Inquiry — Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

Our relationship with Latin America has, as I think most members of the House are aware, been a particularly thin relationship historically, but for very good reasons.

First of all, as we all know from whatever we have studied of its history, Latin America has only recently had the armies returned to the barracks in some permanent sense, and for the last 20 years has been moving towards open political markets and open economic markets, and that has created the conditions for us to have a fresh look at that part of the world. I would also draw members’ attention to the fact that in the Mercosur agreement, which unites Brazil with three of the other, smaller members of the region, there is even a provision that is unique, I believe, that if any of the countries concerned turns away from democracy—in other words the armies get out of the barracks again and back into politics—it automatically loses its right to the benefits of the trade agreement.

So there is a sort of historic move, fairly recently, towards open markets, and we are seeing the evolution of societies that I think New Zealanders can be very comfortable with. But a lot of ground has still to be met. These countries are still, for the most part, impoverished countries. Fundamental issues have not been addressed with respect to their indigenous peoples, and vast poverty is yet to be eradicated.

The first question that I want to address in the report is the matter of New Zealand representation. I personally am a little conflicted here, because I, naturally, would like to see New Zealand build up its pattern of representation. But I have to say, on the basis of my experience, that spreading the jam too thinly is a real risk. When embassies are spread over vast areas of distance, with very few resources—and necessarily so, I do not think this is a political statement I am making here; it has been the same inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade over successive Governments—there is a real danger of spreading the jam too thinly. We had a post, of course, in Peru. We closed it down during the period in which Peruvian society collapsed. My sense would be that that is a country that I hope has a better future ahead. Lima has 8 million people, many of whom are highly educated and sophisticated, but I doubt that it is quite the right moment now. I have always been in favour of a more active policy of cross-accreditation visits as a way of providing some reasonable coverage at very little cost.

On the question of the trade and investment linkages, I see that falling under three different categories. The investment relationship in many ways is more important than the trading relationship because of the strong complementarity of these resourced-based economies with our own. There was a period during the 1980s, as I am sure many members will know, when New Zealand, I think, had the third largest stock of foreign investment in Chile in the world, and in 1 year the net inflow, I think, was the largest in the world. We have the technology inside our primary industries that they need, but, in fact, investment in this region has often turned out—as is often the case for New Zealand investment anywhere overseas—to have a very murky track record. It is a record that suggests “proceed with caution.” I know that Fonterra has been looking very closely at some operations in Brazil, but this needs very careful scrutiny because a lot of people have lost a lot of money in these markets.

In respect of the direct trade relationship, well, it is neither here nor there. I think it is around 2 percent, from memory, of our total exports. I think I once calculated when I was leading a team of New Zealand officials to look into the Chilean-Singapore option, that we sold more to Japan in 1 week than we did to Chile in a year. It will not be that today—but it will not be far from that figure.

I think the most powerful aspect of our trading relationship with these countries is, of course, the cooperation on multilateral trade policy. We have had this long and incredibly strong—I would say at times even strong emotional—relationship of collaboration solidarity with the Latin American countries in the Cairns group. I remember going to Bariloche for, I think the second Cairns group meeting with Mike Moore when he was the Minister of Trade, and we have carried on that very strong and proud tradition of cooperation over the last 15 years with these Latin American countries.

The situation has changed in Geneva over the last few years because, essentially, Brazil has moved into a leadership position taking over the mantle of the Cairns group from Australia. But we have worked very closely with the Brazilians. They have a very sophisticated operation and I think that is probably, from a New Zealand point of view, the single most important aspect of the trading relationship. Their objectives, having been European immigrant societies cut off by agricultural protectionism, are essentially identical to ours. We do have commercial differences, of course, and I see that as a very positive issue for us going forward.

With respect to culture, again the heavy European influence in their societies provides a point of contact for our two societies. I suspect now it would have been more useful for somebody like me to have studied Spanish rather than French as a second language, but that is past history. There are certainly many more people in the world who speak Spanish than speak French, so I see that as a hugely useful international language and I hope that agencies in New Zealand continue to do what they can to promote interest in the Spanish language amongst young New Zealanders.

