Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14900. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he agree with the United States State Department’s latest report released on Tuesday that China is “authoritarian” and continues to “deny … citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I want to thank the member for asking my third question in 3 years and to tell him that New Zealand is a sovereign nation that forms its own views and assessments of other countries and nations. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That does not answer my question. That could be a response to any question asked in this House; it does not address the specific question on the Order Paper. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: With the greatest respect Madam Speaker we do not have our minds made up by Pol Pot or the Russians invading Afghanistan or anybody else. Since 1947 when we adopted the Statute of Westminster we have progressively been confident enough to make up our own minds on all these international issues and that is what covers this question he is asking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That does address the question. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It does not answer the question; it is just a generality that could be used to answer any question that any member asks a Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No ruling on the point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] Would those members who are walking around the Chamber please be seated. It is very distracting when members are addressing points of order. The Minister’s answer did address the question; it can be applied to the specific question that was asked. It was within the bounds. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I actually rise to say that this raises a serious point. If the Minister was asking this question he would be declaring the answer to be a constitutional outrage and saying that he had never heard anything like that in any Western democracy ever and that in any other Parliament the Minister would be asked to stand up and answer the question. If members think about it they will realise it is no wonder that he has had only three questions to answer in 3 years while taking the baubles of office because he has never answered one yet. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That may well be true but you would still rule that the Minister had addressed the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Absolutely it was the same point of order. I did listen carefully and to the additional information the Minister gave—he addressed the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister then agree with the Chinese Foreign Minister who claimed that raising human rights issues during the Olympics is anti-China; if he does not agree with the Chinese Foreign Minister when will he be “speaking out”—to quote the US State Department’s report—against the Chinese Government’s continuing to “harass detain arrest and imprison journalists writers activists and defence lawyers and their families.”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In recognising important areas of difference between New Zealand and China on human rights it does not follow that ending economic relationships political dialogue or sporting contact with China is the best way— 
Rodney Hide 
: Who wrote this? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I wrote this—not a fool like that member obviously; it would be unmitigated drivel if it came from him. I do not want to drop Mr Locke on his head like the dancing partner of Rodney Hide but I want to say that New Zealand athletes will have the same rights as all Olympic athletes and that would apply to any other Olympic Games. Hopefully too the athletes can count on the support of all New Zealanders when they compete. 
Keith Locke 
: When the Minister refers to economic relationships is it the case that his failure to specify any human rights violations in China and to speak out publicly against them has something to do with him as the Minister being muzzled by the Government in its pursuit of a free-trade agreement with China? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of all the terrible rumours about Winston Peters none of them has been about me being muzzled. The fact is we acknowledge that economic reforms in China and a freer trading environment have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese above the poverty line. But there are examples of human rights not having progressed at the same pace and we have consistently always encouraged the Chinese Government to do better. 
Keith Locke 
: To be more specific has he received reports that China’s migrant construction workers labouring to revamp Beijing for the Olympics—workers who are mostly poor migrants from the countryside—face routine exploitation work in dangerous conditions have no access to medical treatment often go unpaid and have no right to strike or have independent trade unions; and will he publicly condemn this rather than give some vague gentle encouragement of China? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: At the last election and at every election for quite a few years I promised like most members of Parliament my responsibility and my efforts and energy would be given to the progression of the social and economic welfare of New Zealanders. I have not spent all my time trying to find some problem in some far-flung country and sought to make it the main concern of this Parliament. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister make any public criticism of a most immediate event and that is the suppression of a protest by hundreds of Tibetan monks in Lhasa Tibet yesterday; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Successive Foreign Affairs Ministers from this country have made New Zealand’s view on human rights very clear to China and any other nation that we might have some concern about. But that said we do not intend to jeopardise the whole future economic and foreign policy relations of this country by picking up on some attack of the nature that Mr Locke has been notorious for including for example supporting the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and supporting of all things the killing fields and Pol Pot. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 headed: “Chinese quell monks’ protest with tear gas”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the US State Department report on human rights violations by the Chinese regime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table this week’s Human Rights Watch report on the very poor conditions faced by migrant workers working on the Olympics. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table yesterday’s report of the Chinese Foreign Minister claiming that any criticism of China’s human rights is anti-China. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table two documents that go to the core of the background of the questioner. The first is an article referring to his support for the Soviet communist attack on Afghanistan in 1980. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the member’s support for the regime of Pol Pot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the Minister’s answer to the last question. On numerous occasions you have pulled Ministers up for extraneous matter contained in their answers and it seems to me that it cannot be acceptable for a Minister to bring up some made-up story about what my colleague has said simply as a means of distracting the House from the fact that he has been given a script by the Government and he is too afraid to say what he really believes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can see why he is going but the fact of the matter is that I am prepared to table the two pieces of evidence I have and Nandor knows that I have those documents so why is he lying to the House? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point of order was actually raised out of time. It should have been at the time of the question and the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the point of order was raised out of time but I think it is appropriate that I just remind members at the beginning of question time that questions and answers should be consistent with the Standing Orders and superfluous observations of many sorts that we hear are really not acceptable because they do lead to disorder. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I observed through the answering of questions that the Minister Winston Peters was reading his answers from I assume official documents carefully prepared. I ask him through the House to table those documents so we can see the answers that he rifled through and did not read. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ministers are perfectly allowed to read from the notes prepared for the answering of questions but those notes are not of themselves the official documents referred to in the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sometimes despite the longstanding tradition that people should be able to ad lib their answers I sometimes wish Mr Hide would stick to his script rather than let his tongue roll around in his mouth and see what happens next. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. May I say of course—ruling on Mr Hide’s point of order—that all Ministers tend to read out answers. If the Minister did have an official document then obviously that raises the point but he did not as I understand what he was saying. It was an answer to the question. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a constitutional issue that comes out of the Minister’s answers and there has been some discussion during the last couple of years as to the role of the leader of New Zealand First. This concerns the party being outside the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs being outside Cabinet and what capacity when he answers questions he is answering those questions in. It seems unfortunately that he cannot exercise his role as leader of New Zealand First in opposing the China free-trade agreement and I wonder whether there is some way through this to allow him to be able to speak his mind a bit more freely. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is no merit in the point of order at all. Questions can be addressed only to Ministers and they can reply only as Ministers. I would love you to rule Madam Speaker that we could ask questions in the House of leaders of parties unrelated to any ministerial responsibility. I am sure that each day on this side of the House we would have lots of questions trying to find out what National Party policy is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: With respect Madam Speaker I do not think you should have allowed the member’s point of order to go on as long as it did. The point of order was thoroughly spurious but I will tell the member that New Zealand First’s views on foreign policy and domestic policy are well known unlike those of the Greens who are now struggling for a populist issue and who are going to oppose the free-trade agreement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The point of order was not valid. Questions can be asked only of Ministers and the questions have to relate to the Minister’s ministerial responsibility. In this instance they clearly did.