Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to on the Tiles. I'm your host
Speaker 1: Thomas Coglin. This week, We've got an interesting episode a
Speaker 1: little while ago. Last week in fact, Diplosphere, who run
Speaker 1: a lot of foreign policy events in Wellington. You can
Speaker 1: sign up on their website and and get notifications for
Speaker 1: their events, they invited me to host David Parker speech late.
Speaker 1: David Parkers obviously the foreign feer spokesperson for the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: In the Foreign and Feast portfolio, you techinically do a
Speaker 1: few big speeches every year which set out your views
Speaker 1: on foreign policy where you position yourself. It's a much
Speaker 1: more speech heavy portfolio than other portfolios. You invite members
Speaker 1: of the Diplomatic Corps and and and they kind of
Speaker 1: analyze your speech for for for hints at where you're
Speaker 1: positioning yourself in the foreign policy world. So this was
Speaker 1: was one of David Parker's big foreign policy speeches. It
Speaker 1: sets out a lot of his David Parker thought on
Speaker 1: tax on inequality, on social media, interestingly, and it packages
Speaker 1: that into a sort of foreign policy framework, which I
Speaker 1: think is very interesting because obviously inequality and social media
Speaker 1: don't necessarily fit within the Foreign appears portfolio. But David
Speaker 1: Park clearly thinks that they do. So after the speech
Speaker 1: you will hear me giving an interviewing David doing a
Speaker 1: quick Q and A, and then we take some questions
Speaker 1: from the audience. Thanks to Diplosphere for hosting the event,
Speaker 1: and thanks to David for a really interesting speech and
Speaker 1: a great Q and A. I thought next week we'll
Speaker 1: be back with a more conventional episode, but we thought
Speaker 1: we'd put this on the feed this week for your enjoyment.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.
Speaker 2: Welcome to members of the Diplomatic Corps, fellow members of Parliament,
Speaker 2: the for the State, foreign Affairs experts, experts, trade tragics,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen. Special thanks to diplas Fair for helping
Speaker 2: organize this event. Jenegoto gatoa Mexican poet Omeilo Aichis, wrote,
Speaker 2: there are centuries in which nothing happens, and years in
Speaker 2: which centuries pass. Feels like that now, large swaths of
Speaker 2: the eighty year old world Sorry, large swaths of the
Speaker 2: eighty year old rules based world order developed after World
Speaker 2: War II are in tatus. The dramatic withdrawal of the
Speaker 2: United States of America from the Paris Agreement, the World
Speaker 2: Health Organization the wholting of the most usaid programs are
Speaker 2: to say the least significant, the ineffective installed OECD work
Speaker 2: on the minimum taxation of multinational companies. The whirlwind of
Speaker 2: tariffs and counter tariffs which change almost daily. The war
Speaker 2: of words between neighbors in North America is unprecedented. Speed
Speaker 2: of the recent withdrawal of US support for institutions the
Speaker 2: US was pivotal in creating has shocked many. Europe already
Speaker 2: reeling from war in Ukraine and wider instability, is now
Speaker 2: deeply unsettled by recent statements and positions from the new
Speaker 2: US administration. The withdrawal of the US security Guarantee changed
Speaker 2: not just Europe, but geopolitics everywhere, including Asia and the Pacific.
Speaker 2: Tectonic shifts are rocking the world, which is markedly different
Speaker 2: from a decade ago. Multi letteral institutions have diminished an
Speaker 2: authority and effect. The slide of the United Nations and
Speaker 2: other important institutions like the World Trade Organization is obvious.
Speaker 2: The overuse of the UN's Security Council VETO and inconsistent
Speaker 2: application of international law has undermined the United Nations. Ineffectiveness
Speaker 2: feeds a cynicism and embolds disregard for international laws, treaties
Speaker 2: and institutions. The UN Secretary General was declared persona non
Speaker 2: grata in Israel. Many countries we identify with, like Canadian
Speaker 2: and European democracies, which relied on security alliances with one
Speaker 2: great power, are obviously rethinking their strategy. In stark contrast,
Speaker 2: the New Zealand government has spent the last eighteen months
Speaker 2: seeking closer alignment to the US, increasingly positioning New Zealand
Speaker 2: as being an opposition to China. We did not consider
Speaker 2: this a wise approach, but in any case, the shifting
Speaker 2: global landscape has rendered it unsound. The world is in
Speaker 2: a transition to a multi polar world, with heightened rivalry
Speaker 2: between the great powers. We could be in for a
Speaker 2: rough ride. What would a labor government do if we
Speaker 2: held the reins? How should New Zealand navigate the new
Speaker 2: world order? When should we speak out? What should when
Speaker 2: should we stay side so as not to provoke a response.
Speaker 2: I'll set out my thoughts on New Zealand's foreign affairs
Speaker 2: and defense and trade responses. How New Zealand would steer.
Speaker 2: New Zealand's independent foreign policy both transationally and I think
Speaker 2: importantly holistically. You will have seen that we share common
Speaker 2: views with the government on the likes of the Cook Islands,
Speaker 2: the militarization of the Pacific, and on Ukraine, but we
Speaker 2: differ strongly on Orcas and Gaza. This should not surprise
Speaker 2: given Labour's record, which we're proud to stand by. The
Speaker 2: Labour led government stayed out of the illegal invasion of
Speaker 2: Iraq after Ewan inspector hahns Blix found no evidence of
Speaker 2: weapons of mass destruction. National said New Zealand should have
Speaker 2: joined that war, which made the Middle East less secure
Speaker 2: and undermine the rules based order. An earlier Labor government
Speaker 2: established New Zealand's nuclear free status, which National opposed. Labour
Speaker 2: sent peacekeeping reconstruction forces to Teamo Leste in Afghanistan. We
Speaker 2: provided money for arms to Ukraine via the NATO Fund,
Speaker 2: humanitarian aid, air transport in Europe, and New Zealand personnel
Speaker 2: to help train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK. These are
Speaker 2: all examples of the New Zealand Labor Party and Government
Speaker 2: applying our independent foreign policy making decisions according to our
Speaker 2: assessment of New Zealand's long term national interests. New Zealand
Speaker 2: is not non aligned and works closely with local minded
Speaker 2: countries which share our values. Australia is by far our
Speaker 2: most important relationship. We are internationalists, not isolationists, and a
Speaker 2: reliable supporter of international institutions. We understand communication between nations
Speaker 2: on sensitive issues benefits from diplomacy, whether via the United
Speaker 2: Nations or other multilateral for or bilaterally. We must be
Speaker 2: able to talk our differences. Sorry, we must be able
Speaker 2: to talk about it, differences between our country and others.
