English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5294] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did she mean when she said “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo/American group—it shifts the whole dynamic”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Speaking on 2 April before going to Europe I was referring to the debate within Europe and the way in which international opinion among key players appeared to be divided at that time. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of her apparent view of the smallness of the Anglo-American group her view that the whole dynamic is shifting and a steady stream of comments that have been critical of Australia Britain and America is she setting a new direction for New Zealand foreign policy; or if not what are those comments evidence of? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear that when push came to shove at the Security Council the US-UK view commanded four votes and the other view presumably commanded 11. In that sense the comment was entirely accurate. I do not think I could ever be accused of attacking allies in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did when he said that Australians had a good history of marginal criminal behaviour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think her recent comments on the progress of the Iraq war the likely actions of a Gore presidency should he have won and the law of the jungle or the equivalent that could be anticipated from those words as reported in the  
Guardian 
 are helpful to New Zealand; if not will she keep quiet on those matters rather than trying to pose as some sort of antipodean Metternich? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I found in the United Kingdom is that they thoroughly understand democracy sovereignty and the right to dissent unlike an Opposition that knows only how to tug its forelock. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That reply was a breach of Standing Order 372. The last part was unnecessary and breached the Standing Order. The Prime Minister who does that regularly should desist or be asked to desist from that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister’s reply was brief and to the point. The comment she made might well be outside the Standing Order but then so are quite a lot of the comments made in this House. If I were to pull up every single comment I would have been pulling up some parts of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Prime Minister said that what everyone is looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links through to the Chinese and what looks to be a small Anglo-American group would she name—[ 
Interruption 
] She said everyone. Well let us start naming them—just one leader who is saying that apart from her. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The comment was made on 2 April when it was quite clear what the division of international opinion between those players was. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is why question time is taking so long. We have a question for which notice has been given and I have quoted correctly to make sure that the Prime Minister has got it. She said “everyone” and I asked her to name someone. Now she says “2 April”. What does that have to do with it? I asked her to name just one leader who is saying that apart from her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. It might not have been satisfactory to the member but that was the answer that was given. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Prime Minister now that she has had more time like to give it another go? When she says “everyone” I ask her to start naming them. Who are the people whom she says are looking at whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo-American group? I ask her to please name those people. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear to any student of the English language that “everyone” was used in a generic sense as one might have used the term “people”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Keith Locke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Keith Locke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did you call Mr Prebble last time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I made a mistake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: For the third time in 4 days you have done that. With respect I have told you that my party does not intend to put up with that and I want an explanation now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said I made a mistake. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister think that because the American forces have not found any weapons of mass destruction the Anglo-American war was constructed on a lie and that New Zealand France Germany and Russia were right in wanting to give the UN inspectors more time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of the question. The Prime Minister may comment briefly. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to the primary question in that is no. I am one who has always accepted that the Iraqis had some kind of weapons of mass destruction programme. I do think of course that they had plenty of time to destroy evidence of that and I would say we should not jump to conclusions that there was no evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Hon Bill English. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I see Mr Speaker. Now it is back to seniority is it? Well I was here before him and I will be here long after he is gone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The call goes to the member who asked the original question and the member knows it. 
Hon Bill English 
: When she said: “Yes the jungle. Who wants to go back to the jungle?” did she have in mind any action or decision of the Blair Government over the last 6 months that might have prompted her to make those comments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have said in this very House that the action of going to war without Security Council sanction created new and dangerous precedents. That is the reason that the New Zealand Government stuck out very strongly for a UN Security Council decision-making process. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Government’s position as stated that it thought it would be able to piggyback a free-trade agreement with the US on the back of Australia does she think her recent comments have helped in any way that prospect or does she realise now what immense damage she is doing to the long-term economic interests of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As that member also voted against an ACT motion in this House to commit New Zealand’s support to a war without Security Council resolution I assume that he too would not want to link any actions New Zealand would take in respect of that war to a trade agreement. Can I say that whether the United States eventually signs a free-trade agreement with New Zealand will have a great deal to do with whether it sees it as being in its economic interests. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that she has had further time to consider whom “everyone” might have been when she said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese” does “everyone” include her on New Zealand’s behalf? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: “Everyone” obviously does not include the Leader of the Opposition who gives very little thought to what the future line-ups might be. He would do his country a better service if he stopped behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Prime Minister now to address the particular supplementary question that was asked by the Hon Bill English. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think I was asked whom “everyone” included. I said that it obviously did not include someone behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I would like the Prime Minister to expand just a little on that particular question. [ 
Interruption 
] We all know what the question was. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously “everyone” does not include the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. From the way that the Prime Minister repeated the answer it is clear she did not understand the question or had forgotten it. I am happy to repeat the question to help her to give the answer in the way that you have requested. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think that is a very reasonable point because we have to accept the Prime Minister’s word. When the Prime Minister was responding to you on a point of order she made it clear to the whole House that she had not understood or remembered the question because the question was actually quite clear. The Prime Minister was asked whether those were her views. That is the question she was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the member to repeat it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the leader of ACT for his intervention because he has now reminded me of what the question was. I will now respond to it. It is quite clear that the original comment is in itself a question and it is a question based on whether—and I draw the member’s attention to that word—there is going to be this or that and “that” represents the opinions of the key players at that time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am about to ask somebody to leave the House because when I call a point of order only the person called has the right to speak. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Prime Minister was asked a question in which the critical word was “include”. It was not a matter of whom the question excluded. Maybe when she has finished telling us whom it included she could say that. Then she said by way of explanation in her last reply that she had been asking herself a question. Well no one else can read that into it nor I would say can the junior lecturer from the political science department of Auckland University. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister is entitled to explain her statement in words that she chooses; members cannot dictate how she or any other Minister answers. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raised with you towards the end of last session an issue about Ministers answering questions and in this particular case it was the Prime Minister. You gave us a ruling last week on the matter of Ministers trifling with the Chair. We have just had an instance when the Prime Minister has twice given answers that were not answers to the questions she was asked and in your ruling you said that there could be further supplementary questions if you felt a Minister was trifling with the Chair. I suggest to you that in this case she was and that you have every reason to give further supplementary questions on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may raise the point but I do not consider that was so. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with some trepidation. I want to explain the confusion that we are having as Opposition MPs in question time. It is this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: A question has been put down that is very clear. It refers to a quote. It asks the Prime Minister about her statement which she accepts about “everyone” and whom the “everyone” refers to. She does not answer that. She then says— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: No no. I want to go through this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I refer the member to the Standing Order that states I do not have to listen to the whole point of order. As far as I am concerned that matter is now over; it has been ruled on and dealt with.