I share the view in this report about going slow in establishing an Asia 2000 - type foundation. I am sorry; I should call it the Asia New Zealand Foundation. I used to be the executive director, and I cannot remember the new name on any occasion. I think it is formidably difficult to get funding out of private sector entities for these organisations, and I do not think we are at that point in the relationship where we could sustain such an organisation. But I think that as a longer term goal that is an eminently sensible idea and I think it would energise in the long term the efforts of a number of New Zealanders who have a strong personal commitment to, or strong company interest in, the region.

I agree with the general thrust of the argumentation in the report about people-to-people linkages, particularly in terms of trying to get student exchanges going and building up people-to-people skills. The only lacunae that I see in this report is that I have always considered Latin America as potentially a source of long-term New Zealand residents. I never quite comprehended why the New Zealand Immigration Service did not make a bigger effort in trying to attract young people from that region to come and look at New Zealand. There is, as one would imagine, an obsession in that region with obtaining a green card—that is, becoming an American resident. There are huge obstacles in the way. If members have had the privilege, as I have, of spending quite a bit of time in that region and meeting the young people, they will know that time and time again one comes across highly educated, highly motivated, and highly sophisticated young people who are trying to get a green card into the United States. I talk to them about New Zealand, and they have never thought about it. So I think the longer-term issue of trying to attract migrants from the sophisticated middle classes of these regions deserves a little bit of attention.

In summing up, I think this report maps out the right directions but it is important to be realistic about the resourcing required for these types of projects. The relationship is still too thin, I think, to support grandiose ideas, but I think the report sets them out in the right general direction.

I thank the previous speaker for his contribution, and acknowledge his degree of expertise in, and contribution to, this area before coming to Parliament.

It was my privilege and pleasure to be a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament. I want to acknowledge the very good work of the Hon Peter Dunne as chair of the committee, and also Graham Kelly before he went to Canada. I acknowledge the very great work of Winnie Laban, who of course is now the Hon Winnie Laban, as deputy chair.

In terms of the brief, I believe that the inquiry we conducted into our relationship with Latin America was very worthwhile. It was a very good example of the way a parliamentary select committee can genuinely contribute to the debate and also, if you like, raise the consciousness of New Zealanders to the critical relationship that we have with Latin America and to the potential for that relationship. Certainly, if we were to cite an example of a very successful organisation in terms of our relationship with South-east Asia, that of course would be the Asia 2000 Foundation. Interestingly, because of various circumstances, historically we have had a very strong and interconnected relationship with, for example, the ASEAN nations, which has not perhaps been duplicated to the same degree with Latin America. Of course, in terms of neighbours, and without repeating some very basic geography, South America—Latin America—is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean and shares with us the Pacific Rim.

I just want to take this opportunity to focus on two aspects. I listened very closely to the previous speaker’s outline. It is appreciated that New Zealand as a small country with a small population cannot have a comprehensive diplomatic presence in every country. We have to be very focused and circumspect in terms of how we allocate our resources as a smaller country. Certainly, first of all we should naturally acknowledge the posts we do have in Latin America and the huge range of nations and communities that they themselves have to cover. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the role of honorary consuls. I acknowledge—and I know that my colleagues on this side of the House will totally support me—all those people around the world, and in Latin America as well, who work as honorary consuls. That is where I think we can get value of coverage for a relatively small budget.

Finally, I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution that our resident Latin American community can make to this relationship. I acknowledge the role that our local Latin American community has played in my own city in terms of that relationship, and my good colleague Dianne Yates, who is now chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, will agree. I think we need to acknowledge the expertise that that community has to contribute to the relationship.

I will not say any more, except to compliment the previous committee on its good work. I believe that this is a very, very good contribution to the ongoing relationship between New Zealand and the Latin American nations.

Well might members on the Government benches applaud their colleague this evening, because that is the only thing they have to applaud in the wake of the two votes they have lost in the House today. One vote was on the probationary employment legislation and the other was on the legislation to reduce the number of MPs in the House.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How many have you won in the last 6½ years?

I tell that member that her wheels are dropping off.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: When did that member last see his wheels?

That member clearly knows nothing about foreign affairs, and I do not believe that he has read this report. The chair of the committee was Mr Dunne, and I understand that he is a Minister in that member’s Government. He does not know much about Latin America, either.

