Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.JAMES SHAW (Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to trade with Saudi Arabia that an “… FTA gives us yet another reason for those relationships to grow and be closer together …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):My statement actually referred to the potential free-trade agreement with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf which covers six Gulf States. I stand by my statement: a free-trade agreement with that group gives another reason for relationships to grow and be closer together and more focused for our businesses.James Shaw: Why is he giving preferential treatment to a regime that has beheaded 72 people this year—three of whom were beheaded the day he flew out?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think you can say we are giving preferential treatment. What we are doing is trading with Saudi Arabia and with other countries that make up the Gulf cooperation council. That is not actually new. The member probably knows that our trade with the Gulf States is our fifth largest. In fact we sell more exports to the Gulf States than we do to the United Kingdom. Actually we have been doing trade for a long period of time. Eighteen senior business leaders came with me because they actually see this as a market of opportunity. In the last question I just had the Leader of the Opposition telling me he wanted us to do more in terms of exports. Well that is what we were doing last week: leading a trade delegation to grow our exports.James Shaw: Has he raised human rights with the Saudi regime and will he make any preferential trade agreement conditional on human rights being improved and beheadings being stopped?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter part of the question no; in terms of the former part of the question yes. In fact we had quite an extensive discussion with King Salman and we did raise human rights. And actually I might make the point that not only did we raise it and have a reasonably extensive discussion but we did more than President Obama did who did not actually raise human rights when he went to Saudi Arabia. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question James Shaw—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have called for order again to allow Mr Shaw to ask a supplementary question; the barrage continued. I will next be asking somebody to leave the Chamber to demonstrate that we have got to have a level of decorum while questions are being asked.James Shaw: Given that he has raised beheadings and human rights abuses with the Saudi regime what evidence does he have that the Saudi regime is improving its human rights and stopping beheadings as a result of our trade agreement with them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have with me the details of their record in this area over time. But what I would say though is that there are two ways of approaching these things are there not? One is ultimately one of isolation and one is engagement. And if the member is suggesting that we should put Saudi Arabia into the camp of isolation then that is a legitimate argument you can make. But I would say that we also do not agree with the death penalty in countries like the United States and is he really arguing that because Texas executes people we should actually have an isolationist policy when it comes to the United States? My experience as Prime Minister is that when you have good trading relationships when you get to know people better you can have more fruitful discussions. And actually over time I think you genuinely see change. I am not saying Saudi Arabia has a record that we want in human rights but the evidence that people on the ground at least suggested to me is that over the last few decades it has improved a bit.James Shaw: So does he stand by his statement to this House “I will not … stand by … when people out there are being beheaded” or does that apply only to non-trading partners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I absolutely stand by that statement. And there is a difference between a country that has its own constitution its own laws and decides to follow those laws and the actions of a terrorist group. I might not agree and I do not agree with the death penalty but as I said to the member it is not solely unique to Saudi Arabia. It is also true in the United States and other countries. It happens to be true as we know from last week in Indonesia. In the end actually there is quite a lot of difference between a country and a terrorist group like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).James Shaw: Does he think it makes any difference to the people who are being beheaded whether they are being beheaded by the Saudi regime or by ISIL?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually better than a sort of somewhat flippant question. When people die it is a terrible thing and I do not agree with beheadings. But I am just saying that people live in that country and those are the rules and laws of that country just like we have rules and laws over here that people might not agree with.James Shaw: How bad would human rights abuses have to be in another country for New Zealand not to give preferential trade treatment to that country?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think we are giving preferential treatment. What we are trying to do is negotiate a free-trade agreement which allows access on a more beneficial footing to both parties—and this happens to be the Gulf States Saudi being one of those six partners. If the member’s argument is that we should not actually negotiate free-trade agreements with countries that have human rights records that we do not agree with then you could apply that to quite a number of countries—and they are countries that the previous Government also signed free-trade agreements with.