Speaker 2: Hegemony is taken too far if we cannot not. All
Speaker 2: statements can be in public, but some should be Sometimes,
Speaker 2: as now, there is a desire not to offend for
Speaker 2: fear of retaliation at times of sensitivity. The wisdom of
Speaker 2: former prime ministers on both sides of the Tasman can
Speaker 2: be helpful. They can say what needs to be said.
Speaker 2: Paul Keating is well known for his pithy comments. He
Speaker 2: recently described the fairer attributes of Australian society compare with
Speaker 2: US societal settings. He listed cradle to the grave healthcare
Speaker 2: for everyone, a sustainable retirement savings and superannuation system, an
Speaker 2: Australian economy which delivers substantial income increases for working people,
Speaker 2: high rates of Australian participation in education and effective gun control.
Speaker 2: Keating's purpose was to emphasize that we shouldn't be subservient
Speaker 2: nor sed moral authority to others, including the US, when
Speaker 2: choosing our approach to the world. Malcolm Turnbull has spoken
Speaker 2: out against US tariffs, noting their random use against Australia
Speaker 2: is not justified by a trade and balance. John Key
Speaker 2: has quietly but importantly emphasized that we should be careful
Speaker 2: not to ruin our relationship with China. Helen Clark described
Speaker 2: the pitfalls of aucust Pillar two and has been critical
Speaker 2: of loose language, resurrecting the defunct Ansis Pact, or using
Speaker 2: the Five Eyes Intelligent Network as a foreign affairs construct.
Speaker 2: She put it succinctly and well. New Zealand needs a
Speaker 2: clear eyed vision for courteous relationships with the US and China,
Speaker 2: close dialogue with the Pacific Rim, Pacific Island and European friends.
Speaker 2: Just because great power politics has shifted does not mean
Speaker 2: aye Tero should drop our long standing commitment to human rights,
Speaker 2: open trade, multi letteral institutions and the rights of small states. Obviously,
Speaker 2: we understand diplomacy is required, but that should not silence
Speaker 2: our ability to speak up and advocate what we believe in.
Speaker 2: We raise concerns about freedom and expression and the treatment
Speaker 2: of minorities in China, and about foreign interference. Some of
Speaker 2: this is behind closed doors, but some are very public.
Speaker 2: When the Chinese government, via its New Zealand embassy, criticized
Speaker 2: New Zealand media for reports alleging foreign interference in labour,
Speaker 2: we quickly and publicly stood up for the rights of
Speaker 2: the New Zealand media and criticized the Chinese intervention. The
Speaker 2: New Zealand Labour parties view is that if we don't
Speaker 2: stand up for what we believe in, we undermine our
Speaker 2: ability to do so in future. We also undermine our
Speaker 2: reputation for fairness and foreign affairs, built up over decades,
Speaker 2: which in turn undermines our influence. The same principles apply
Speaker 2: to our relationship with the US. We have acknowledged that
Speaker 2: the current govern it's desire not to unnecessarily provoke a
Speaker 2: response from the US when things are so volatile, but
Speaker 2: the government's seeming unwillingness to criticize anything pertaining to the
Speaker 2: US concerns US. Even when the US went so far
Speaker 2: as to sanction others for participation in international institutions we support.
Speaker 2: For example, New Zealand is a member of the International
Speaker 2: Criminal Court the US is not. That is their right,
Speaker 2: but for the US to sanction those assisting the ICC
Speaker 2: is wrong. Yet the current government chose not to stand
Speaker 2: with sixty nine other countries, including Switzerland, France, Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden,
Speaker 2: countries we share values with. This was an unfortunate break
Speaker 2: with New Zealand's proud tradition and independently standing for what
Speaker 2: we believe in. If we want countries to support the
Speaker 2: international rule of law, we should apply it consistently. Many
Speaker 2: countries think the West is inconsistent in its application of
Speaker 2: international law. In the Middle East, the sympathy most New
Speaker 2: Zealand has felt for Israel and those who settled there
Speaker 2: following the Holocaust has severely eroded. We condemned the killings
Speaker 2: and hostage taking by Hamas on seventeen October twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: but seventy years after the nineteen sixty seven war, the
Speaker 2: blatant lack of rights of Palestinian people, the endless death
Speaker 2: and carnage in Gaza, and the lack of progress towards
Speaker 2: a two state solution or a single state alternative is intolerable.
Speaker 2: That's why we have said New Zealand should be assisting
Speaker 2: the International Court of Justice when considering whether the State
Speaker 2: of Israel is acting illegally, as we did in respect
Speaker 2: of Rwanda and Ukraine, and be clear that individuals and
Speaker 2: breach of international law should face consequences in the International
Speaker 2: Criminal Court and via in New Zealand sanctions regime. We
Speaker 2: have limited power and we can't always get our way.
Speaker 2: We try to use our values and reap mutation to
Speaker 2: influence better outcomes. We get the real politic of superpower.
Speaker 2: We are long term observers of superpower behavior. We are
Speaker 2: not surprised China has become more assertive as it has
Speaker 2: become a superpower. The UK used to be so with
Speaker 2: France and Spain and Esli back in the day. The
Speaker 2: USA has long used its power in Central America and
Speaker 2: beyond to influence outcomes, and is currently pressuring Panama to
Speaker 2: limit Chinese influence. Russia's mister Putin has a history of
Speaker 2: invading and destabilizing other countries. He's unlikely to stop, in
Speaker 2: part because his internal political position, including his life and
Speaker 2: retention of his billions may rely on continued international aggression.
Speaker 2: This is why we support consideration by the New Zealand
Speaker 2: government of support for multinational peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine AUCUST
Speaker 2: Pillar two. The New Zealand Labor Party does not support
Speaker 2: joining AUCUST Pillar two, which the prior US administration described
Speaker 2: as a China containment strategy. There was a change of
Speaker 2: language from the New Zealand government after the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three election. New Zealand was described as a force multiplier
Speaker 2: for the US. Long redundant US language was resurrected. The
Speaker 2: government said there were strong reasons in favor of Pillar two.
