Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4190] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of the failure of the United Nations Security Council to resolve the Iraq crisis will she now review New Zealand’s foreign policy which she described yesterday “has at all times been based on its strong support for multilateralism … and for upholding the authority of the Security Council”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government will not be reviewing New Zealand’s foreign policy because it believes that multilateralism is the appropriate way to resolve international disputes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister clarify what she means by a multilateralist approach and does she not concede that the only reason Saddam Hussein made any disarmament gestures was the presence of a quarter of a million US British and Australian troops in the Middle East; if so what contribution have the multilateralists France Germany Russia and New Zealand made to the cost of this show of force or are multilateralists just bludgers always calling for more time because it costs us nothing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. Two questions can be answered. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government believes the UN process was working. What happened was that some powerful countries walked away from it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the United Nations process would have worked at all without a credible threat of military force from the US? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: At the time the inspectors went back in there was very little US presence. The presence built up thereafter. Kofi Annan and Mr Blix and most nations including ours agree that the pressure was helpful. It did get traction. The process was working and should have been left to work. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the multilateral system would have been perfectly capable of dealing with the Iraq situation if the US and UK had been willing to abide by the UN Security Council majority which clearly opposed the motion in favour of war that was proposed by the “coalition of the killing”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government believes that the process was working. Furthermore our position is that we will uphold Security Council resolutions whether or not we agree with them. That is what being in a multilateral process means. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the failure of the efforts through the United Nations is the Prime Minister prepared to take a leaf out of the book of her illustrious predecessor Peter Fraser and promote a reform of the United Nations decision-making procedures so that we do not get to this type of intolerable impasse in the future? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government does not believe that we were at an intolerable impasse. We had a process that was working and should have been able to continue to work. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister further clarify what she means by multilateralism as she should know that only five nations including New Zealand joined Britain in declaring war on Nazi Germany in September 1939 compared with the more than 30 nations that are in the “coalition of the willing”; and would the Prime Minister have advised Britain to follow a multilateralist approach take Hitler to the League of Nations and allow diplomacy to take its course? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is well aware that the United Nations was not in place at that time. His history book will also tell him that the United States was not one of the five. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the Prime Minister says she is an expert on foreign policy but it was called the League of Nations. Now could I have the question answered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She did answer the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason there was a sporadic outburst of interjections from this side was that Mr Prebble had clearly referred to the League of Nations—we all heard it. The answer that came back disputed what he had said and claimed that it was the United Nations that he had referred to. We all know that the Prime Minister was wrong and you should not be allowing her to slide over it like you did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not going to disagree with what I said because what I said stands. I say to the member that as far as I am concerned the Prime Minister addressed the question. The member might not agree with the answer but that is what democracy is all about.