Robson Matt: General Debates 
Robson Matt: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4216] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Yesterday Parliament had the opportunity to talk about the possible implications posed to the multilateral trading and diplomatic order by the US Republican Party’s decision to invade Iraq in order to install yet another regime change in that country in the face of the opposition of the united community of nations. We do not know for sure yet but Tuesday’s announcement in Washington could turn out to be a watershed in the evolving management of relations between nations pointing to some big changes in the way in which nations have dealt with each other during the past half-century. The Progressives hope that the pro-war party will at the last moment step back from the brink of what could turn out to be a serious blow at least in the short term to the United Nations system which promotes diplomacy and conflict resolution ahead of war. 
It is too early to assess how much damage the Iraqi issue may have done to political relations between some of the world’s largest economies: the US on the one hand and Germany France and China on the other. If that damage is as significant as some fear however it could in the short term also flow through into other areas of multilateralist endeavour such as the work of the World Trade Organization. GATT the predecessor of the World Trade Organization was originally planned to be an integral part of the UN system to help rebuild a shattered world after the Second World War and to be at the service of the world. A cold war political stand-off ensured that GATT as it was did not get off the ground until very much later. The cost of delaying the original formation of GATT—which later became the World Trade Organization a distorted version of GATT because of its dogmatic right-wing free-trade policies—damaged the ability of the world to reduce international barriers to cross-border trade in agricultural goods. 
The delay in creating a fair world-trading system through the cold war period continued to disadvantage developing countries unfairly at the cost of lives and living standards. The cold war trading system also disadvantaged New Zealand because it meant that our competitive advantages were not allowed to fully flower as they would have done if the world had adopted fair trading rules whereby our agricultural exports could flow without barriers to consumers in the richest economies. 
No one it would be fair to say was surprised by the ACT party’s stance in favour of war yesterday. What was surprising to us was that National fell into line with ACT as the two parties increasingly adopt the same set of core values and policies. For over half a century under first past the post Labour and National seemed to have had an unwritten understanding that on foreign policy there was a need to stick reasonably closely within the ambit of international law and the multilateral system. The National Party’s support for so long for the war in Vietnam and for apartheid strained that of course. But as the only two parties of Government both fully understood the importance to New Zealand as a small trading nation of the UN and a rules-based trading system. 
Yesterday National turned its back on that and highlighted an important political development. National is no longer a major party. Any pretence to it being the natural party of Government has gone. It is no longer a governing party in waiting an alternative Government. National today is one among six minor parties operating within the MMP electoral system. It is one of the five Opposition minor parties. In the vote for war National and ACT garnered just 35 votes out of the 120 available. 
What that meant is that in the critical test of foreign policy alone National is no longer in any position to hope to lead a Government in New Zealand. Its hopes of leading a Government may be real but the hopes are not credible. It is not credible to imagine a senior party in Government that is not able to implement a coalition foreign policy compatible with the policy of the leading party of that Government. Foreign policy is a critical responsibility of any party that hopes to lead a Government. It is not possible to imagine a National-led Government after yesterday’s vote because it is not credible to imagine a Government in which the major party has a foreign policy that is at odds with those of all its potential coalition partners. Coalition partners will have as many or more seats in Parliament—as in the present Parliament—than the major party in Government. One cannot reconcile the approach of New Zealand First and United Future with National’s rejection of multilateralism. No such Government led by National is therefore possible as no Government can ever not have a foreign policy. 
National’s recent adoption of ACT’s key values and policies on economic regional and industry development is another serious indicator that National’s hopes of one day leading a future Government in New Zealand are diminishing. Nearly all New Zealanders want to see a growing economy creating more high-wage high-skill jobs. The overwhelming majority applaud the Labour-Progressive Government’s programmes to address market failures practically in order to promote and facilitate our economy’s performance.