Smith Lockwood: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3593] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Were this bill to be implemented it would require Parliament to give its approval to any treaty action prior to final ratification by our country. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee spent a lot of time on this bill of Mr Locke’s. It was the view of the majority of that select committee that it should not proceed and it should not be implemented. That decision was reached for a very good reason. This Parliament has wasted enough time on this rather foolish legislation. I do not think I have seen a member’s bill receive so much attention from this Parliament. The bill was first introduced in September 2000 and it received its first reading in November 2000 after which it was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. That select committee made an interim report in October 2001 and it made a second interim report in December 2001. Members of this House then had a debate on those interim reports. Finally the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee made a final report on this bill of Mr Locke’s. Now on 19 February 2003 we are debating it yet again.  
This Parliament has wasted enough time on what has essentially been a shabby little deal between Labour and the Greens. I shall explain what I mean by that. A moment ago I said that this bill was introduced into Parliament on 21 September 2000. Straight after that— 
Rod Donald 
: That’s what you said last time. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Rod Donald who is interjecting right now warned Labour that the Greens might not support them in a confidence vote if they went ahead with the free-trade agreement with Singapore. Rod Donald suggested that if the Labour-led Government would support Green MP Keith Locke’s member’s bill on international treaties then “that would certainly solve our dilemma and be good for the whole political process.” What a tawdry little deal! This is one of the smelly things about MMP. Here we have the Greens trying to get their own way by saying to the Labour-led Government that they will not support them on a vote of confidence unless they support this stupid little bill of Keith Locke’s. The Greens were grumpy over the Singapore free-trade agreement or the closer economic partnership as Labour members call it in their spin-doctor way.  
But that was not the end of the matter. That happened on 9 October. On 14 October 2000 it was announced that Labour had appeased the Greens by agreeing to send Keith Locke’s member’s bill to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Prime Minister Helen Clark said at the time that while Labour was prepared to support the bill going to the select committee there were no guarantees beyond that point. Just after that announcement by Labour we saw the first reading of the bill in November 2000 and its subsequent reference to a select committee.  
Then we had the whole charade of these interim reports back from the select committee. It was a tawdry carry-on by this Labour Government and its supporters the Greens. If Labour had been honest it would have simply said that this legislation was a no-goer it was ridiculous and that would have been the end of the matter. But no they would have lost the support of the Greens on votes of confidence and so they did this tawdry little deal.  
Let me explain briefly to members why this bill is in fact foolish. The reason is simple. If this Parliament—instead of the Government—had the ultimate say on international treaties we would see what happens in the United States. I have been involved and I know the system quite well. In the United States they have realised that if Congress—their equivalent of our Parliament—had the final say on international treaties which its constitution provides for there would be an absolute shambles. On trade treaties for example they realised that the problem would be that Congress—the House or the Senate; it does not matter much which one: take the House for example—would look through every paragraph and every line of a trade agreement.  
Some members of the House would say “Hang on my constituency back home produces this product we will not have that in this trade deal. We will take that line out.” Another representative would say “Oh no we will take that line out. That one is okay but we will take that line out.” There would be an absolute shambles as every line of a trade treaty was renegotiated by the hundreds of members of the House of Representatives in Washington. That shambles would have occurred in this Parliament if this legislation had gone through.  
In the United States they have developed a process whereby Congress—both the House and the Senate—pass legislation to give the Government the authority to negotiate these treaties. It may be thought that that would have solved the problem. In the United States the Government has not had authority to negotiate trade treaties during the entire Clinton administration. The Clinton administration never had negotiating authority from Congress during its entire administration. That was a long time; it was basically the entire decade of the 1990s. The United States was limited in what it could do on international treaties during that entire decade. On several occasions President Clinton asked for the authority from Congress to negotiate treaties. He offered a small fortune. When members know they have the Government over a barrel they extract every last bit of blood. Members were saying “Sure we will vote for you to have the authority to negotiate treaties Mr President but you know about that motorway that we require and that $250 million project required in my constituency? You approve that project Mr President and you will have my vote for having treaty negotiation authority.”  
It is believed that on his last attempt President Clinton offered billions of dollars to get the authority from Congress to negotiate international trade treaties. He failed even though billions of dollars were offered. He failed to get the members to grant him the power to negotiate international trade treaties. With the change of administration in the United States President Bush had the same dilemma. He finally got there by the slimmest of margins but a lot was promised to gain that trade treaty negotiation authority. 
We in New Zealand are so dependent on our Government being able to go ahead and sensibly negotiate international treaties. We should not hamstring the future of our country. We should not put such a mill wheel around the neck of our country by doing this to it. That is why Keith Locke’s legislation is so stupid. I do not know where Keith Locke has spent his life but it sure ain’t in the real world. Mind most of the Greens have never spent their lives in the real world. We know that they snuggle up to terrorists and we know some of the crazy things they believe in but if they cared at all about the future of our country they would not impose on this country’s future the kind of process and procedure that would so hog-tie a future Government in its ability to negotiate international treaties. Fortunately a majority of members in this Parliament still understand the importance of these matters and that is why this bill was rejected by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and will be rejected by this Parliament.