Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13056] 
5.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What discussions does he intend to have with the Australian Minister for Justice and Customs regarding the recommendation by the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum that the scope for a common border for Australia and New Zealand should be explored? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Last weekend’s leadership dialogue between Australia and New Zealand canvassed a number of areas relating to harmonisation and integration of our two countries’ policies. One of the areas that participants agreed should be explored was the scope for a common border. A report to both Governments by officials on the issues that that would raise will precede any bilateral ministerial discussions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s reported statements wherein she said: “I wouldn’t support a common border because Australia has one of the most restrictive regimes in the world.” if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister and indeed if I recall rightly the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have both pointed to particular difficulties that would have to be overcome before a common border could be put into place. One of those difficulties is that New Zealand has a visa-waiver system with approximately 48 countries that enables people to come to New Zealand without visas. If a common border were to mean adopting the Australian policy under which everyone outside New Zealand requires a visa to get into Australia that would have a considerable downside for New Zealand’s tourism industry. Those sorts of problems need to be resolved if a common border is to be established. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Were a common border and a common currency key issues under discussion at that leadership dialogue meeting? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Both those issues were discussed but the key focus of the meeting was on the immediate steps that might be taken to progress towards a single economic market with the emphasis I think by all speakers on where policies could be aligned relatively easily rather than on more radical changes that require more work and more thought. More work and more thought will obviously be put into those areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth would Australia enter any arrangement with New Zealand given the looseness and total lack of integrity of our immigration and passport systems in this country and having regard to the experience of our having already lost our special Anzac social welfare relationship with Australia due to the looseness of our immigration and passport systems? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I absolutely disagree with both the premises on which that question was asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him whether he disagrees with the question. I asked him to answer the question which was why on earth Australia would enter into a common passport arrangement with us given the appalling figures we have in this country in respect of overstayers and given our loose passport arrangements—a matter that has already affected us with the loss of our social welfare arrangement with Australia. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that if the premises are wrong there is no question to answer in that regard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely what I was just about to rule on. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why did the Minister apparently fail to brief the Prime Minister properly so that she could have avoided her gaffe on the morning radio programme where she effectively overruled his own policies? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The premise of that statement is that the article by Fran O’Sullivan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was correct. It was not. It was in fact absolutely incorrect. If the member wants to know the answer I can tell him that the Prime Minister was asked early on Monday morning about common borders. She raised the problem that I referred to before which is a very real problem—that if we were to adopt Australia’s border policies with regard to visas that would do dramatic harm to our tourism industry. Neither she nor I would want to do that. That problem would need to be overcome before we could advance the case for a common border. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has the question of a common border been discussed before between the two countries; if so with what results? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. It is interesting that back in 1991 the Ministry of Transport in New Zealand led talks with Australia on a common border which culminated in an agreement that it was feasible. Indeed there was Cabinet agreement in principle at that time to proceed further to see how the problems that would arise from a common border could be resolved. Unfortunately there was no response from the Australian side and that meant that by 1994 work on this area had been stopped. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: At what time on Monday did he brief the Prime Minister causing a flip-flop from her statement on Monday morning on radio to her change of heart later in the day? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister rises very early on a Monday morning. She has probably done half a dozen radio interviews before the member is even out of his pyjamas. I had the chance to talk to the Prime Minister later in the morning. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Constantly this question time—and indeed it has been a common theme for some time—we have inferences and other statements made that are outside the Standing Orders. The Minister had no reason to make that comment about a member on this side and there have been previous occasions when that has happened. I ask you to draw to the attention of the Ministers—all of them collectively—the Standing Orders and the protocols around them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a longstanding tradition in this House that when one side goes slightly beyond the rules in terms of its language the other side can respond. I could equally raise a point of order about terminology like “flip-flop” being included in the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I have said if I were to rule out every phrase every time I would be constantly on my feet—and some people say I interrupt too much now. I prefer to let question time flow and I think most members agree with me.