McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:256] 
6.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What are the concerns regarding the “$2 billion” trade gap between New Zealand and China which he told reporters he intended to raise with the Chinese Foreign Minister and what response did he receive when he raised those concerns? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 My understanding is that the Chinese Foreign Minister raised the matter of trade at the bilateral meeting and it was explained to him that that was the responsibility of the Minister of Trade the Hon Phil Goff. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the advice of his ministerial colleague Mr Goff that: “We want to do as well as we can in terms of our exports into China and that is why we are negotiating a free-trade agreement.” and does he support Mr Goff in achieving that objective in this way? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking as the Acting Minister yes I do. Of course it is well known that this is a matter of difference between New Zealand First and the Labour-led Government—which is why Mr Goff is the Minister of Trade not Mr Peters. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the statements made by Mr Goff at APEC that having Mr Peters in Cabinet would be the difference between having one’s mother-in-law living in one’s house or next door because “It’s much easier sometimes when she’s next door as you’ve each got your own space” and can he tell the House what he takes from Mr Goff’s statement as to the manner in which New Zealand’s ministerial representatives are working together at the APEC meeting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have an excellent relationship with my mother-in-law so I can understand the reference. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the statement made by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr Goff at APEC that he would be keeping “a close eye on my former portfolio” and can he tell the House what Mr Peters might have said or done in the past few days that would have led Mr Goff to volunteer such generous supervision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and no but I am sure that Mr Goff will continue to take a close interest in foreign affairs matters as he does in all matters that come before Cabinet. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the statement made by Mr Goff that he had reassured the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Downer that “policy from Winston will not be policy spun off the top of anybody’s head” and can he tell the House what Mr Peters might have said over the past few days at APEC that would have led Mr Downer to seek that assurance from Mr Goff? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have not seen it but equally one can assure the House that matters that come up in terms of trade policy will not be spun off Mr Goff’s head either in the same way that matters of finance policy do not spin off the head of the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the assessment of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 writer Fran O’Sullivan that: “His first big outing as foreign minister had earlier come a public cropper when he was made to look a fool after his predecessor Phil Goff revealed the Australian Government had issued a ‘please explain’ over his role.” and can he tell the House just what he might have done that would have caused both the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and Mr Goff to assess his performance so negatively? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no knowledge of Ms O’Sullivan’s comments in that respect. I do not always read her columns. But in that respect I can say that all the bilateral meetings have gone extremely well and that it is quite natural for Australians used to their system of Government to ask us how our system is now working. We were able to assure them that thankfully there is no major change in the direction of foreign policy because the National Party did not get into office. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point I want to raise with you relates to Standing Order 376(2). The Minister prefaced his answer to my second supplementary question by ensuring that the House understood he was making the response as the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to be clear as to the extent to which we can hold the Minister Mr Peters responsible for the precise response that Dr Cullen has just given the House when invited to endorse Mr Goff’s work to achieve a free-trade deal with China. Dr Cullen as the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs was quite happy to assure the House of his commitment to that work and his support for it. I want to be reassured that the House is entitled to have Mr Peters bound equally as the Minister of Foreign Affairs to supporting the work of Mr Goff towards a free-trade agreement with China as Dr Cullen has done today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That last point is not a matter of point of order at all. That now gets to the heart of the difference between Mr Peters’ position and the Government’s position on free-trade deals. Mr Peters as has been made clear to the House already is bound by collective responsibility on foreign affairs matters not on trade matters. I gave the answer quite carefully and deliberately so as to avoid a point of order about which hat I was wearing when I gave the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment and I remind the member who raised the point of order that each Minister is responsible for his or her own response in that context. So the Minister responding at the time is responsible for his or her own response. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: To pursue that point with you further it puts members in a difficult position. I am sure that when Standing Order 376(2) was drafted no one had confronted the notion that we might have Ministers who regarded themselves as not being part of the Government. Maybe the solution is to have another Minister from Mr Peters’ party who can cover his back while he is away by answering on his behalf. Perhaps Mr Mark would like to be a Minister so that he can do that. I saw that somewhere in recent days 
The point I want to raise is that Mr Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Members of this House are entitled to question him on his position on those matters. Dr Cullen is responding as the Acting Minister and I want to be reassured that we can hold Mr Peters to account for the assurance undertaking and response that Dr Cullen has just given on his behalf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am not sure that that is a point of order but I am sure the member will have an opportunity to do precisely what he seeks to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You seemed to have missed the point that Mr McCully was making which is that if the House cannot accept the words of Dr Cullen as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs having relevance to the Minister then perhaps it would be better given the arrangements the Government has cobbled together for someone else who can speak for Mr Peters to give the answer. 
The House of course is the master of its own destiny. It is our choice as to how things will proceed in here. Dr Cullen shakes his head but we can by leave do all sorts of things. I would like you to consider—and perhaps tell us later in the sitting—whether it is possible to seek leave for a New Zealand First member to answer questions about foreign affairs on behalf of Mr Peters when he is absent because we know that we will not see much of him this year. Part of the cunning plan clearly is to keep Mr Peters as far away from this place as possible. Please consider that; you may want to answer immediately. There must be some sort of motion possible for the House to consider as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As the member knows it is not possible to seek leave on behalf of somebody else—which I think addresses that point. It is not a point of order but as the member is aware it is up to members of Parliament as to whether they accept the word of the Acting Minister. The role of Acting Minister is not unusual. We have had that role fulfilled by many over a period of time. Also as the member is aware it is up to the Government to decide who answers the question. In this instance an Acting Minister has been appointed. The Acting Minister answered the question.