I do not want to come across tonight as being anti - Latin American. In fact, I suspect I am the only person in this House who has the Bernardo O’Higgins award for strengthening relationships between New Zealand and Chile. I congratulate the new President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, on her recent accession. I note that our Prime Minister has been over in Chile, currying favour so that she can have some support from that country in her bid for the UN Secretary-General’s job.

I come from the perspective of making sensible choices. The reality is that New Zealand is a small country of 4 million people. I have said that in this House before. We are smaller than Sydney—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You’re joking!

JOHN HAYES:—and I tell that member we are bigger than Christchurch, thank goodness! This committee has been badly led by a Labour Government that has no vision. It has been ably assisted by people like Tim Barnett, Dail Jones, Keith Locke, and Matt Robson, and the community have dealt to them.

This is an appalling report, and it bears no relationship at all to what New Zealand’s needs are. It recommends that we set up an embassy in Peru. Why would we do that? Why should we set up an embassy in Peru when in Venezuela our trade statistics are the highest of all countries in Latin America? And how is it that we have opened an office in Argentina? I will tell members why we did that—

💬 Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Standing Orders actually prevent members from moving to seats closer to the member speaking in order to barrack.

💬 Darren Hughes: Generally, what the member said is quite right. But the member speaking has also moved from his seat. If both members moved to their respective seats, then the interjecting preferences that both would have are exactly the same as they are now. So I cannot quite see what the point of order is about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. Please continue, Mr Hayes.

I would like to point out that our trade to Venezuela is about $123 million but that our trade to Argentina has dropped from $27 million to $17 million. Why have we opened an embassy in Argentina? Because it is nice to tango on the streets of Buenos Aires. That is the only reason we are there. It is nice and comfortable for the bureaucrats who will go there. This report was written by bureaucrats. “Oh, yes,” it says, “we’re going to have to do a double tax agreement with Mexico, and we’re going to have it finished by 2005.” Is that agreement in place? No! What has this Government been doing? It has no vision. It makes promises that it does not deliver on.

Appendix D of the report talks about the double taxation agreement. It says to increase the role of education in our relationships. But what has it done? It has done nothing. It says to increase the role of tourism by bringing in more visitors. What has it done? It has done nothing. The number of tourists to New Zealand has increased from about 700 people per country in 2001 to about 1,400 people per country now. That report is a total and utter nonsense. It is absolutely without vision.

The report says to spend more money on official development assistance to Latin America. So what have we done? In 1999 we were spending $1.14 million of our hard-earned taxpayers’ funds in Latin America. What are we doing now? We are spending $5 million a year—magnificent!—but for what purpose? Our total trade to Latin American countries has dropped by about $14 million in the last 5 years. Why are we trying to eradicate poverty in places like Andean Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and the southern cone of Argentina and Chile? That is a nonsense. We have no interest in those countries, and we should not be spending hard-earned taxpayers’ money there when in the Wairarapa—I can report to the House today—where the Government is building a new hospital, the transformer blew up before the blimin hospital opened. Yet we have money to burn and spend in Latin America. That is a nonsense.

Where is our Minister of Foreign Affairs today? He is in Tonga promising sports cooperation. That is really good! That shows how much he is interested in this arrangement. Where is our Prime Minister? She is in the Philippines. What are the people in that country saying about her presence there? They are saying: “For goodness’ sake, take her home.” She is speaking in Cebu at an inter-faith meeting. A press release today from the Philippines’ community here in Aotearoa New Zealand states: “Helen Clark is currently in the Philippines making high-minded speeches about eradicating the cause of terrorism.” It goes on to say: “She should be addressing her remarks to her host, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The Philippines under her leadership exhibits all the attributes of state terrorism—death squads whose crimes are never investigated let alone punished, military and police who have abused human rights with impunity, systematic political murders, disappearance, torture, and terrorism of whole civilian populations.” That is what Helen Clark is doing today. And why is she doing it? She is doing it because she is looking for support to be the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. What a nonsense!

We have also had the Minister of Foreign Affairs, purportedly interested in Latin America, running around trying to arrange an agreement in Tokelau on self-Government. I have papers I would like to table in the House today that show clearly that Tokelau is part of America, and New Zealand has no right to give it away, anyway. It is absolute nonsense. Government members opposite are not focused on their foreign policy objectives. [Interruption] The Government is not focused on its foreign policy goals, I tell Mr Hughes. No, it is not. I think we need to take our focus off areas of the world in which we have a very limited interest and focus on our immediate backyard in the Pacific, where China and Taiwan are competing with each other for favours in countries of weak government that cannot stand up to that pressure. They are creating corruption—and what are we doing about it? Nothing! Our Prime Minister is messing around in the Philippines instead of focusing on the things that are important to my country and to my voters.