Speaker 2: It appeared to us in Labour that the public were
Speaker 2: being softened up to join. We engage the public in
Speaker 2: a debate. This include well attended public events. Voices four
Speaker 2: and AUCUST Pillar two were active. The media delved into
Speaker 2: the issue. Neither interoperability nor access to technology rely upon ORCUS,
Speaker 2: two of the main arguments put in its favor. Cooperation
Speaker 2: with other countries in Asia like Japan, Indonesia, Singapore or
Speaker 2: South Korea does not rely upon ORCUS and could be
Speaker 2: hindered if these countries do not like the anti China
Speaker 2: ORCUST positioning. We concluded that Aucust Pilar two is not
Speaker 2: in New Zealand's interests. Our decision was not influenced by
Speaker 2: the election outcome or the new administration in the US,
Speaker 2: although for some this will be relevant. It's pleasing that senior,
Speaker 2: former National and act politicians have voiced their opposition to Interestingly,
Speaker 2: the rhetoric from the government has toned down on orcus
Speaker 2: that said language in India last week, instead of emphasizing
Speaker 2: the need to navigate a multi polar world, clumsily positioned
Speaker 2: in New Zealand is making binary choices between India and China.
Speaker 2: Being unsurprised that arising China is more assertive in its
Speaker 2: nearby region does not mean we are comfortable with all
Speaker 2: steps in the Pacific. Being situated at the bottom of
Speaker 2: the Pacific Ocean, distant from neighbours has trade in other disadvantages,
Speaker 2: but that physical isolation and low levels of militarization in
Speaker 2: the vast Pacific are our greatest defensive attributes. Changes to
Speaker 2: that status quo concern us. We are perturbed by the
Speaker 2: recent agreements between the Cook Islands and China, labeled as
Speaker 2: a comprehensive strategic partnership. The agreement commits the Cook Islands
Speaker 2: to supporting China in multilateral forums, to support candidates during
Speaker 2: elections of various boards and committees. We agree with the
Speaker 2: current New Zealand government the process which preceded these commitments
Speaker 2: and their substance breach arrangements with the Cook Islands operate,
Speaker 2: which referred to in the Joint Centennial Declaration of two
Speaker 2: thousand and one. The Cook Islands are part of the
Speaker 2: realm of New Zealand. Cook Islanders carry New Zealand passports.
Speaker 2: The advantages this carries are the primary reason Cook Island's
Speaker 2: per capita GDP is a remarkable four times that of
Speaker 2: Fiji and fine times that of Togga and Samoa. Advantages
Speaker 2: include the ability to work in New Zealand and through
Speaker 2: New Zealand Australia, access to New Zealand health care and education,
Speaker 2: and superannuation portability Consultation. Obligations are not some perfunctory commitment
Speaker 2: of little importance. They are to ensure the Cook Island's
Speaker 2: government neither deliberately nor unwittingly takes foreign affairs steps deleterious
Speaker 2: to the Cook Islands or to New Zealand and to
Speaker 2: our relationship. It is of course open to Cook Islanders
Speaker 2: to change their relationship with New Zealand and give up
Speaker 2: their New Zealand passports. I doubt this will occur, as
Speaker 2: Cook Islanders know their standard of living would slump. Security
Speaker 2: issues for the Cook Islands could deteriorate over time too,
Speaker 2: in terms of seabed mining. It is within the sovereign
Speaker 2: power of the Cook Islands to pursue this if their
Speaker 2: government desires. New Zealand's experience with hundreds of millions of
Speaker 2: dollars of clean up costs left behind by overseas oil
Speaker 2: companies makes us very weary. Nevertheless, if the Cook Islands
Speaker 2: so well, New Zealand should assist them to manage the
Speaker 2: opportunities and risks, including with international participants. The prosperity and
Speaker 2: peacefulness of the Pacific Islands is of fundamental importance to
Speaker 2: New Zealand. The withdrawal of USA does not help New
Speaker 2: Zealand with partners like Australia must step up. We need
Speaker 2: to do more to help Pacific countries with affordable banking services,
Speaker 2: digital telecommunications, renewable electricity, sustainable resource utilization, especially them helping
Speaker 2: them maximize value from their eased fisheries and climate adaptation,
Speaker 2: better educational health and civil society outcomes are good for us.
Speaker 2: All labor mobility can also help, although care is needed
Speaker 2: given sensitivities for some about depopulation. New Zealand can help
Speaker 2: Pacific populations displaced by sea level rise. Reciprocity is the
Speaker 2: key to prosperity and the shared desire to avoid militarizer
Speaker 2: of the Pacific. What should we do next? Labour would
Speaker 2: like to discuss a Pacific peace zone with other Pacific
Speaker 2: island countries and surrounding superpowers. Phil Tweford will detail how
Speaker 2: this measures with our historic commitments to denuclearization and peace
Speaker 2: on another day. We are continuing to work on our
Speaker 2: labor on our Pacific priorities within LABOUR, but one thing
Speaker 2: is already clear. The decline in New Zealand government spending
Speaker 2: on soft and hard power must be reversed. The split
Speaker 2: between hard power expenditure on military personnel and hardware and
Speaker 2: soft power spending and development assistance and diplomacy will need
Speaker 2: to be worked through, but in our view increases to
Speaker 2: both are needed. A good principle to start with would
Speaker 2: be that every extra dollar spent on the military will
Speaker 2: be matched with an equivalent lift in our development aid
Speaker 2: to the Pacific. Today's not the day to defense procurement plan,
Speaker 2: but some high level statements are appropriate. I make three points. One,
Speaker 2: I should say one to wake people up, it's been
Speaker 2: a bit long one and coalition with others. Labour recently
Speaker 2: replaced the rions with pights and replace the Hercules and
Speaker 2: earlier Labor Government bought the current frigates which are now
Speaker 2: ending our near ending of near end of life. While
Speaker 2: will never be a substantial military power, we need naval
Speaker 2: vessels to respond to disasters in the Pacific and it
Speaker 2: is reasonable for our partners to expect they will have
Speaker 2: military capabilities. Right Honorable Chris Hipkins has acknowledged this requires
Speaker 2: cooperation across governments and election cycles. Two. Our most effective
Speaker 2: fighting force is our sas they should be well paid
Speaker 2: and well equipped. They like to deploy their and to
Speaker 2: polish their renowned skills. Consideration should be given to their
Speaker 2: deployment in Ukraine and supportive peace. Three. The war in
Speaker 2: Ukraine has proven quantities of small drones are important. Ukrainian
Speaker 2: drones have effectively controlled the Black Sea against an invading
Speaker 2: nuclear power. They are affordable. We are home to rocket
Speaker 2: Lab Hamilton Jet and very sophisticated drone companies delivering leading
Speaker 2: edge services to our world leading agricultural sector. Australia has
Speaker 2: drone capabilities and is ahead of US in some areas
Speaker 2: to use Sam Rogobin's analogy, and has booked the Echidneys strategy.
