Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21827] 
7.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Does he consider that New Zealand has a dispute with Australia over its almost 85-year ban on the importation of New Zealand apples; if so why did he not initiate formal dispute settlement procedures at the World Trade Organization? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Yes. As the member states New Zealand has had this problem for over 84 years including the entire time that Lockwood Smith was Minister for International Trade. The Government has taken the unprecedented step of raising this issue at the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures which meets next Wednesday. I note this is the first time a New Zealand Government has ever formally raised any issue against Australia at the World Trade Organization and that the National Government of Dr Lockwood Smith certainly never took that action. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When just 9 days before the federal election last year the Australian Government rejected Biosecurity Australia’s draft approval for the importation of New Zealand apples why did he not realise then that the dispute was simply a political issue to the Australian Government and initiate dispute settlement procedures then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The dispute most certainly is a political issue. There is no scientific basis at all for the exclusion of New Zealand apples from— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why didn’t you do something then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That member had 9 years and his Government did absolutely nothing. This Government in 7 days’ time for the first time will take this case to the World Trade Organization—something the National Government never had the gumption to do. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Will New Zealand remove its support of Australia’s leadership of the Cairns group? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No that is one of the demands that the Australian Access Action Group made out on the forecourt this afternoon. I noticed that Dr Brash did not respond on that at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did you say? Nothing! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Frankly we will not do that and Dr Nick Smith should take his medication and listen because I am giving the answer now. That would damage the Cairns group as a whole— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Every time any member challenges Government members they get nasty and personal. The record is very clear. I have not taken any medication for many many years. I do not think I have even seen a doctor in the last year. That is how personal and nasty the Government has become. If the standard is going to be that when there is an interjection they can make those sorts of references then I could make reference to the Prime Minister’s childlessness and to Lianne Dalziel’s drunken spell in Hanmer Springs. We could go a long way but the deterioration in this House and in its standards would be such that they would go into the gutter. I suggest that it is time you made a ruling on that and said that those sorts of personal insinuations are inappropriate. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Interjections are of course permissible but the Standing Orders state that they should be rare and reasonable. That member gets very excited and constantly chips across the floor while sitting as he does just a couple of metres from where I am. It was under that provocation that I told him he needed to settle down and take medication. It was not particularly personal. It is something I would say to any Opposition member who becomes overexcited. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank you both.  
Hansard 
 will record that the member who raised the point of order is known for his interjections also. Of course interjections should be rare and reasonable and any response should be within the bounds of the Standing Orders. I remind members of that both in their interjections and in their response to interjections. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think that your ruling quite deals with this issue. What we had was a statement that is frequently thrown across the House from both sides of the Chamber which has not been perceived in the past to be anything that is of great notoriety or to be defamatory. It was then followed up with the slinging of a couple of accusations that are pretty serious. I know what it is. Basically the two old parties are behaving in the same way because they are worried about their polls and the fact that neither of them will get within a cooee of getting into Government by themselves at the next election. But it should not be part of your job Madam Speaker to allow that sort of thing to go on purely because they cannot get used to not having power by themselves. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I said in my ruling I have reminded members of the requirements of the Standing Orders and I expect them to abide by them in the future. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am still raising the same matter. This matter has been drawn to your attention earlier Madam Speaker but I really do think you should think about it. Just ruling that something is not satisfactory is not the way that Speakers have normally dealt with such matters. Frankly I think that the statement by the Minister did contain an implication that he should be asked to withdraw and then Mr Smith should also be asked to withdraw his two personal allegations. If you were to do that it would be a signal to the House that there is a line and I think that both the Minister and the member who raised the point of order have both clearly crossed it. The statements were made in a point of order. Members cannot make unparliamentary statements when raising a point of order and I think that Mr Smith would acknowledge that he did so. I am sure that if the Minister were to withdraw his statement Mr Smith would withdraw his and then we would be able to get on with question time. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: To both comments? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise both to the Prime Minister and to Lianne Dalziel. I would note though that I think this is about the 20th— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all that is required. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is about the 20th time that that accusation has been made across the House. Trevor Mallard did it twice yesterday and Phil Goff has done it regularly so it has been responded to under provocation. But I unreservedly apologise both to the Prime Minister and to Lianne Dalziel. I think the House would be a lot better if we kept to the issues. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wish to make a personal explanation in line with the statement made by the member. The inference I took was that I had been admitted to the hospital in Hanmer Springs for drunkenness. That is a complete falsity. I have never been admitted to an institution for any purpose let alone for alcoholism. It was an appalling suggestion to make. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm the following: that this question No. 7 from the National Party today is in fact the first primary question it has asked on this issue this year; that New Zealand First has asked several questions on this issue including recently shortly before the announcement of the World Trade Organization action; and that this is just one further example of blatant opportunism and plagiarism on the part of the National Party? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Party is well known for both plagiarism and opportunism— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the National Party. I missed the first part of the Minister’s answer. Would he please repeat it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not recall having heard a question from the National Party on this topic this year until today when a march on Parliament was organised. I also have a record here of what Dr Smith said when he was the Minister and that was that we should deal with these things without resorting to World Trade Organization action. Obviously that is a blatant contradiction of what he is pretending in the House today. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What does the Minister have to say to those apple growers who will not survive another 3 years while the Government purports to take this case to the World Trade Organization and why did the Minister not take a case at least in 1999 when he had the opportunity to start proceedings on this matter which has been going on for 80-odd years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to 1999 as I recall it National was in Government supported by ACT and neither party said anything about the issue at all at that time. I think every member of the House agrees that the Australian ban on apples which has lasted 84 years is totally unsustainable unjustifiable and against science. The real question we need to address is how to change it. No Government has succeeded in doing that to date. But clearly there are two ways of doing it. The first is by taking the matter to the disputes settlement process which I am informed would probably drag it out for another 3 years. The second is to address it after the compliance case between the US and Japan that is before the World Trade Organization. With the Australian High Commissioner promising this morning a result from the import risk assessment within months that may yet be the quickest way to resolve this dispute. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why does New Zealand not take retaliatory action against Australian imports of agricultural produce? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Again that is the sort of suggestion that I think some of the firebrands are putting out in public. Clearly it is not in New Zealand’s overall interests to engage in a tit-for-tat policy on market access. That would also be contrary to our principles of free and fair trade and would put us in breach of the obligations that we are asking the Australian Government to honour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it not correct that the application for apple access that his Government will be discussing at the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures was initiated by the National Government in 1999 and that National took both America and Canada to dispute resolution at the World Trade Organization and won both cases; and why does this Government not get on with settling this dispute instead of just producing more talk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is all a little bit rich. I have here a statement made by Lockwood Smith in December 1998 promising that the issue would be settled within a year. He obviously did not achieve that although no doubt the honourable member did his very best for the country. But he now is demanding from New Zealand an action that for 9 years the National Government itself utterly failed to take. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement made in the House by the Hon Jim Sutton on 14th June: “I have consulted with the leadership of the New Zealand apple industry and it supports the actions being taken.”; if so who was the Hon Jim Sutton talking to and how does he explain the approximately 700 people standing outside Parliament as we speak protesting his lack of proper action on this issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government deals with a whole range of business and agricultural interests in terms of access to Australia. By and large the reports that we have had back have been very supportive of the Government’s action. I think the pipfruit growers—the main body rather than this action group—have been supportive of the fact that this Government when no other Government has ever before taken World Trade Organization action has actually done so. I recall a statement by Kerry McDonald from the Australia - New Zealand Business Council on radio the other day that was also very supportive of the tough but responsible action this Labour-led Government was taking in this area. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What issue was so pressing that it required Jim Sutton to be elsewhere today instead of meeting hundreds of apple growers here at Parliament or was he just following Helen Clark’s lead when she believed it was more important for the Prime Minister to meet with Shrek the sheep than thousands of New Zealanders on the foreshore hikoi? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Jim Sutton has always had the courage to front up. As it happens he has a programme of some months’ standing including two major speeches in Christchurch today. The member if he wishes can consult the Minister’s office to find out how long those functions have been on the Minister’s programme and the importance of those functions. That is why he was not there but the Government was there and it was doing something different from the Opposition members: it was telling the truth. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes—would the Minister withdraw and apologise for the last statement. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that there has not been one question from the National Party this year on this issue and that after a series of questions from my colleague Dail Jones the Minister was moved to go to the World Trade Organization; that being the case why on earth would that industry ask Don Brash to speak at its rally? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: From the best of my memory I confirm again—and this has not been contradicted by the National Party—that I do not think the National Party has asked any questions on this topic this year but if that is not correct perhaps Lockwood Smith could indicate that fact. In terms of Dail Jones Dail Jones is a fine person but it is a little unfair to suggest that he was the reason we took this matter to the World Trade Organization. However I welcome his support. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that the apple growers wanted Jim Sutton to front up and he did not and that they also asked Winston Peters to speak and he was not there either? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister is not responsible for where I speak. I and the people are. He therefore should be asked not to answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did indicate that. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the point of order. The Minister may address the first part of the question but not the second. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just allowed Winston Peters to ask why the Minister thought that the apple growers would ask Don Brash to speak. You had no problem with that. You ruled that to be in order. If that is the case how can it be that when I asked the Minister who was out on the forecourt about what went on there that got ruled out? Why can we not just have some consistency in the rulings? Either the question that Mr Peters asked was out of order—and if it was then mine was—or if his was in order so too was mine. Please point out the difference between them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As I recollect it the Minister was asked whether the National Party had asked him any questions this year. That is quite different from asking him whether somebody else spoke somewhere else. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s not correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I thank the member. I understood the question not to say that but I am happy to look at  
Hansard 
. I understood it was a general question but the specific question was asked by you. I have asked the Minister to respond to the bit he is responsible for but not to the other part. And I will look at  
Hansard 
 on the other. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been down this chute before whereby you look at  
Hansard  
and I turn out to be right. What happens then? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not recall that. I will get back to you and if that is the case I will rectify it. I do not recall the question being asked and there is no way I can verify that at the moment. I ask the Minister to please address the first part of the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure that the people out there did want Jim Sutton to be there. Unfortunately the people at the open traceability session of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production conference and at the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science annual convention also wanted Jim Sutton to be there. He is a very popular fellow and he could not be in two places at once.