McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:617] 
11.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association at the APEC meeting that he would raise our “$2 billion” trade deficit with China in his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister and what proposals if any did he advance at the meeting to address the issue? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 In a pre-APEC interview with Ian Llewellyn from the New Zealand Press Association which took place in Wellington several days prior to my leaving for APEC—not at APEC as the member falsely asserts—Mr Llewellyn canvassed with me a wide range of hypothetical issues that might be raised in my meeting with my Chinese counterpart including our trade deficit with China. On further investigation of course I realised that the Foreign Minister in China is very much like the Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand: he does not handle trade matters. He was accompanied by one Bo Xilai who is the Commerce Minister who later that day had full bilaterals with Mr Goff and Mr Sutton. That is the reason why I did not raise the matter with him when I saw him. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has he seen the description of his performance at the APEC meetings carried by the  
New Zealand Herald  
as that of “a politician whose role is now so circumscribed by his ‘colleagues’ that he is little more than a post box through which his international counterparts must route their requests to where the real foreign policy decisions are made” and what reassurances can he give the House today that he is not just acting as a postbox for Miss Clark and Mr Goff when he meets with overseas Ministers? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have most certainly seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial which is in line of course with the 68 it wrote against me about the wine box—and it was wrong. It has never apologised. It does not have a shred of integrity when it comes to that but more important I have seen this. It is a series of emails that shows that the National Party had the  
New Zealand Herald  
doing its work—[ 
Interruption 
] oh yes—from one Peter Keenan who worked for Don Brash. This email states things like this: “One place to argue the case would be the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s ‘Perspective’ page.” I will read on further—no members should listen to this; it is good stuff. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may have escaped your attention but not ours that Mr Peters goes not only around this country but around the world claiming to be this country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has been asked a question about his activities as Minister of Foreign Affairs and we are getting a history lesson on the greatest debacle of any politician in this country the wine-box affair and now on some spurious emails which have absolutely nothing to do with his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs—unless of course he wants to admit that he is just the postbox he is accused of being. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately perhaps the member failed to listen to his colleague’s supplementary question which specifically referred to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article and comments about the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. Although the member may have been discursive he was addressing the question because it did refer to that particular newspaper. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Does that mean that if in a question to a Minister we were to mention a particular publication the Minister could simply produce it and start reading it because that is what he appears to be doing—just reading a few pages out of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 taking up a bit of time— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry Mr Brownlee but we had not actually heard the answer to the question. As I said perhaps the Minister could address it more succinctly and relate the relevance of the emails to the question which was about the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I most certainly will. Hear this: “We could use a slot we have available a free slot in the  
New Zealand Herald  
for you. Text to be in by this Friday.” That is from Peter Keenan to Don Brash Gerry Brownlee Murray McCully Wayne Mapp Pansy Wong and Richard Long. It just shows what a scurrilous piece of ragtag journalism we have to live with.[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I agree with the member. That is drawing a long bow with the conclusion. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am being asked to comment on a  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial. I am giving some reasons why those comments are not worth the paper they are written on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but it was your description at the end of that answer that was unacceptable. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The point is that these very illuminating emails also discuss how they will get me on side with the National Party post-election. Now what does that tell us? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the question that was asked. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps it would help if the Minister were prepared to tell the House whether he considers himself to be a postbox or in his case an inbox. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please we wish to hear what the member has to say. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Just in case the public did not hear that and not being a plagiarist nevertheless I will— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee asked a question for the Minister to respond to— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. Just in case—[ 
Interruption 
] It was a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to sit down and I apologise. I thought it was a supplementary question. It was a point of order in the form of a question. The point of order itself was not a point of order. It was invalid and it would have been as a question. So there is no question to answer. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister have any further reports about why he might have been misinterpreted or his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs misunderstood by so many people? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is an extraordinarily insightful question. Can I just say that a  
New Zealand Herald  
correspondent who went to that meeting at APEC gave a full commentary on a meeting she was not at. She said that all sorts of things happened to the extent that I had to contact the embassy in question to confirm that the discussion reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
did not happen. I challenged that  
New Zealand Herald  
writer to correct it and she would not. That tells us what that newspaper’s editorials and commentary are worth. 
