Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21252] 
7.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What reports if any has he received on changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have seen two reports on a bill before Parliament designed to end New Zealand’s nuclear-free status. One report shows that a large majority of New Zealanders contrary to the intention of this bill want their country to stay nuclear-free. This bill will therefore be an embarrassment to parties that intend to repeal nuclear-free legislation but are desperate not to make their intention clear before the election. The other report is from the  
Agenda 
 programme on Saturday which revealed that neither Dr Brash nor most of the National caucus supports a nuclear-free New Zealand but will not vote for the bill. Clearly the National Party is the party that will suffer the most embarrassment from the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that the Minister has absolutely no responsibility for the best part of that answer and I would like to know why you did not intervene at the beginning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He was asked about reports. In his answer he stated the reports he had available to him. He was not saying he was responsible for anyone else’s policy as I heard the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you saying that it is acceptable for Ministers to make comment on matters for which they have no responsibility? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister is the foreign affairs Minister and the legislation being referred to is a key aspect of New Zealand’s foreign policy. Certain foreign Governments would be very interested in the prospect of any change to that policy at some time within the foreseeable future. The Minister is perfectly free to comment on the likelihood or otherwise of any change in that policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My point is that we could not set down a question on the Order Paper about an article that appeared in the  
Wall Street Journal 
 which absolutely caned New Zealand for its non-proliferation nuclear one might say allies or allegiances that it has struck up around the world; something we know is a cause of embarrassment for the Government. Because the Minister has no direct responsibility for that issue we cannot raise it. So the point is if the Minister is able to use a patsy question from a member who hardly ever asks a question in the House to offer his opinions on some other party’s policy then perhaps you can free us up so that we can do exactly the same when we ask questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I said originally if there had been hypothetical speculation on what might be the policy then no but there was a reference to specific reports. One cannot speculate on what might happen but if there is a reference to specific reports then that is in the context of addressing the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point. Is this a new point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I ask you in light of that ruling to have a close look at  
Hansard 
 because I believe there was a lot of speculation in his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that and I shall do that. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Are these the only reports the Minister has seen on this subject? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I have of course seen another rather famous report in which Don Brash promised congressmen that under National New Zealand’s nuclear-free status would be “gone by lunchtime”. The honourable member apparently could not remember that but that is a clear case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a completely unsubstantiated lie from the Minister. If he wants to make that statement surely he needs to place the evidence on the Table of the House. I have already explained that we are not able to go into the issue of New Zealand aligning itself with Iran over nuclear non-proliferation and the embarrassment that issue is clearly causing the Government. But if we have this sort of speculation from the Minister and these mistruths put in front of the House then we have to have the opportunity to respond appropriately. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that far from it being an unsubstantiated lie I laid on the Table the transcript that showed that Don Brash contrary to assertions that the member has just made said precisely what I quoted him as saying. Don Brash could not remember of course whether he had said it but we all know what he said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Quiet please. Points of order are to be heard in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Quite apart from the fact that the Minister’s response was not a point of order I assume now that he is calling the senators who were present at that meeting liars. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are now getting into debating the Minister’s answer. The Minister said that he saw a report and that he has tabled that report. That addresses that point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister said that he had tabled the transcript of the exchange. My understanding is that there was no transcript but that he had a report from an official. If in fact he has a transcript I think it would be helpful if he did table it; otherwise I think he is misleading the House—I am not saying intentionally. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is quite right. It was a report from an official who is a neutral public servant on what he heard Dr Brash say. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the reason for New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government’s policy reflects a longstanding commitment shared by the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders that this country should remain nuclear-free and that decisions on this issue should be made by New Zealanders according to what we think is right. Dr Brash’s behaviour suggests that he believes the opposite but will not come clean because of political expediency. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 145/5 which states: “… The Minister in answering about the report cannot be hypothetical about what may or may not be the effects of another political party’s policy.” I simply ask you to enforce it. The last three answers from this Minister have breached that very clear Standing Order and Speaker’s ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They were not speculation; they were comments on a report that has in fact been put before the House. So they were not hypothetical. Whether those reports were accurate is not for the Speaker to determine. But there was a basis for the statement. It was not a hypothetical assumption of what might or might not be someone else’s policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Then how would you explain the Minister deviating from an answer to a question about the reason for New Zealand’s non-nuclear status by going immediately into what he thinks Dr Brash has meant? I point out to you and to the House that Dr Brash has said that we will not support ACT’s legislation because we have a position that does exactly as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has suggested—we would put the issue before New Zealanders before anything was even considered. The issue here is that the Minister was asked a specific question about the policy but then immediately broke into his opinion on what Dr Brash’s comments might have meant and what is worse his reporting of Dr Brash’s comments was to say the least inaccurate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When the Minister does in fact say—and I think that in this instance the Minister did say—that he believes that Dr Brash said something then that is not appropriate because that is speculation. If in fact there is some evidence for the statement then that is within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister had any evidence of memory lapses from the official concerned or of any lack of ability to write down what happened at the time; if not is there anything else in the report that might explain why Dr Brash no longer remembers what he said? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Where on earth is this Minister’s responsibility for the psychological state of a State official whose recollection of an event has not been substantiated by most of the other parties who took part in that meeting? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This issue could be so much more easily settled if Dr Brash simply came to the House and gave a personal explanation stating that he never said that and that he does not believe it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question seems to me to go beyond what the Minister’s responsibility is in terms of speculating upon motive. However the Minister is responsible of course for officials who are in the ministries for which he is responsible. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very interesting ruling because we have been trying to get the Hon George Hawkins to be responsible for officials in his department for months. We have had repeated advice from the Speaker that the Minister is not responsible for operational matters not responsible for the direct employment of anybody in his department and responsible only for vote allocations. How is it different for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we are confusing issues here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No we are not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we are. The matter was about operational administrative matters. However I think the Minister will have to be very careful as he addresses this question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The skill that Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials have is to sit at meetings and accurately record what was said. The official concerned had no political axe to grind. He was quite clear in what was said unlike Dr Brash who claimed he could not remember what he said a couple of weeks earlier. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last part was unnecessary; that was speculating on Dr Brash’s state of mind. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would never do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Stop it. That was out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can I and can the House interpret the Minister’s answers to be that he has seen reports that have led him to believe that the majority of New Zealanders support the nuclear-free policy and that is the real reason why the Government supports the policy; if so does he have any fear of the issue of nuclear-powered shipping being put to a referendum and if he does why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The public opinion on this issue has been quite consistent since 1987. It is not a case of the Labour Government believing in the policy because of the public opinion—other parties in the House might do that. The Labour Government has been steadfastly committed—along with the Greens and I think most other parties in the House except for National and ACT—to a policy of keeping New Zealand nuclear-free. Because public opinion has been so consistent for so long there is absolutely no need for a referendum—that is already clear. The only need for a referendum is so that an expedient political party can try to get itself off the hook which is precisely what National is trying to do as Ken Shirley pointed out. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister recall that the Hon Richard Prebble introduced the first private member’s bill to ban nuclear ships in New Zealand waters; if so has he received an explanation for Mr Prebble’s U-turn on this matter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I very clearly do remember that and Ken Shirley was an adamant supporter of that policy. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How could that question possibly be in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with the member. 
Rodney Hide 
: We are quite happy to have Phil Goff speculate on it—it is no embarrassment to us—but we must have some Standing Orders applying in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You are ahead Mr Hide. I agree that that question was inappropriate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am obliged to my leader but I am actually very proud of those three bills. They brought down the Muldoon Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that bit of history. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Wall Street Journal 
 article in which New Zealand is associated with Iran on the complete failure of the negotiations for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which is a tragedy for New Zealand and the world. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.