We need to review the whole question of aid to Latin America because with this money huge bureaucracies are being financed, and those huge bureaucracies are in our own country. They are the non-governmental organisations, which are operating like commercial agencies by spending Government money on aid. And what are they doing? They are promoting corruption and complacency. Our aid programme is teaching Latin American countries to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid in those countries is depressing local markets and dampening the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. Absurd as it may sound, development aid is one of the reasons for Latin America’s problems.

If the West were to cancel aid payments, ordinary South Americans would not even notice. If we think about it, $5 million of our hard-earned money here—from people in my electorate who are desperate—is being wasted and squandered by this Government in Latin America. If payments were cancelled, only the politicians would be hard hit, and their bureaucrats. That is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without its development aid. What nonsense! Latin American countries must take the first steps towards modernity on their own. They must change their mentality. They have to stop perceiving themselves as beggars. The problem is that today they perceive themselves as victims.

In order to change the current situation between New Zealand and Latin American countries, I think it would be really helpful if our aid organisations were to be pulled out by cutting our $5 million of aid, because it is of no consequence. Our non-governmental organisations—and I can hear them crying like children, when the baby-sitter goes out—will say: “We need to encourage all these countries to have our aid.” But I do not think so; I think we need to encourage all countries to stand on their own feet.

We need to encourage this Government to focus on its priorities, and the priorities are to put New Zealanders and their interests first, and to stop messing about in parts of the world in which we have limited interest. We actually have the same level of diplomatic representation in Latin America as the Australians. Yet we are a country that is smaller in size than Sydney. What is this Government doing? It has lost its vision; it has lost its way; and it needs to go.

It is good that we are having this debate tonight, because sometimes inquiries such as the one we are debating have a lot of work put into them by the select committees but do not get discussed in the House. Tonight we have a chance to do that. The report we are debating was tabled in the House at the same time as two other reports from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I was on: the report on the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the Kingdom of Tonga and the report on the inquiry into the role of international human rights in foreign policy. They were tabled in August last year just as the election campaign was heating up, so the media’s attention was diverted elsewhere. It is therefore good that we have a chance to debate at least one or two of those reports.

It is important for New Zealand to engage with Latin America. I think that the history of the lack of engagement of our society with Latin American society was shown as we went along with the inquiry. There was not very much engagement with the Latin American community in New Zealand, partly because that community is not very large. The attention of the Immigration Service and others has been directed more to other areas of the world than to Latin America. At the moment, things are going very much in favour of European immigration, and we do not have a very large Latin American community. It would have helped us, I think, if we did. Tim Groser talked about parallels with Asia and the Asia 2000 Foundation. We have not been able to develop that sort of relationship with Latin America, partly because we do not have a big Latin American community here. We had good relations, in the preparation of this report, with the New Zealand Centre for Latin American Studies in Auckland and the Latin America / New Zealand Business Council. They helped us quite a bit.

It is good that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has just been to Chile, at the inauguration of the Chilean President, Michelle Bachelet. As Tim Groser has indicated, in the free-trade agreement that we have signed through the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, the trade with Chile is very small. It is not significant in that sense.

As John Hayes said, we have other significant trade relationships, such as that with Venezuela, which we have not, perhaps, fully capitalised on in terms of other relations. It is interesting to look at the politics of Venezuela and at the role it plays in Latin America now. There has been quite a sea change in Latin America politically, economically, and socially over the past few years, starting off with the election of Lula as the President of Brazil a few years back. I think that was associated with a much more confident approach of Latin America in the world, including—as Tim Groser mentioned—in the trade area. It is true that Brazil started to lead many of the Third World nations, the agricultural exporting nations, in trying to get a better deal in world trade agreements. It is good that New Zealand has engaged with Brazil in that respect.