Keith Locke 
: Is not New Zealand’s trade deficit with China larger than it should be because Chinese exports are subsidised through wages being kept at a very low level unions being banned and through very little money being spent on workplace health and safety or environmental protection as we saw in Harbin a week ago; and what is the Minister doing to end these subsidies which are to our disadvantage? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Although our discussions were wide-ranging— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could explain what the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in relation to ending Chinese subsidies in matters of this sort. At the very outside it is a matter for the Minister of Trade or the Minister for Trade Negotiations not a matter for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I assume that that was to be the point of your point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to ask you to pay attention to the answer given by Mr Peters because quite clearly he does want to answer as a Minister in the House well outside his designated portfolio areas. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and ask Mr Locke whether he wishes to rephrase the question so that it is within the specific area of ministerial responsibility. 
Keith Locke 
: Could I just speak to the point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All right. The member may speak to the point of order. 
Keith Locke 
: I think that my question shows that trade questions do have a Minister of Foreign Affairs dimension to them because my question did concern issues of human rights union rights environmental protections and workplace health and safety all of which should come within the framework of the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as of the Minister for Trade Negotiations. Therefore I think it is up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to answer such questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order first. The Minister is not speaking to the point of order is he? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was about a trade deficit and Chinese trade practices so there is a relevance to the question. But of course the Minister in his reply is responsible only for his ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am able to report that although our meeting was gracious elegant and went long overtime and that the Foreign Minister for China Minister Li was terribly positive about our communications we did not have time to cover every other area of the portfolio that is represented in Cabinet. Therefore I have not written any report on that matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does he stand by the statement made in the House 2 weeks ago on his behalf that “the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals”; if so how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs manage to have a formal meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister without once raising what he accepts is our highest foreign policy goal? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The plain fact is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs for China like the Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand does not cover trade and commerce matters. Hence he leaves it to his colleague Minister Bo Xilai and he did that for the afternoon meeting with Mr Goff and Mr Sutton. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Over half of the Foreign Ministers in the 21 APEC economies do not cover trade. It is only the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the Opposition that find this extraordinary; the rest of the world finds it normal. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the Minister starting in this way: “Does he stand by the statement made in the House 2 weeks ago on his behalf …” and then I repeated a passage from  
Hansard 
. Those of us who have been here for a while will have heard many sermons from Mr Peters about the accountability of Ministers and about the requirement to provide fulsome and accurate answers. I was wondering whether you might like to suggest that an answer that complies with the Standing Orders and gets a little bit closer to the loftier sentiments for which Mr Peters has been such a fervent advocate in the past might be called for in relation to such a specific question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is a fact that I am on record demanding accountability for Ministers. That is what I demanded on the wine-box inquiry and got expelled from the National Party—does the member remember—whilst they covered for their rich fraudulent mates. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not an answer. Would the Minister please be seated. I thought the Minister was talking to the point of order. I listened to the question and I thought the Minister did in fact address the substance of the quote of the question. The Minister may not have answered with a yes or no answer but he is not required to do that. The Minister did address the substance of the question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
column by political editor Audrey Young regarding the APEC meetings which states: “Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week in substance if not form in what amounted to a very messy beginning.” and what can he tell the House about that private agreement? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can tell the House that I went to all the arranged bilateral meetings at the APEC conference in Korea. Not one journalist went to one of them. I ask the public of this country to answer this question: would they believe a witness in a jury box who was not at the scene or someone who was? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That answer is not acceptable. It can hardly be reasoned that it was addressing the question. It was certainly verbiage that came out of his mouth but it did not address the question. I call the House’s attention to a statement by Mr Winston Peters earlier this year—9 February in fact—when he said: “it is up to the Speaker to ensure that the Minister does his duty and answers the question. I cannot conceive of any Western democracy where the Minister could behave as incompetently as that and get by question time and still survive.” I think asking Mr Peters to live by his own standard is not an unreasonable request. You should just ask him to remember what the question was and focus his answer on that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Madam Speaker my point is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am answering the question as the member asked me to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the member please sit down. I was distracted just for a second because I was trying to recall whether the question in fact was addressed to the Minister’s ministerial responsibility or was in fact addressed to another arrangement. So it would certainly assist me if we could start again. The member could ask the question and then we could get the answer. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
