Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1658] 
4.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in his Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 It is early days but I have found Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff to be conscientious and professional and therefore the answer is yes. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: When the Minister told the House yesterday in answer to a question on the Convention on Biological Diversity that: “there is no such international convention or treaty.” was that because his officials did not tell him or was it just because he forgot? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member full well knows that he began with a convention on an issue called “the terminator” where it comes to seeds. That is what he started with but where he went after that I do not know. It puts me in mind of the old saying: I shot an arrow into the air. Whither it landed I knew not where.” The fact is if a member puts down a primary question and staff prepare the answer to it that is likely to be what the answer is about. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Apart from the terminator gene is the Minister aware of any other substances that effect sterility? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The answer is yes for it is generally accepted that smoking cannabis has an impact on driving capacity on mental capacity on social capacity and on the issue of sterility which was the primary question asked yesterday. It can be a real terminator. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware of reports that the United States although not a party to the convention has been working through other countries in an attempt to overturn the status quo on terminator technology and is that what he meant when he said in a recent speech that New Zealand is working in the interests of the United States in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My answer is this: that is not what I said in my recent speech at all. The member should refer to it in order to get the honest interpretation from it. What I did say at the time was this: that Ministry—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I can see why honesty would be so foreign to that member but not to me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please just stick to the answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am happy to stick to the answer. The trouble with National members is that they can dish it out but they cannot take it. They cannot take it and we know why: it can be lonely with one’s nose against the window for all these years. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is attempting to avoid the fact that he does not know the answer to the question by obfuscating in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I asked the Minister to stick to the answer to the question and I accept that there was certain distraction and therefore we meandered into other areas. I ask the Minister to address the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am well aware of what the United States is doing abroad on this issue. I am also very well aware that we will soon be sending officials to Brazil on an issue that relates to a conference agenda that was agreed to by the then National Government way back when Mr Storey was in charge of these affairs. But the real point is this: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is involved in amalgamating and coordinating the views of various departments. All those departments have a greater role than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has in respect of the issue the member seeks an answer on—in particular the Ministry for the Environment. He has put his question to the wrong Minister. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister seems to be unaware that officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade are according to their own account due to present to Cabinet fairly shortly prior to that meeting. Is he telling us that he is simply a puppet for the Labour Government and does no decision-making of his own? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: As New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs is he concerned that the reputation of New Zealand is being damaged due to the widespread condemnation of our position in attempting to open the door to terminator technology against the wishes of the vast majority of signatories to the convention? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What I am aware of is this: there are very few countries in the world that follow the prescription of the Greens. That is why Green parties are not in power anywhere in the world that I know of. The real issue is that we have provisioned a group of people to take part and perform their role at the next conference with respect to those matters abroad. They are well apprised of the views of the whole range of countries that will be there and they will be governed by the domestic policy of this country not by some policy made on the hoof. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave for the benefit of the Minister to table the list of parties to the convention that he referred to—188 parties. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table decision 5 of the Convention on Biological Diversity which New Zealand is party to as a ratified member. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In the interests of helping that member I seek leave to table a paper from the convention in respect of terminator technology but I cannot because there is no such convention. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That wasted the House’s time. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule Madam Speaker on a situation where a Minister of the Crown gets up and asks for leave to table a paper that does not exist. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did note Mr Hide that the Minister had wasted the House’s time and that is not acceptable. I said that at the time and I am sorry if you did not hear it. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is not my point Madam Speaker. Of course it is a waste of time but it is also an abuse of the process because one could seek leave for all sorts of things and to table reports that do not exist. The problem is not that it is a waste of time. The point is that it is an abuse of the process to seek leave to table something that does not exist. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point and I would make the point to all members in the House that when they raise points of order on any matter those points of order must be relevant to what is in the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this with you now—I could have left it until the end of question time but Mr Hide has brought up the issue of Mr Peters raising frivolous points of order. If you go back through the  
Hansard 
 of this week you will find that your instruction to the House last week that raising frivolous points of order should stop has been followed by the National Party. We have not had the sort of protracted time spent on points of order that we had last week. Mr Peters engaged in at least four of those points of order on Tuesday in a number again yesterday and he is so far up to three today. It seems that whenever he is involved it is just a matter of: “Oh well it’s too bad. It’s a bit of cross-banter and we’ll let him off.” We do expect to see him be pinged at some point. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Those members who were paying attention know full well that yesterday the member from the Greens Nandor Tanczos asked a question on a convention in respect of the restriction of the use of genetic technologies. That is the convention that he asserted exists. He knew full well that there was no such convention but he stuck to that argument. Today he wished to switch his argument. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister knew yesterday that there was not one why did he not tell him? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I did. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No you didn’t. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! I take Mr Brownlee’s point that my rulings on points of order last week were that we were to try to restrain ourselves and confine them to facts. I intend in the future to rule very strictly on that and I put everyone on notice of that. I do appreciate those members in the House who have been following those rulings. I ask those who have not been following them to please take note. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to check the  
Hansard 
 record of the exact words that the Rt Hon Winston Peters used in that point of order because I think that in referring to his willingness to table a document and then telling us that no such document existed he has come very close to misleading the House. I would like you to reflect on that point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point but I would like us now to move on. I think every member is on notice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to extend this point of order to and fro but I ask you to give consideration to this matter: when a Minister of the Crown uses a point of order to make a political point that is not a point of order and to make an allegation against a member such as Mr Peters has just done against myself there is then no opportunity to reply to that because it is unacceptable to use a point of order to reply to a political point. I have just tabled a document that demonstrates my point and used the Standing Orders appropriately but what come-back do members such as myself have when a Minister misuses a point of order to make a political attack? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made a good point. He has obviously got his point of view through on this occasion. Could we just confine these particular proceedings in the House to questions and answers.