Speaker 2: In defense, we should be a prickly adversary. New Zealand
Speaker 2: should prioritize working with Australia on defensive marine and air
Speaker 2: drones and commit significant resources to the task. Our defense
Speaker 2: spokesperson Penn Hennada is engaged in these issues. On our
Speaker 2: turn to trade, A lack of cooperation and compromises block
Speaker 2: progress at the WOD over many years. This is not
Speaker 2: a dig at the US. Many US complaints about trade
Speaker 2: and balance has caused by existing tariff's, non trade barriers, states,
Speaker 2: subsidized over capacity, and dumping are valid. That said, other
Speaker 2: distortions and unfairness caused by tax arbitrage substantially benefit the US,
Speaker 2: especially in services like e commerce. So does the US
Speaker 2: dollar reserve currency status, which in effect outsources much of
Speaker 2: the cost of US government deficits and debts. Clearly, these
Speaker 2: are complex issues. As Trade minister during the last Trump administration.
Speaker 2: I had frequent dealings with then U S Trade representative
Speaker 2: Robert Letheiser.
Speaker 1: I liked them.
Speaker 2: He criticized private equity purchases of US manufacturing, outsourcing manufacturing
Speaker 2: to labour cost countries to shave off the last few
Speaker 2: percent of labor costs the owner's banked increases in capital
Speaker 2: values at the cost of US workers. He wrote about
Speaker 2: this in his book. He understood that the standards of
Speaker 2: living of working New Zealand working middle class citizens were
Speaker 2: essential to depending both the long term health of the
Speaker 2: US economy and democracy. Without a strong middle class, working, producing, saving,
Speaker 2: and consuming, the economy and society weakens. There are ironies
Speaker 2: the current system has worked for the US in terms
Speaker 2: of its GDP per capita, which is amongst the highest
Speaker 2: in the world. The fact is referred to by Paul Keating,
Speaker 2: together with the parallel concentration of wealth at the very top,
Speaker 2: are not primarily caused by other countries, but rather by
Speaker 2: the USA's internal settings. Unfairness in trade settings is not
Speaker 2: new for New Zealand. New Zealand and Australia both play
Speaker 2: much fairer in global trade than most other countries, but
Speaker 2: are still caught up in the Maelstrom. Sitting as we
Speaker 2: do at the bottom of the Pacific. New Zealand responded
Speaker 2: to protectionist measures in Europe and the Americas by building
Speaker 2: trade and foreign affairs relationships in Asia. Some of those
Speaker 2: strategies have been phenomenally successful for a little country the
Speaker 2: China FTA Ansfitter CPTPP, which includes Japan, Canada, Mexico and Chillery.
Speaker 2: Then we circled back to the UK and Europe. The
Speaker 2: current government has closed the golf deal in pursuing India.
Speaker 2: Labour's record in trade is second to none, So how
Speaker 2: do we protect our trade interests? Now? We're as well
Speaker 2: placed as any distant small country can be. Our diversity
Speaker 2: of sales channels will help us to minimize the first
Speaker 2: round effects of the trade war. Risks to compliance with
Speaker 2: trade agreements, and the second round effects in terms of
Speaker 2: the risks of an international economic slowdown are impossible to
Speaker 2: model accurately. I certainly do not recommend tit for tat tariffs.
Speaker 2: Where might a new order emerge? I'll mention one idea.
Speaker 2: Damon O'Connor and I have discussed it's at least possible
Speaker 2: that some of the barriers to trade between Europe and
Speaker 2: the US will soon be reduced for both security and
Speaker 2: economic reasons. I hope they are. What happens, then maybe
Speaker 2: CPTPP could then be a sensible choice for Europe. The
Speaker 2: UK is already in it. If this happens, CPTPP, which
Speaker 2: has already overtaken the stagnant WTO, could become the de
Speaker 2: facto international standard for trade. This possibility should be pursued
Speaker 2: by our excellent trade officials. I want to end by
Speaker 2: lifting our thoughts to the underlying drivers of polarization afflicting
Speaker 2: the world. Polarization has increased between and within countries. There
Speaker 2: are many causes. Some are geopolitical, some economic, and some technological,
Speaker 2: Like the role social media plays and carrying lies misinformation,
Speaker 2: violence and death threats without consequence for those lying or
Speaker 2: those profiting from them. People feel less secure. Whatever the cause,
Speaker 2: this has political, economic, social, and security implications. Many foreign
Speaker 2: affairs responses are transactional, but the big shifts post World
Speaker 2: War II were holistic. There was a broad acceptance that
Speaker 2: the extremes of fascism, revolution and wars had been caused
Speaker 2: by depressions and inequality, in turn partly caused by unaffordable reparations.
