Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7426] 
2.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Has the failure of the United States - led occupation forces in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction strengthened the Government’s view that it was right to reject calls from National and ACT to join the invasion of Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand stands by its decision not to be involved in the invasion of Iraq. Nothing that has happened since has suggested that our approach—that any such action be multilateral and only as a last resort—was other than sensible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If Mr Smith wants to interject on someone he should do it from his own seat and not move closer to a speaker. He has done it three times and cannot do it again. He can interject from his own seat. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the almost universal Iraqi hostility to the occupation troops following the invasion of Iraq strengthen the Government’s position which the Minister has just referred to of favouring multilateral peaceful solutions to problems like the Iraq crisis and of giving a very strong mandate to the United Nations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: While multilateralism was not employed in terms of the decision to invade Iraq I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that there would be real advantages from a greater multilateral effort to ensure that stability and reconstruction can take place in Iraq. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is New Zealand’s current approach to the situation in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand has undertaken actions that it foreshadowed before the conflict as being appropriate. We have provided humanitarian aid we have contributed assistance to mine clearing and we will help rebuild civil society under United Nations Resolution 1483 with engineering assistance and assistance to the Iraqi ministry of agriculture. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it his Government’s view that the world would be a better place were Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq today? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Nobody would mourn the removal of Saddam Hussein per se. He was one of the bloodiest tyrants of any dictatorship in the world. But the peace was always going to be harder to win than the war and that is proving to be the case today. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does he agree that the failure to locate Saddam Hussein does not mean that he never existed and does he believe that there having been the invasion the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime is a positive or negative outcome from a New Zealand perspective? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Saddam Hussein certainly did exist and he was the same Saddam Hussein who in the 1980s regrettably was supported by Western powers and armed by Western powers notwithstanding that he had all the same characteristics that he has today. There are many dictatorships around the world that it would be ideal to remove but the increasing realisation is that when one removes a dictator one does not remove the problems in that country; sometimes one simply magnifies them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question: is it a positive or negative outcome from a New Zealand perspective? That was a question to our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and he cannot answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did answer the question. 
Paul Adams 
: Has the Government’s view that it was right to reject calls from National and ACT to join the invasion of Iraq been strengthened by the comment made on National Radio: “They”—referring to the US—“are at pains to say that both the Iraqi war - type decision and the nuclear policy are separate from how they treat trade.” by the National Party leader Bill English on Friday 20 June? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen the comment made by Bill English from Washington DC in which he explicitly denied there are difficulties in the trading agreement with the United States as a result of either the non-nuclear policy we have pursued for many years or indeed our non-involvement in the Iraqi war—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Lockwood Smith was part of that same delegation that Mr English was reporting on. I also saw the comment from Bill English saying— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned and will not warn again about people who move closer to a person answering a question. They can interject from their own seat—there is no objection to that—but they must not move closer to the person answering. [ 
Interruption 
] I have not heard the Minister’s final answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding Standing Order of this House that Ministers do not have responsibility for statements made by other political parties. My question to you is why you did not intervene given that that was the third sentence we have had from the Minister that breached that Standing Order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister was asked to comment on the particular statement. He was perfectly entitled to do so. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding custom in this House that if Ministers choose to refer to members opposite in answering their questions they can expect those members to interject. I think it is unfair to rule that out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can provided that they do so from their own seat. That is the point I have made. There is a Speaker’s ruling to that effect. It will be upheld. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We perhaps have an unusual set of circumstances in that while you are correct in your ruling the fact is that Dr Lockwood Smith in this case has not moved his seat. Indeed Dr Lockwood Smith and Dr Nick Smith have been sitting in those seats since the beginning of question time and they were positioned there because of a whip’s instruction. It is not as though Dr Lockwood Smith has moved to interject; he has been sitting there and actually asked his question from there. It seems appropriate that on his getting the response that he did he should be able to make comment across the House in response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 123/7 made in 1996 stating that interjections are not in order at all during question time. I have allowed them to occur but I am going to allow them to occur only in accordance with other rulings made by previous Speakers—rulings that go back as long as I have been in this House. Interjections can be made but they are to be made from the person’s seat. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This helps to explain the frustration felt on this side of the House. We have constant rulings from you that Ministers have answered questions whereas in fact they have not addressed what their own policies are yet they are allowed to stand and talk at length about the policies and comments of another party. That might be fair enough but in that case they should be asked to explain at length what their own comments and their own policies mean. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a political point the member is making and we will see how the supplementary questions go. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate issue completely. I welcome your ruling which reinforces that members may not move to a different seat to gain advantage in interjecting. I raise with you the issue that in numerous debates on legislation going through the House other presiding officers in the Chair acting on your behalf have not upheld that ruling. Indeed in many general debates we have seen Government members move to other seats to gain advantage when interjecting and be allowed to do so. I have raised points of order in that vein in the past but they have not been supported by the Chair. I respectfully ask that we have some uniformity in such decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I welcome the member’s point of order and I think the other officers have heard it. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister think that the anti-war stand that he has just articulated is compromised by our placing army engineers in a British military unit in Iraq given the growing hostility of the Iraqi people towards the occupation troops and the almost daily targeting of them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The proposed deployment of New Zealand Defence Force engineers is in fact in response to Resolution 1483 which was passed I think unanimously by the United Nations. These engineers are not part of the occupation forces. They are there to do the job that we said we would always be there to do and that is to assist the civil reconstruction of Iraq. Clearly putting civilian engineers in a situation that is still dangerous is not possible but there is work such as sanitation and water supplies that needs to be done and that our Defence Force engineers can do and will do. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister assure us that if by chance our military people in Iraq do take a prisoner that prisoner will not be passed over to United States jurisdiction because of the clear mistreatment of prisoners by the United States administration there—the fact that they are not allowed access to a lawyer of their choice and are subject to military tribunals that have the death penalty? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Our engineers will be there to do construction work. It will be no part of their task to take prisoners.