Those nations have not just accepted the unequal trade agreements that the United States, in particular, was trying to force on them. The United States was trying to extend the North America Free Trade Agreement through to Latin America, in the form of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Over 10 years, that whole process slowed down and stalled. The trade relations that have developed in Latin America have been more south-south relations: relations between Latin American countries that have been successful in their various ways, rather than a rather unequal relationship with the North American bloc.

Hugo Chávez is an interesting character. He has got up the noses of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice by being very outspoken about the interests of his people and defending the progressive changes that he has instigated in Venezuela. He is an elected president. He is coming up for election again shortly, and everyone expects he will be re-elected because he has developed domestic and trade policies that have gained the support of the poorer sector of the community, raised the living standards of the poor, and given them more of a role in the day-to-day process of political life.

There has been quite a turn-round in Latin America, if one adds to that the coming to power of Néstor Kirchner in Argentina a couple of years ago. There has been a close relationship between Venezuela and Argentina. In fact, Venezuela helped to pay off quite a bit of Argentina’s debt. Members will remember that Argentina was in a big economic crisis before Kirchner came to power. Then, last December, we had the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia. That was a tremendous step forward for the Bolivian people. His election was part of the big campaign of the Bolivian people against the selling-off of their gas resources to multinationals, following a mass campaign in earlier years against the privatisation of their water.

There is now a link-up between Kirchner, Morales, and Chávez in trade agreements between the countries. In particular, Venezuela, which is benefiting from the higher oil prices, has helped out a lot in both countries and has been more confident in asserting itself in foreign policy and not just accepting the Bush agenda in the world. One commendable thing was that Venezuela was one of the few countries in the International Atomic Energy Agency that stood out against the demand of the United States that Iran be taken to the United Nations Security Council over what was happening in the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is good that people like the agency’s director, Mr ElBaradei, have tried to resist that move and asked to settle the dispute within the agency itself.

Venezuela has been fairly staunch in saying that countries should not just go along with the Bush approach of trying to enforce military or economic measures against Iran, but should use the diplomatic approach and operate in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and not just throw the matter to the United Nations Security Council, where the United States will dominate the proceedings. So what is happening in Latin America is quite important to us, and in international terms too. As a nuclear-free country that promotes nuclear disarmament, New Zealand should have more associations with the Lulas, the Hugo Chávezes, the Néstor Kirchners, and the Evo Morales to promote peaceful policies.

Another element of that, of course, which is referred to in the select committee’s report, is the whole question of indigenous links. Evo Morales comes from the indigenous people of Bolivia, and that is quite a breakthrough. I think what is stated in the report about developing indigenous links—and the Government in its response to the report has endorsed that—is very positive.

In the disarmament area, we have worked fairly closely with Mexico and Brazil in the New Agenda Coalition. I think that should be extended to developing a nuclear-free southern hemisphere, and Mexico is a key player in seeking to merge the nuclear-free zones in the southern hemisphere into one common nuclear-free southern hemisphere.

I disagree with John Hayes on aid. The outline of the aid given to the committee, in the process of this inquiry, showed that it was going very much towards poverty reduction. The aid was going into various sustainable rural livelihood projects through non-governmental organisations, and it was being used very effectively by them.

We need to realise that this report is a step forward in terms of New Zealand trying to engage with Latin America much more than we have done. There is very little news on Latin America in our newspapers. There is not that kind of consciousness of the region. Hopefully this report will help to develop that consciousness among New Zealanders.

I rise to support the report. It is a pity that Mr Hayes does not get another shot, because after listening to that speech I think it is obvious to most people here that the trade job in the National Party must be up for grabs again. It was Mr Hayes versus Mr Groser—two diametrically opposed speeches. There was a time I recall in this Parliament—before I got here as an observer—that trade was considered a bipartisan neutral zone, whereby we were all on the same team. Mr Groser performed well and adhered to that tradition. He spent a lot of time talking about himself, but I suppose that is the nature of new MPs. But apart from that, he observed the protocol.

Then Mr Hayes got up. He is another former diplomat, with a similar lineage but maybe not with the stature of Mr Groser. He gave a bizarre speech. I ought to say to new members that there is an old tenet in Parliament—and I think it goes across parties—that one stands by one’s friends in the party. That means that one should look at the report and work out that there are a few mates from the same team on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—that is, Messrs Carter, Power, and the former trade Minister, Lockwood Smith—who all unanimously supported the inquiry report.