Speaker 2: The New World Order after World War II was intended
Speaker 2: to enable all countries to succeed by encouraging international trade,
Speaker 2: access to resources, better health, and international cooperation. The decades
Speaker 2: that followed saw enormous progress in most parts of the world,
Speaker 2: with complementary progressive measures within countries assisting to lift outcomes
Speaker 2: for billions of people. Now the underlying consensus has frayed
Speaker 2: to the point of dysfunction. I believe the current turmoil
Speaker 2: will need a holistic response, and for that to be
Speaker 2: agreed a substantial subset of the international community. We'll need
Speaker 2: to find common ground about the main underlying causes of
Speaker 2: current worrisome trends. I've reached the stage of career that
Speaker 2: I know what I believe to be important, and for me,
Speaker 2: there are two main themes. First I've already touched on
Speaker 2: is gross wealth inequality, especially when this becomes intergenerational and
Speaker 2: sections of the population stagnate. This drives instability. I won't
Speaker 2: say more about that in this speech, but history shows
Speaker 2: time and again that gross inequality ends in tears. The
Speaker 2: second is the breakdown of trust, which happens when lies
Speaker 2: and misinformation prevail over facts. A cornerstone of the emergence
Speaker 2: of the nation state and the spread of liberal democracy
Speaker 2: was the Enlightenment. There are rational facts, there are truths
Speaker 2: and untruths. The scourge of irresponsible social media, megular maniacal
Speaker 2: tax avoiding tech barons and irresponsible Internet service providers is
Speaker 2: on my list of the importance. I have a view
Speaker 2: that we in the West have made a fundamental error
Speaker 2: in providing what is in effect and exclusion of liability
Speaker 2: for third party content. We have wrongly taken upon the
Speaker 2: shoulders of government the burden of regulating against what is harmful.
Speaker 2: I doubt this will ever work in practice. It also
Speaker 2: puts the burden on the harm citizen or government agencies
Speaker 2: to respond after harm is cause. The exclusion of liability
Speaker 2: was conferred when providers were more akin to a postal service,
Speaker 2: which has no liability for the content of a letter.
Speaker 2: Those providers morphed into publishers, yet are protected from the
Speaker 2: legal remedies which apply to the traditional media they undermine.
Speaker 2: This mistake is at the core of the problem. I'm
Speaker 2: convinced it is better to remove the exclusion of liability
Speaker 2: excluding those selling a harmful prople product to liability for
Speaker 2: the ordinary people that their products harm and it is
Speaker 2: a harmful product, be it damage to young people, foreign interference, defamation,
Speaker 2: theft of other people's content, the enabling of small but
Speaker 2: extreme groups of evildoers who find each other online, online
Speaker 2: sexual abuse, online streaming of derorism, or the regular unpunished
Speaker 2: threats of death and injury. Lies and information abound. A
Speaker 2: recent senior banker recently complained to me that the Internet
Speaker 2: investment scams are more common the legitimate products, and that
Speaker 2: the Internet companies refuse to control them. Worse, they take
Speaker 2: advertising revenue from the services they provide to the fraudsters.
Speaker 2: Much of this harm is from anonymous sources, were some
Speaker 2: deliberately aimed at demining our democratic way of life and freedoms,
Speaker 2: enabling private remedies for our citizens against those profiting from
Speaker 2: selling those harmful products, incruding through low cost for such
Speaker 2: as disputes tribournal a small claims court seems to me
Speaker 2: to be proper. Leave it to the courts to work
Speaker 2: out the balance between freedom of expression and the duty
Speaker 2: not to sell a harmful product. There are ways to
Speaker 2: introduce safeguards, such as the liability limits or safe arbors
Speaker 2: for media content or for platforms that take up for
Speaker 2: active steps to prevent scams, but allowing the current situation
Speaker 2: to continue, where the burden falls almost entirely on individuals
Speaker 2: while social media giants profit is untenable. The seth Jest
Speaker 2: approach does not make the government a sensor, and better
Speaker 2: avoids the risks of state suppression of freedom expression. Left unchecked,
Speaker 2: the current ills will be made worse by those malevolently
Speaker 2: using AI to make the harms they are already causing worse.
Speaker 2: Left unchecked, the oligarch owners of these platforms will increasingly
Speaker 2: use them for their own political ends, as we already
Speaker 2: see from some platforms. Fixing this would not ruin the Internet.
Speaker 2: Point to point communications would still be protected, email commerce
Speaker 2: would endure, massive quantities of information will remain. I feel
Speaker 2: fair that if this is not addressed, polarization and dema
Speaker 2: magoggery will prevail, but I'm by nature an optimist. Opportunities
Speaker 2: arise from adversity. Digital services taxes sprouted at the end
Speaker 2: of the last Trump presidency, and I predict pressure for
Speaker 2: change will continue to mount because so many people in
Speaker 2: the world are fed up with these selfish tech giants.
Speaker 2: We should work with other countries to fix this. The
Speaker 2: holistic changes after World War II had the betterment of
Speaker 2: people at their heart. Labour under then Prime Minister Peter
Speaker 2: Savage helped ensure the United Nations apply to human rights
Speaker 2: approach for the benefit of people in countries large and small.
Speaker 2: New Zealand now needs a clear eyed vision for courteous
Speaker 2: relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific,
Speaker 2: Pacific Island and European friends. Everyone in this room has
Speaker 2: a role to play. It has never been more important
Speaker 2: to stand up for New Zealand's independent foreign policy and
Speaker 2: we all should thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for that, David. I think you're quite right. We
Speaker 1: do seem to be living in an era of accelerated time.
Speaker 1: I was reminded somehow that John Key once led to
Speaker 1: Helen Clark by saying that she led a workman government
Speaker 1: in an iPod age in two thousand and seven. It
Speaker 1: was that was deemed to be very funny. It hasn't.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been a decade since john Key actually last
Speaker 1: stepped onto this very stage. And yet we learned this
Speaker 1: week that military strikes are being coordinated via group chat
Speaker 1: on iPhone apps and celebrated by a string of emojis.
Speaker 2: The Keystone Cops.
Speaker 1: And then celebrated by a by a string of emojis
Speaker 1: and that. So thank you for thank you for your
Speaker 1: comments around around change and around around tech. One of
Speaker 1: the innovations I thought, and what you said was how
Speaker 1: interconnected foreign affairs and domestic policy is. Now we we
Speaker 1: see you your remarks about Paul Keating's criticism of US
Speaker 1: domestic policy and the fact that US domestic policy settings
Speaker 1: having have an impact on US foreign policy, and and
Speaker 1: and your remarks around tech regulation and the fact that
Speaker 1: the regulational lack of regulation of large US tech companies
Speaker 1: is having an impact both in foreign affairs and in
Speaker 1: other countries domestic policies. So I think your your your
Speaker 1: problem diagnosis is really is really astute there. But but
Speaker 1: one of the challenges clearly is that while these are
Speaker 1: domestic US problems that are having an impact in foreign
Speaker 1: affairs and in our domestic policy, our tools for dealing
Speaker 1: with them are very much anchored in the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: My question, I guess is what ability does a New
Speaker 1: Zealand foreign policy and in New Zealand's foreign policy settings,
Speaker 1: what ability do we have to have some control over
Speaker 1: our own over our own affairs, lead alone foreign affairs
Speaker 1: when the settings that dictate them, as you quite rightly say,
Speaker 1: are American foreign policy settings, but also American domestic policy,
Speaker 1: the settings we haven't ventured in the past.
