaties that represent major developments in bilateral relationships or have significant financial implications; and treaties that the select committee itself indicates it is interested in examining. The select committee acknowledges in its report to this House that these changes: “provide a substantial improvement in the transparency of the process and keeping Parliament informed of the executive’s treaty-making activities”.  
The Government has also responded to the request for strong national interest analyses of the treaties under consideration. The more relevant information that can be put into the national interest analyses the better members of Parliament can understand the implications of treaty actions. The analyses will now set out the pros and cons of a proposed treaty action; the social environmental and cultural effects of being party to the treaty; and the different views that might exist revealed in the process of consultation. The national interest analyses will be posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and we are also looking at putting on the website the text of all treaties to which New Zealand is a party.  
As well as scrutiny of treaties that New Zealand is proposing to ratify Parliament also has a key role—in that its assent is required for any legislation required to give domestic effect to a treaty undertaking. The Government cannot take binding treaty actions unless and until our domestic law is fully compliant with the provisions of the treaty concerns. So it is wrong to say there is a democratic deficit as the member who has resumed his seat has said. This process is inherently democratic. Constitutionally the power to negotiate and agree to treaties on behalf of New Zealand is the prerogative of the executive. That remains the case . This is fully consistent with democratic principles since the executive owes its existence to parliamentary support which in turn reflects electoral support.  
There are a number of clear reasons why this bill should not proceed. Significant changes have already been made to increase the role of Parliament in treaty making and this is continuing. This process should be allowed to bed in before more far-reaching constitutional change is considered. The proposal that all treaties and there are about 40 treaties that we sign up to each year go through the parliamentary process would have implications for parliamentary time which is a scarce resource. Where there have been important treaties—the Kyoto Protocol and the Singapore closer economic partnership were two examples used by Mr Locke—this House has found the time to debate them. The possibility exists—but to go through every one of the 40 simply would not be possible with the constraints of time in this House and in the select committee.  
There are also practical problems in what the bill proposes. In some instances the prerequisite of parliamentary approval may delay binding treaty action by the executive unnecessarily and have negative consequences for that reason.  
Least practical of the bill’s provisions is that the Government must disclose New Zealand’s negotiating position to the House while negotiations are still under way while also disclosing the position of our negotiating partner. That could damage or undermine New Zealand’s position in the course of the negotiations. It is simply unrealistic to do that and it would be a breach of the confidentiality normally expected by the negotiating partner. For all of these reasons the Government does not believe that the approach or the mechanisms proposed in this bill are appropriate.  
In conclusion the process of treaty making has evolved considerably in recent years. Changes have been made to strengthen Parliament’s ability to effectively scrutinise treaties that New Zealand enters into. The process has become more open and more transparent. I believe that it is working well New Zealand’s practice compares more than favourably with other democratic systems and further major change is not warranted at this time. The bill ought not to proceed.