column by political editor Audrey Young regarding the APEC meetings which states: “Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week in substance if not form in what amounted to a very messy beginning.” and what can the Minister tell the House about this private agreement? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The comments made by Audrey Young in the  
New Zealand Herald  
are baseless false and without any merit whatsoever. In particular she has never had a conversation with me about that and has never attended one bilateral meeting that I have attended. Her comments in terms of their veracity are of the nature of her comments made back in July where she claimed that we were in secret talks with National. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the Minister advise the Asian leaders at the APEC meeting that on 19 May of this year during the Budget debate the leader of New Zealand First referred to Asians as “ying tongs”; if so what was their response? Perhaps some clarification of the volume of  
Hansard  
in which his statement is made might be necessary for the Minister? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is fine. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have no idea whatsoever as to why that member—having got in contact with the brotherhood in Europe I might add to raise the question with Prime Minister Clark—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 377(2) that a “reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter …” and there must not be discreditable references to any member of the House. This member has time after time breached Standing Order 377. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for referring to that. I note however that both questions and answers do not always comply with that but perhaps in future we will have a stricter standard on both. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not deal with or in any way address the question concerning his statements recorded in  
Hansard 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He has not finished answering it. Could we just allow the Minister to have an opportunity to reply succinctly. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In a long career I have made many speeches in this House and I am surely not required to remember every one of them. Mind you they are works of art and I can see why my colleagues have been studying them very closely. But I want to make this point very clear: if the National Party wants to throw the rubbish it is throwing around it will get the kind of treatment it is getting right now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not an answer to the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is an answer. I am saying that I do not recall the content line by line of every speech I have ever made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Fair enough. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How on earth was that answer in any way consistent with the Standing Orders— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He gets a question asked by the Green Party and his answer is some sort of attack on the National Party. The man is clearly struggling in his job. He set a high standard for himself; he is not meeting it. All he has to do is answer the question but— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I did pull the Minister up for what was irrelevant to his answer. He then did address the question at the end. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He attacked us at the end. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No he did not attack you at the end. I have ruled on this matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister not accept that when he is superseded at public functions as he was at the Japanese Embassy function last night by Mr Cunliffe that will simply reinforce the impression in the eyes of overseas Ministers that he is merely a postbox to the real decision makers; and will he reconsider the practice of his being so superseded by Ministers like Mr Cunliffe? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That comment is absolute drivel because the person who spoke there was from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and works for me—one Mr McKinnon. That has been the practice that the Government has followed for a long time; otherwise I would have to go to every embassy nearly every night to make a speech. I know they would welcome that but I have not got the time! 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What did happen at APEC that caused his colleague Mr Goff to tell the media about Mr Downer questioning Mr Peters’ status as Minister of Foreign Affairs to correct his statements about Chinese students to rebuke him for browbeating the Chinese Minister and to refer to him as Cabinet’s mother-in-law; before publicly appealing to the media to give him a fair go; and does the Minister expect to receive that sort of assistance from Mr Goff in future? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to ask the member to authenticate most of what he has said because most of it is totally untrue in the way he has put it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister can respond. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can understand why a party of perpetual bridesmaids would have problems understanding the concept of a mother-in-law. As for the other comments that Mr Goff so rightly complains about they are a fiction concocted by the media as I will point out in the general debate coming up shortly. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to table media reports to verify each of the assertions I made in respect of Mr Goff. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table various media reports. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Through you could I seek the opportunity for Mr McCully to seek the leave of the House to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs another supplementary question because so far this has been such a one-sided lopsided affair— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order. The member cannot ask on behalf of another member for leave. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You were probably not able to hear because of the noise but I said “Through you” could I offer the invitation for them— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is unacceptable. He has been here long enough to know that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To be fair and reasonable and after all Parliament is the master of its own destiny we were promised fireworks and we are still waiting and it is day 2. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made that point. Please be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is simply that there would have been fireworks but the cracker turned out to be a fizzer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is equally not a point of order and perhaps we can now desist from attempts at humour through points of order. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This had better be a valid point of order; otherwise the member will be leaving the Chamber. 
Phil Heatley 
: My point of order is that I believe that it is time for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to leave the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is quite correct. That is a valid point of order.