Speaker 2: Look, I think the individual nation state still has a
Speaker 2: huge amount of power actually to change the future. Let's
Speaker 2: take let's take immigration. I think there's now increasing agreement,
Speaker 2: even in parts of Europe where these issues have been difficult,
Speaker 2: that the nation state has the right to control its
Speaker 2: own borders in respective population flows. And we can have
Speaker 2: different views as to how many exceptions should be allowed
Speaker 2: by a government for humanitarian immigration or economic migration. But
Speaker 2: there's I think now an understanding, at least in this
Speaker 2: part of the world, that the nation state has the
Speaker 2: right to control its borders. The nation state also has
Speaker 2: sovereignty and respect of some of these other issues. Now
Speaker 2: to cure them, like to cure the international flows of
Speaker 2: people that are coming out of some disrupted parts of
Speaker 2: the world, international cooperation is needed beyond border. But the
Speaker 2: power of countries to make good decisions internally, including with
Speaker 2: affect things that affect external influences, remains real. In respect
Speaker 2: of the social media issue, I'm actually not calling for regulation.
Speaker 2: I'm actually calling for removal of the exclusion of liability.
Speaker 2: It's just about the only thing you need to do,
Speaker 2: and we can do that. Now. Could we do that alone?
Speaker 2: We could do that with other countries. You know. I
Speaker 2: met with Baroness Bidron, Baroness Bebn Kidron in the UK recently.
Speaker 2: She gave up successful career as a film director to
Speaker 2: go to the cross benches in the House of Lords
Speaker 2: and her gig is protecting young people from harm on
Speaker 2: social media and she's had some success in agreeing codes.
Speaker 2: And I went to see her because I said to her,
Speaker 2: it's not going to work. She essentially agreed, and then
Speaker 2: she said, you know, David, I've given up my career
Speaker 2: to do what is good for people, and I get
Speaker 2: death threats.
Speaker 1: I wanted to pull together a few other strengths of
Speaker 1: your speech. You offered a critique of the Coalition's foreign policy,
Speaker 1: the brutal real politique when it comes to Israel in
Speaker 1: the United States and sticking up for New Zealand stance
Speaker 1: on the I double C when it comes to China.
Speaker 1: The Coalition. I think one of the interesting things about
Speaker 1: the Coalition is that It's often criticized as a fourth
Speaker 1: term key English government. But one area where where that
Speaker 1: is clearly not true is the way it waits the
Speaker 1: benefit the trade benefits of the China relationship with the
Speaker 1: security benefits of the U. S relationship. It seems to
Speaker 1: be rebalancing or readjusting those seatings and those two relationships
Speaker 1: quite significantly. I was wondering whether whether you could sort
Speaker 1: of whether you could outline what you think their foreign
Speaker 1: policy is and and the waves in which it's different
Speaker 1: from the governments it's come after.
Speaker 2: I think it is a question of weight, as you say,
Speaker 2: and I think you are correct to observe that there
Speaker 2: has been a change of weight. It's not the status
Speaker 2: quo being caring forward. There has been a deliberate change
Speaker 2: of weight, and history, even though it's only a year
Speaker 2: and a half into their term, already shows they're on
Speaker 2: the wrong side of that decision making Framely.
Speaker 1: Could you describe Lave that the specific peace zone that
Speaker 1: you alluded to said Fil five produce here will will
Speaker 1: be putting some announcement or some meat on the bones
Speaker 1: of that in the future.
Speaker 2: Well, I think in order to make progress in an
Speaker 2: honor sues you sometimes just have to have a new
Speaker 2: construct to work around. The phrase specific peace zone didn't
Speaker 2: come from me, It was appropriated by me from someone else.
Speaker 2: It was actually Arna that mentioned that she probably stole
Speaker 2: it from someone else too. But you know, it's a
Speaker 2: nice fresh language, and I think it really catches something
Speaker 2: that most specific countries would want. We've already got treaties
Speaker 2: relating to non nuclearization of the Pacific. You can see
Speaker 2: that that I think that development of the Pacific is
Speaker 2: an important part of achieving that peaceful outcome and the
Speaker 2: continuation of relative demilitarization of the area. So I thought
Speaker 2: in my colleagues and the Labor Party thought it's a
Speaker 2: good thing to give it, give it a name, and
Speaker 2: use it as a as a project to organize around.
Speaker 1: So it takes forward the existing specific demilitarization and I
Speaker 1: guess reemphasizes it, restrengthens that give it gives it a
Speaker 1: unified kind of.
Speaker 2: It does, but it should also be seen in concert
Speaker 2: with what I said about assistance into the Pacific to
Speaker 2: allow them to achieve their development objectives. I thought what
Speaker 2: I've said in respect of Cook Islands is strong language.
Speaker 2: But you'll see also there that in respect of the
Speaker 2: deep sea mining issues which seem to be important to
Speaker 2: the Cook Islands, that we're actually acknowledging their development aspirations.
Speaker 2: You know. To be honest, I don't think there's many
Speaker 2: people in New Zealand want to see deep sea mining
Speaker 2: happen off the Cook Islands, and I'm certainly not a
Speaker 2: proponent of it, But if that is their choice, we
Speaker 2: should be helping them do it, and we should be
Speaker 2: helping them minimize the risks so as to achieve development outcomes.
Speaker 2: And that goes for every other part of the Pacific,
Speaker 2: and those areas of development that I listed the essentials
Speaker 2: to the development of every part of the Pacific Islands,
Speaker 2: and that is essentially the key to New Zealand, Australian
Speaker 2: and Japanese and other influence in the Pacific, which is
Speaker 2: the best way to avoid its militarization.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the I'm glad you brought up the Cooks
Speaker 1: this year. The coalition aims to, I guess, reset relations
Speaker 1: with the Cooks after what hapen earlier this year. I
Speaker 1: think that King to use these as the sixtieth anniversary
Speaker 1: of Cock Island self government as an opportunity to reset
Speaker 1: those relations and perhaps assure new declaration along the lines
Speaker 1: I think of the two thousand and one declaration from
Speaker 1: the Clerk government, with a view to probably better codifying
Speaker 1: these these consultation aspects of the relationship that teens have
Speaker 1: failed this year. Would you support that? Well? How would you?