Then, on looking a wee bit closer at the report, we should ask whether there was a dissenter to the inquiry report. Was there a rogue in the National Party? Was there a maverick? Did the National Party put in a minority report, for instance? If we look through the report for it—and for the benefit of Mr Hayes, it is on page 27; “Minority View” it is called, to save any confusion—we realise that the Greens and the Progressives put in a minority report. But there was no minority report from the National Party.

The report has some interesting recommendations, like the one on page 9. The committee recommended unanimously—Mr Hayes might be able to spell that word—“That New Zealand representation in Latin America should be supplemented beyond existing New Zealand embassies in Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Santiago by the establishment of an additional post, possibly in Peru, in the next 5 years.” That is amazing, because Mr Hayes bagged the idea of giving aid to Latin America, and he said something about doing a tango. I do not know what he did when he was a diplomat, but it sounds interesting—I do not know whether that happened during working hours. Mr Hayes said that Latin America was unimportant.

The question I have—and Mr Groser, as a former diplomat might be able to assist us—is which speech we send out on the cables to the ambassadors. Do we send out the speech stating the National Party unanimously supported the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with Latin America—and that it was not a bad place, that it was worth trading with, and that we should support it? Or do we send out Mr Groser’s very self-effacing and humble speech, which supported trade with Latin America, and which told us of Mr Groser’s lengthy experience in supporting and growing trade in Latin America? Or we have option C—

💬 Darren Hughes: A menu!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—the menu—in which a former diplomat in the National Party bagged the whole thing. And he bagged his mates, including Dr Smith, a former trade Minister. I wonder whether Dr Smith is listening to this debate. I suspect we can hear the cutlass being sharpened—the bacon slicer is on its way for the new member Mr Hayes. I am sure Mr Hayes is being called into the whips’ office now. The experienced Mrs Tolley may be able to call him in later on, point the finger, and tell him that it is inappropriate to bag a report that his mates in the National Party support.

I just wonder, not being a diplomat—

💬 Hon Members: That’s true!

My colleagues say I will never be accused of being a diplomat, but I wonder just what sort of a diplomat Mr Hayes was. Did he represent New Zealand’s foreign policy or did he make it up? Tonight we have heard three options from the National Party. We still do not know what its Latin American trade policy is—we have no idea. It was gone by lunchtime or teatime; I do not know. I would like to invite the next National speaker—I suspect it may be Mr Finlayson—to get up and clarify this monumental moment we have here.

If the ambassadors from Latin America are listening tonight, I tell them not to take fright or to get confused: the National Party is not in Government. We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs—and, thank God, we have foreign ministry officials, too—who will be cringing tonight if they are sitting at their desks and listening to Opposition members. I am sure Mr Groser will agree with me that embassies and ambassadors do listen to this stuff—even to Opposition members, now and again, once or twice, and especially to those with the lineage and experience of, perhaps, Mr Groser and Mr Hayes. They actually take note of speeches that are made by the learned gentlemen and women opposite, now and again—maybe not Dr Brash’s speeches, but maybe Mr Groser’s. I can imagine the ambassadors sitting around the banquet table tonight by candlelight, shaking their heads, and trying to work out whether what they have heard from the National Party is true—all three versions of it—and wondering what the National Party’s foreign policy is.

I can see Mr McCully grinding his teeth to stumps trying to work out how to explain to our Latin American diplomat friends what the National Party position is when he goes to the next set of diplomatic missions down the road. [Interruption] I say to Dr Smith that he has gone troppo and he can taihoa. The National Party’s position is a bit like Nick Smith on benzylpiperazine, or speed, or something—it wobbles all over the place. It is a bit like Nick Smith head-butting windows; it is a strange sight to see.

I am astounded tonight. I say to Mr Hayes that we have all made mistakes—I made plenty when I was a new member—but there is a fundamental rule in Parliament: members come into Parliament with a political party, and it often helps their career prospects if they actually stick with that party. It also helps if they support the people who write the reports and who vote for their political party when it is unanimously in support of those reports. It also helps if members read the damn thing before they get up to speak.

Three months ago the Māori Party joined with our indigenous brothers and sisters right around the world to celebrate the resounding victory of Bolivia’s new indigenous President, Evo Morales. Morales’ victory was a real buzz, and not just in Bolivia. His victory was a sign of hope in a world strangling itself to death with pollution and war, and his victory gives all tangata whenua hope for the future. We join with his people in celebrating a return to humanity.

