Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17622] 
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What explanation if any has he received from the Chinese Government as to why it postponed an OECD seminar on raising labour standards in China and stopped CTU president Ross Wilson visiting China to talk with Chinese union leaders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have seen a number of explanations which seem to focus on logistical problems that China has advanced for postponing the planned OECD seminar which is actually on socially responsible investment not labour standards. I am told that the visas were issued for the purpose of attending the seminar and were cancelled when the seminar was postponed but that Mr Wilson would be welcome to apply for another visa should he wish to go to China for any other reason. 
Rod Donald 
: Does he agree with Ross Wilson that the actions taken by the Chinese Government raise serious questions as to whether it was willing even to discuss labour standards and does it not appear that the position of the Chinese Government is that there should be no constraints on or standards for any company operating in China those being two points that Mr Wilson made in his press release about his visa being revoked? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Given that the seminar is not cancelled but postponed one assumes that all the issues that were on the agenda for the meeting in December will now be on the agenda for whenever the meeting may take place early next year. In terms of labour standards for example I am aware that in the joint study New Zealand entered into on the free-trade agreement with China both sides acknowledge the importance of the International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the basic rights and principles underlying it. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Is it the Government’s policy to promote labour standards when negotiating trade agreements? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes under the Labour-led Government this country has sought to promote and improve labour standards in all of our recent trade negotiations. Arrangements on labour and for that matter on the environment have been negotiated for example as part of the closer economic partnership with Thailand. That includes undertakings on both sides to ensure that labour and environmental practices are in accord with international obligations such as those set out by the International Labour Organization. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why in addressing the inaugural China trade awards last night did the Prime Minister mention every issue surrounding the free-trade agreement being negotiated in Beijing this week—that is every issue except labour standards and human rights issues—and was her reason for ignoring them in her speech last night that Labour faces particular problems with its union supporters over those issues? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was not at the awards so I cannot say what the Prime Minister did or did not mention in her speech. But what I can say is that everybody in this country understands that this Labour-led Government puts a high priority on labour and environmental standards. That is why they are always part of the negotiations we have on closer economic partnerships and free-trade agreements. 
Dail Jones 
: Why should any New Zealand worker or employer have any faith in this minority Labour Government’s ability to negotiate decent labour standards for New Zealand workers during the course of a free-trade agreement discussion and arrangement with China when the president of the New Zealand of Council Trade Unions has been barred from entering China for very obvious reasons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I explained to the House before the withdrawal of visas was general not specific to Mr Wilson. The visas were withdrawn from all of those intending to go to the seminar given the fact that the seminar was postponed. As to the first question—why workers would have confidence in this Government—the Minister of Labour could rattle off a whole series of bills most of them opposed by the New Zealand First Party and the National Party that have improved labour standards in New Zealand. That is why they would have confidence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How is it that Mr Ross Wilson who was too far left to be granted access to Communist China apparently had free access to the Government lobby under this Government’s administration—to the point where he was recently reprimanded for being invited into the Government lobby of this House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure that if the Chinese Government knew Ross Wilson as well as we on the Government side of the House know him it would be more than happy to invite him anywhere on any occasion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was too much comment made while that last question was being asked. Members may comment while answers are given but not while questions are being asked. 
Rod Donald 
: Exactly what assurances has he received from the Chinese Government that trade unionists such as Ross Wilson will be able to have free and frank discussions with their Chinese counterparts if they ever get to visit China given that China refuses to ratify the ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand clearly does have different labour standards and principles including the principles of free association when compared with China. Part of the dialogue we have with the Chinese Government is of course on promoting those principles of free association and free discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Minister no memory of New Zealand First for a start supporting the minimum pay rates 4 weeks’ holiday and the raising of redundancy as a priority to name just three— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This is irrelevant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No the member is irrelevant and always has been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber. I gave a warning. That person will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister any memory of New Zealand First supporting for example the minimum pay rates 4 weeks’ holiday and the raising of redundancy as a priority with respect to contracts and having regard to that how is it that he has no sense of conscience that a New Zealand worker can be supplanted by 18 Chinese workers for a lesser pay rate in total? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I do not have any memory of the New Zealand First Party supporting those pieces of legislation perhaps it was that I was overwhelmed by the memory of the New Zealand First Party supporting the National Party in Government when it enacted anti-worker legislation. With regard to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is again a nonsense. It is not correct. There never was a National Government from 1996 on; after that time it was a coalition. The Minister should be brought to order or told to leave the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I often wonder if the honourable gentleman was Speaker whether he would then be able to confront some of the difficulties of his own questions and requests. As far as the Minister is concerned he was not answering the question. I now suggest that he come to the actual question concerned. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Having addressed the first part of the question I shall now address the second part. This is not about Chinese workers supplanting New Zealand workers. The free-trade agreement study with the Chinese indicates that the agreement will increase the level of trade with China by between $260 million and $400 million a year for 20 years. That is necessary to create literally tens of thousands of jobs. New Zealanders will benefit from that. That is why we are entertaining such an agreement. 
Keith Locke 
: Which is the real Government policy towards repressive regimes: the policy outlined by Michael Cullen last week which was essentially that more intimate and closer relations will help progressive forces to achieve democracy or the traditional position of Helen Clark that it was a combination of economic and political pressures that brought about the downfall of the apartheid regime in South Africa? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is working from the exception and trying to make that the norm. Yes Labour certainly supported sanctions gainstapartheid South Africa. That was supported by the United Nations General Assembly had overwhelming support around the world and had the effect that was intended. We do not have a policy of general sanctions against countries with policies that we may disagree with in a number of fields. If we had that policy of course we would be trading with very few countries. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those earlier answers will the Minister tell us how the negotiations are going in terms of New Zealand getting a proportionate share of the shipping that will bring all that trade back and forth between China and New Zealand or is the Government a total supporter of slave labour doing the job? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is very hard to report progress on any particular aspects since I think the negotiations started today. But no this Government is in support of all the ILO standards. We have consistently promoted those in relation to what we do internally and also in the agreements that we try to reach with other countries on trading matters. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Labour Government negotiating a preferential trade deal with a country that refuses to ratify core ILO standards such as the freedom to organise and the abolition of child labour slave labour and prison labour a country that has invaded Tibet and persecutes its people and a country that kills people who speak up for democracy—or does the Government have no bottom line? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government has consistently addressed the sorts of concerns that the member has mentioned in respect of the whole range of countries with which it has relationships. It has never said that we have to agree with what countries do in order to be able to trade with them. For example if we were to stop trading with the country under discussion China which is our fourth-largest trading partner that would have massive implications for employment for revenue and for social standards in this country and that member would be the first one in the House to condemn us.