Speaker 1: How would you? How would you be keen I suppose
Speaker 1: yourself to reset those relations.
Speaker 2: If you were to do that, you know, we're very
Speaker 2: supportive of that, and we also reject suggestions that are
Speaker 2: made that this is some personality difficulty between the right
Speaker 2: Honorable Winston Peters and leaders of the Cook Islands and
Speaker 2: now I and many of my other colleagues, and we
Speaker 2: have just about all of the Pacific are MP's in
Speaker 2: Parliament and the Labor Party. We travel periodically with the
Speaker 2: with right on with Winston Peters to the Pacific. We
Speaker 2: see how he operates. He is polite, he is professional,
Speaker 2: so are trade officials. They're not paternalistic. They endeavor to
Speaker 2: do the right thing. Now, I'm sure we make mistakes
Speaker 2: at time, but the idea that there is some sort
Speaker 2: of personality or process mistake by the Minister of Foreign
Speaker 2: Affairs is something that we reject. We back him in
Speaker 2: this and so we wish him success in finding a
Speaker 2: route through.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna look at my timekeepers time to open
Speaker 1: to awesome. I keep an eye on the time. So look,
Speaker 1: I'm I'd like to open to the floor for questions.
Speaker 1: I have to remind everyone questions please, not statements. Statements
Speaker 1: will get you ejected from the group. Chat up the
Speaker 1: back and you were first. We've got some roving microhones
Speaker 1: or okay, just as.
Speaker 3: Well, mister Parker.
Speaker 4: I'm wondering if you would like to review your position
Speaker 4: of Ukraine and blaming Russia's President Putent, because there is
Speaker 4: a remarkable lot of evidence coming from sources that you
Speaker 4: can't really disagree with. They know a lot about it
Speaker 4: from it in America that the war in Ukraine was
Speaker 4: thoroughly provoked by the United States.
Speaker 5: And several EU countries.
Speaker 4: First bar with the coup in Ukraine, which US diplomats organized.
Speaker 4: There's a famous comment coming from the foremost so called
Speaker 4: US diplomat, Victorian new Land, say fuck the EU.
Speaker 6: This was because.
Speaker 4: They had a disagreement with some EU country in France
Speaker 4: about who should take over the government that they were
Speaker 4: displacing through a violent Now, this is all very well documented,
Speaker 4: yet it is not within the purview of the government.
Speaker 4: I'm very so worry about that because it is something
Speaker 4: that the Labor government should be aware now, Jeffrey.
Speaker 7: Sachs is one of.
Speaker 1: Very long question answer that, just.
Speaker 2: Would I care to review the position that the Labor
Speaker 2: government and the current government takes with just about the
Speaker 2: whole of the world to find that it was a
Speaker 2: cross border aggression by Russia that invaded Ukraine. No, we're
Speaker 2: going to have to just agree to disagree on that one.
Speaker 2: We we don't agree with that.
Speaker 1: How are you feeling just on that? About New Zealand's
Speaker 1: involvement with the i P four That's been a long
Speaker 1: standing thing, but it you know, it's it's it seems
Speaker 1: to be that that grouping and the way that New
Speaker 1: Zealand relates to NATO, it seems to have been of
Speaker 1: elevated importance since the invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Look, I was talking to someone from a number of
Speaker 2: people from Europe recently about the idea that NATO would
Speaker 2: have some presence in the in the Indo Pacific. They
Speaker 2: because I was a little taken a bag that given
Speaker 2: that NATO doesn't seem to be able to I quite
Speaker 2: get what it needs in Europe, that it might spread
Speaker 2: its wings to save us in the South Pacific. To
Speaker 2: be honest, they said it was laughable and that it
Speaker 2: was a a thing that was being done to plicate others.
Speaker 1: Interesting another, I'm going on the front.
Speaker 8: There was a yes, yes, I need a microphone, jolly good, okay.
Speaker 8: In the introductory marks from Paris, the abandonment of the
Speaker 8: climate crisis was raised. I was somewhat dismayed that you, sir,
Speaker 8: did not mention the climate crisis at all in your address,
Speaker 8: which maybe says says it all.
Speaker 3: You described yourself as an optimist.
Speaker 2: How how now are you optimistic about the future of.
Speaker 8: Man Hi, given that, whereas all of the problems you
Speaker 8: raise are very serious, if we don't fix the climate crisis,
Speaker 8: then we can't fix any of those.
Speaker 2: That's probably a fair criticism of my speech. I did
Speaker 2: mention sea level rise and they need to repopulate people
Speaker 2: in the Pacific, which is a terrible thing, given that
Speaker 2: if that future and folds as it is, civilizations in
Speaker 2: the Pacific will be lost. So I absolutely agree with you.
Speaker 2: You're quite right to despair at the poor international negotiations
Speaker 2: and respect of climate. I would say it's not just
Speaker 2: this year. I've been a bit surprised that the unf
Speaker 2: Triple C has chosen to base some of the recent
Speaker 2: conference conferences and areas that are to be promoting fossil
Speaker 2: fuels in a way that the world cannot sustain if
Speaker 2: we're to overcome the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: On that. I was at Winston Peter's State of the
Speaker 1: Nation speech in christ Church over the weekend. Obviously he
Speaker 1: was wearing his New Zealand first hat at the time,
Speaker 1: but he is Even after David Seymour has rolled back
Speaker 1: some of his criticism of the Paris Agreement in New
Speaker 1: Zealand's involvement in it, he is still very critical of
Speaker 1: the Paris Agreement and what it's doing to New Zealand's economy.
Speaker 1: Not saying I don't think that he will he would
Speaker 1: like to see New Zealand withdraw and he's not saying that,
Speaker 1: but he's still incredibly critical of it. Do you think
Speaker 1: his party position and is undermining his standing as foreim
Speaker 1: and is still with that criticism.
Speaker 2: Look a year and a half and it feels like
Speaker 2: people are already electioneering. We've got their missions trading scheme
Speaker 2: because Whinston Peter's voted for it, so that imperfect, though
Speaker 2: an instrument, has become.
