Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20871] 
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was freedom of speech one of the human rights issues she discussed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during her meeting with him this week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes. 
Rod Donald 
: Was it a mark of the high regard in which the Prime Minister is held by the Chinese Government that it censored her answer to a question about human rights in China during a live CNN broadcast or was it indicative of the intolerance of that oppressive regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As we all know freedom of expression in our sense does not exist in China. But it is probably true to say that things are better now than they were when my old friend Keith Locke was an enthusiastic supporter of the Chinese regime. 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the statement the Minister has just made that I have been a supporter of the Chinese regime. At no time have I supported the Chinese regime. I have always pushed for multiparty democracies. I have defended Chinese dissidents over many years. The Socialist Action League a political organisation to which some people in this House sometimes refer to and that I belonged to over 20 years ago was as the Minister will know a very strong critic of the Chinese regime because that regime was undemocratic. The Minister is implying that I was in some ways a Maoist and was supporting that regime and I object to that totally. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I do correct myself. The member was not indeed a Maoist; he was a Trotskyite. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When a member withdraws and apologises no other statement is to be made. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Government’s concern for freedom of speech extend to the situation that occurred before the private dinner hosted by Madam Speaker last week when I was taken aside and cautioned by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff that I should not raise any topics relating to Taiwan during that dinner with Chairman Wu Bangguo and can the Minister advise whether that direction came from the Prime Minister’s office or the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade or whether it was just something dreamt up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot advise on that. I do not have that information. New Zealand like every other Western democracy recognises only the regime in Beijing as the legitimate Government of China. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Prime Minister negotiating a free-trade agreement with a country that continues to occupy Tibet and oppress its people and what was Premier Wen’s response when she raised the issue of Tibet with him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information about Premier Wen’s response. Obviously there are still issues around Tibet. I notice that recent statements from the Dalai Lama indicate that even the Dalai Lama is no longer pushing for Tibetan independence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister see any great distinction between communist regimes such as that which invaded Afghanistan and that which was involved in supporting Pol Pot—two regimes heavily supported by Keith Locke; if she does can she pray tell us what it is? 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was anticipating the point of order. 
Keith Locke 
: In the past members in this House have been required to withdraw and apologise for calling me a supporter of Pol Pot. I have never been a supporter of Pol Pot or of his crimes against the Cambodian people. In light of that previous ruling I think Mr Peters should withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was not the previous ruling. The fact of the matter is that a number of members have tabled in this House two sets of documents both of which emanated from one Keith Locke an MP in this House—not that he was an MP when he wrote them of course. The articles support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the emergence of Pol Pot. That is a fact and if he wants to deny it then I am happy to table the documents all over again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at the comment that was made and it is the normal practice in these instances that the member withdraws and apologises. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am ruling on a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is fairly important. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure it is very important. Would you please sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker you asked me to withdraw and apologise and I do. I seek leave now to table these documents. One is “Cambodia Liberated: victory for humanity” edited by Keith Locke. [ 
Interruption 
] Sit down. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Speaker will say who is to rise and who is to sit. Members will sit when another member is on his or her feet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is my point. I was on my feet and the member was rude to interrupt me. I also seek leave to table an article regarding the rightness of the invasion of Afghanistan by the heinous communist regime of the Soviet Union. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. By way of personal explanation the article the member has just tabled does not mention Pol Pot or state that I support Pol Pot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I note however that the supplementary question bore little relation to the original question which related to China. If the member wishes to put his supplementary question again could he please relate it to China. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It cannot be right that a person can come to this House years after having written articles in support of a regime and then expect us to believe his word that he did not do so. He may want to recant and say that he was sorry stupid and naive and we may accept that he has changed his mind. But he cannot deny that black is black and white is white when these articles clearly set that out. That is what he is expecting us to do. He is using the Standing Orders in an abusive way to get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I ask the member to restate his supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When we look at despotic undemocratic regimes is there a great difference between that of Pol Pot the Soviet Union at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan or for that matter communist China—the new-found enemy of the Green Party? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that all known communist regimes have been repressive regimes to a greater or lesser extent. But of course that has been matched by any number of oppressive regimes at the far-right end of politics as well. 
Keith Locke 
: How bad does China’s human rights record have to become before the Prime Minister would think again about giving preferential trade access to that regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we were to choose with whom we traded purely on the basis of total support for every action Governments took we would be confined to a very small range of trading partners indeed. It would not even include Australia and the United States. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister recall her own passionate opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the sanctions that she supported to help bring down that regime does she recall accusing that former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley “prefers to build links to oppression while democratic voices are silenced in jail” during her speech to the 1998 Labour Party conference and does she accept that her own behaviour towards China leaves her open to that same accusation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes yes and no.