The Māori Party is pleased to stand tonight to talk to the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with Latin America, and we ask the House to note the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee recommendation that we formulate proposals for promoting interaction between indigenous peoples of Latin America and New Zealand. Unfortunately, though, if our record of interaction with indigenous peoples from overseas is anything like it is with the indigenous people of Aotearoa, then we are in deep trouble, because our Government’s record here at home is nothing to boast of. In fact, earlier today we heard from other indigenous delegations that New Zealand is doing all it can to stall any consideration of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the current session of the Commission on Human Rights. The feedback about our Government’s performance is a matter of shame to all caring people in Aotearoa, and to make it worse we hear that New Zealand officials are actively trying to block the call by other States for another meeting on the text. So I am forced to ask where are the voices of Labour’s Māori MPs when their own people’s rights are being ignored? What is the value of Labour’s much-vaunted Māori Potential Framework when that very potential is being throttled by their own party? If we were a mature society we would accept that there is no harm in admitting that we do not have all the answers and that we can learn from others.

The original terms of reference for this inquiry sought the fostering of cultural ties, including links between indigenous people. There are many areas for nurturing such ties, and I touch on just a few of those tonight. Te Wānanga o Aotearoa created links with Cuba to introduce a programme that has earned Cuba international awards, including one from the United Nations, for eradicating illiteracy. In fact, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa was brave enough even to bring some of Cuba’s own literacy experts to Aotearoa to help launch the programme.

Another fertile area for developing links is the media. The director of Venezuela’s television network,Telesur, recently made a statement that resonates clearly with our own Māori radio network and Māori television when he said that Telesur’s reason for being is the need to see Latin America through Latin American eyes. He said: “It is our right to have our own vision of what happens in Latin America, and not what Europeans or Americans, or whoever, tell us how we are or who we are.”

Indeed, how we are and who we are is determined very much by the way we are represented and how we represent ourselves. In Latin America many countries have large indigenous populations, including Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru. Those nations have hundreds of different indigenous groups—in fact, in Mexico alone there are 56 indigenous groups and 62 living languages. Even the World Bank has identified that the political influence of the indigenous people in Latin America, as in Aotearoa, has grown remarkably over the last two decades. The Māori Party is keen to learn more about the revival and renaissance of indigenous people and the political growth, constitutional development, and health and educational policies of other members of the world’s indigenous community.

Mexico is developing programmes to place indigenous people into significant roles in school management, and in Guatemala indigenous students enrolled in bilingual schools have higher attendance and graduation levels and reduced dropout rates, in exactly the same way as those in our own fabulous kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa movement. We can learn from Ecuador’s use of a mix of modern and indigenous medicines to help grow our own knowledge in health practice.

Unfortunately though, the chances are that if one is born indigenous in Latin America, one will be poor, and almost 35 million indigenous people there are living in poverty. A World Bank report issued last year entitled Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Human Development in Latin America in 1994-2004 noted that 74 percent of indigenous people in Bolivia live in poverty.

It also noted that during economic crises, those who take longest to recover are always the indigenous populations. Theirs is a reality of social and political division; a reality where racism, discrimination, and social exclusion are a daily occurrence. Indeed, these are some of the greatest political challenges of the 21st century. It is no wonder then that we see the rise of organised indigenous movements, such as the Zapatista National Liberation Army in Mexico and the activist movements in Bolivia and Ecuador. Peru elected its first indigenous president in 2000. The Guatemala peace accords included the recognition of indigenous people’s rights, and now we have this success in Bolivia.

The heart of those movements in Latin America—as in Aotearoa—is rooted in longstanding traditional values. When one whānau is in strife, everyone turns up to help them out. In Ecuador they call this “minga”, a term that refers to collective work. In Aotearoa we might call it kotahitanga. We need to treasure these unique cultural values and to establish links that will strengthen those values for the benefit of us all. It is timely that Aotearoa now has a party that gives voice to its own indigenous people on matters of national interest, and we challenge the Government to be bold enough to let that voice be heard in the forums considering the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is also time to review the free-trade agreements that are tearing apart the fabric of Latin American countries, and to ask the hard questions about how such arrangements maintain a level of poverty that kills the potential of the indigenous world. I want to finish with the words of Bolivia’s new President Morales, who said: “I believe only in the power of the people. I have seen the importance of the power of a whole people, of a whole nation. For those of us who believe it important to defend humanity, the best contribution we can make is to help create that popular power. We need to be led by the people, not use or manipulate them.” Tēnā koe, tena koutou katoa.