Speaker 1: So campaigning and campaigning and purchasing in governing and pros
Speaker 1: even when campaigns are lasting the whole three year election
Speaker 1: cycle and any other questions, will.
Speaker 4: Labor commit to developing a unilateral sanctions regime in government
Speaker 4: and sanctioning.
Speaker 2: The Israeli governments we have in respect of the Israeli situation,
Speaker 2: whether we will have a broader autonomous sanction regimes not
Speaker 2: a decision that we've finally taken.
Speaker 1: On on that. So the the sanction reference in your speech,
Speaker 1: that is because the now I'm really venturing beyond my
Speaker 1: knowledge of international law, which is very limited year. But
Speaker 1: the the the the the New Zealand's being a party
Speaker 1: to the I Double c allows us to implement sanctions
Speaker 1: in relation to people in breach of their What.
Speaker 2: What we've said in respective of the Gaza and West
Speaker 2: Bank situation of the occupied territories is that we agree
Speaker 2: with the bill that Greens are brought forward, which is
Speaker 2: essentially repetition of the sanctions regime that we've already got
Speaker 2: on the books for Russia.
Speaker 1: Right, would it make sense to use that as a
Speaker 1: basis for an autonomous sanctions regime.
Speaker 2: More broaden well, I think that legislation probably was based
Speaker 2: on the autonomous sanctions legislation that had already been drafted
Speaker 2: I think originally under Jerry Brownlee under the last National government.
Speaker 6: Thank you, honorable David Bucker.
Speaker 7: It was a fairly sumon Algeri rulla from Fiji think
Speaker 7: tank and arch of Malalynesians scholars and gratuates. Just a question,
Speaker 7: two questions short, one on New Zealand's position on Israel's
Speaker 7: being taken to sec and the other is the checkbook
Speaker 7: diplomacy that's happening within the Pacific Islands in Aungineer.
Speaker 5: Firstly, on a lot of our irelands are Christian.
Speaker 2: Based and so they're voted in favor of Israel.
Speaker 5: So it shifted from New Zealand's position. How would New
Speaker 5: Zealand scateadize there to continue with the with other matters
Speaker 5: when they divergence in that position? And the second question
Speaker 5: is that checkbook and cultural diplomacy is quite what the
Speaker 5: people in the Alids are going before.
Speaker 2: Now, what's your comment in respect of the ICJ issue?
Speaker 2: There is a proceeding before the ICJ concerning the War Gaza,
Speaker 2: where the allegation is being made that the State of
Speaker 2: Israel is in breach of the Convention against Genocide. The
Speaker 2: Convention against Genocide also condition or tries to stop not
Speaker 2: just the absolute decimation of the people, but also language
Speaker 2: and actions that are on that spectrum. And we have
Speaker 2: said that New Zealand, as a member of the ICJ,
Speaker 2: should intervene in that litigation. That's the legal phrase that's
Speaker 2: used in order to assist the court, not to gather facts.
Speaker 2: We haven't got a fact raise, effect, proving or investigative role,
Speaker 2: but we do well understand the Convention because New Zealand
Speaker 2: on a number of occasions has intervened in prior ICJ
Speaker 2: considerations of the Convention, and so we think New Zealand
Speaker 2: should be there to assist the Court in respect of
Speaker 2: the debt, diplomacy and other issues in the Pacific. I
Speaker 2: think we have to be a bit careful not to
Speaker 2: demonize others. I do think that some of the debt
Speaker 2: left behind for some infrastructure in the likes of Tonga
Speaker 2: is proving to be a long term problem for Tonga,
Speaker 2: but I haven't seen recent evidence of that problem getting
Speaker 2: worse and it could be that some other countries have
Speaker 2: heard those messages and are not pursuing that debt diplomacy
Speaker 2: in the same way. It is of course true that
Speaker 2: there is strategic competition influence influence within the Pacific, and
Speaker 2: I've already outlined how we would address that.
Speaker 1: We've got time for one more question than really lived
Speaker 1: at the side of the room.
Speaker 6: Yeah, in your speech, you've made reference to Israel and
Speaker 6: the occupied territories and the need to pursue international or
Speaker 6: either through a two steps solution or a one state
Speaker 6: alternative you touched on. I found that interesting that my
Speaker 6: question to you is would there be a basis under
Speaker 6: international law for something like No.
Speaker 2: What I was really saying, we in the Labor Party
Speaker 2: still consider that the two state solution is desirable. It's
Speaker 2: hard to see a one state solution working. But on
Speaker 2: the other hand, I was really saying that if you
Speaker 2: don't have a two state solution, you can't deprive people
Speaker 2: who live in effectively one country, if it's effectively been
Speaker 2: taken over by Israel, you can't deprive them of all
Speaker 2: of the rights that other citizens have. I wasn't advocating
Speaker 2: for an outcome. I was observing that no progress has
Speaker 2: been made in a two state solution and in the
Speaker 2: meantime people have got no rights under the current status quo.
Speaker 1: Run out well, thank you very much for your questions.
Speaker 1: We've run out of times. Thank you very much David
Speaker 1: for answering them, and I'm heading over to Mahan now
Speaker 1: in Paris.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much to all of you for joining
Speaker 3: us this morning. An important takeaway is that all foreign
Speaker 3: policy starts at home. That resonates strongly with develop fair.
Speaker 3: A special thank you again to Honorable David Parker for
Speaker 3: his insights and balance the speech, to Thomas for leading
Speaker 3: a thought well an engaging conversation. Also to David Parker's office,
Speaker 3: a B team, deplosas youth leaders and the helpers from
Speaker 3: Victoria International Leadership Program. If you would like to keep
Speaker 3: thinking with us, follow Deplo sware on our subseat platform Stack,
Speaker 3: where we continue our independent conversations on foreign affairs, duo politics,
Speaker 3: and global change. Enjoys the rest of the day and
Speaker 3: take off.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That was on the tiles for another week.
Speaker 1: Thanks to Diblosphere for hosting that event and forgiving us
Speaker 1: the audio so that we could share it on our
Speaker 1: podcast platform. Ethan Stills as always as the producer, and
Speaker 1: you can listen to us on our Heart radio or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. We'll be back next week
Speaker 1: with more on the tiles. Thank you very much for listening.