I want to begin my contribution tonight by paying tribute to the memory of John McArthur. John McArthur was New Zealand’s first ambassador in Chile, with cross-accreditation to Peru. He was appointed in 1973, and he died earlier this year. But the very fine work that John McArthur started in 1973 has continued through the good work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, as this report states, we now have embassies in Brasília, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Santiago.

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its report. I am a little disappointed in the Government response, because I consider that really to be largely polysyllabic waffle. There are many words that signify not a lot at all. I want to focus on a few key items, because I think when one is moving into relatively new territory like Latin America, rather than try to do too much, it is better to focus on a few things and to do them well.

So my first comment concerns diplomatic posts. I agree with the recommendation that we probably have enough diplomatic posts at the present time and that there is a lot of work to be done to bed in the relatively new posts in Brasília and Buenos Aires. So I think that the key aim or response of the Government that I can agree with is that the Government will keep under review the question of representation in the region and whether a further post should be established.

Why on earth we need an honorary consul in Paraguay beats me. I was surprised at the contribution of the member of the Green Party, Mr Locke. I thought, given his views, he would want an embassy in Cuba and would want to be appointed there. But in the future I think that we should look very closely at opportunities that exist in Venezuela. It is interesting that in 2001 $266 million worth of products were sold to Venezuela and that in 2005, of the $414 million gained from exports to Latin America, $123 million came from Venezuela. So, obviously, there is great potential in Venezuela, particularly with the sale of dairy products, and we should be looking very closely at the opportunities there.

The second point I wish to make concerns language. In my opinion, not enough New Zealanders are bilingual. I am sure the member for Otaki probably thinks that people in Latin America speak Latin, but he would be wrong. They speak the two great Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese. I am sure that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the member for Dunedin South, who taught modern languages for many years, would agree with me that, regrettably, French and German are becoming less popular and that in terms of the future we should be looking to ensure that New Zealanders are adequately taught Spanish and Portuguese. Spanish is the most widely spoken of the Romance languages in the modern world, and I think it would be fair to say that Portuguese is spoken by a couple of hundred million people. So every opportunity should be given to New Zealanders to ensure that they speak these languages, the languages of Latin America, because it is very important for the future that more New Zealanders are bilingual. It is a sad reflection on the education system that that is not the case at the present time and that we compare very unfavourably with those who live in Europe.

The third point I want to make—and this is where I have great difficulty with the Government response—is that the responses to recommendations 4, 5, and 10 seem to use a lot of words but mean very little. What does it mean, when the Government responds to recommendation 4, to state: “The Government is currently making arrangements for the next session of the CER/MERCOSUR officials’ dialogue, to be held in Wellington in March this year. It is planned that the dialogue continue as an annual event.”? How does that really expand on opportunities for linking CER and Mercosur trading zones? There seems to be a lot of talk but not a lot of action. In my submission, in terms of trade, the key thing to do over the next decade is to focus on Brazil and Chile—particularly Brazil, where we have recently opened a new embassy.

The final point concerns immigration. Strangely, this report did not address immigration. I read the report, as I said, with great interest, but I was disappointed that immigration was not addressed because I think that Latin America could be a prime source of migrants for New Zealand. I endorse what Mr Groser said. It is very apparent that in the period immediately after the Second World War Australia had a lot of Italian and Greek migrants, and I think we all agree that Australian society is much richer as a result. We should have done that at that time, and we missed a great historical opportunity. Peter Fraser probably preferred more English trade unionist immigrants, but I think that we should grab this opportunity and actively explore the possibility of immigration from Latin America. As I said, I think it is a prime source for migrants.

So the relationship between Latin America and New Zealand, which, as I said, was fostered in 1973 by the appointment of the late John McArthur as our first Ambassador to Chile, has grown, but there is tremendous potential for further growth. It is a continent we cannot afford to avoid or ignore, and I look forward to seeing this relationship grow and being nurtured over the years to come.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.