Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3758] 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will New Zealand be reviewing its aid policy to the Pacific following events at the recent International Whaling Commission meeting; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand is held in high esteem for the transparency and fairness of our aid programmes. We have always focused our aid on where it is needed most and we have a longstanding commitment to see a much greater percentage of that aid spent in the Pacific. Making aid conditional on countries complying with the political whim of donor countries is the exact thing we have been seeking to fight against. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has he seen on alternative proposals to the Government’s aid policy in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have seen a report that National’s Murray McCully wants the Government to link aid to the conduct of Pacific nations at the International Whaling Commission. In other words he wants us to duplicate the behaviour of for example Japan in this matter. That is an utterly bankrupt idea—without a shred of integrity—that will work against the very people we are trying to help in the Pacific and who are not directly responsible for every Government decision or political decision made by their Governments. It would also undermine many decades of New Zealand’s principled approach to aid that stretches back past the time of Sir Keith Holyoake—when the National Party had a leader—Peter Fraser Michael Joseph Savage that the rest of the world but seemingly not Mr McCully regards as having integrity and being a model for others. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House why earlier this year he approved a New Zealand aid grant to assist the Palestinian Authority just after the election of the Hamas Government; and would he explain why he gave aid dollars to a Middle Eastern authority that had just elected a terrorist organisation as its Government rather than giving them to our near neighbours in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The first thing one must do when one is involved in running the affairs of the country is get the facts right. Hamas were not an elected Government. Hamas had members elected to Parliament but they were not a Government until a short while ago. Between times we like the United States and the World Bank—and they are not known for tossing their money around for unjust causes—decided to fund through the World Bank’s operation for the health and food of the poor people of that country. We have never given 1c to Hamas nor have we decided to. Mr McCully should get his facts right for the first time. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What would be the fiscal impact of Mr McCully’s proposed alternative and what would the ethical implications be for New Zealand? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is a very good question. Mr McCully wants New Zealand to line up our cheque book against Japan’s the world’s second-largest economy at US$4500 billion compared with our much more modest US$108 billion. That is a fool’s crusade; we could never win. This is all because of some misplaced notion that we can change overnight with a few more dollars the behaviour of some countries’ politicians. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Only 3 weeks ago you gave a very considered ruling about the degree to which Government Ministers could answer questions about Opposition policy. You ruled that the only thing Ministers could comment on was reports they may have read. That supplementary question from New Zealand First made no mention of any reports and as that is the basis of your own ruling is not in order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Peters. I will just comment first. If anyone wants to take it further that is fine. Members know that it is perfectly permissible under the Standing Orders to ask hypothetical questions. The fact that the hypothesis comes from an Opposition perspective is actually not relevant. What is relevant is the right to be able to ask hypothetical questions. I interpreted that question to be a hypothetical question. Would the member please complete his answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: As I said in my second answer today I have seen a report from National’s Murray McCully. That is the reference and the member knows that full well. He wants us to line up our US$108 billion economy against the US$4500 billion economy of Japan. That is a battle we can never possibly win. Clearly National wants us to abandon a policy that has integrity and moral authority and that has won us the trust and confidence of many partners in the Pacific and around the world. In a race with a cheque book— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mumble mumble. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh so this is not important to the member? When it comes to policy National puts me in mind of the Dusty Springfield song “Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying” but it does not have a policy. 
Keith Locke 
: When will the New Zealand Government lift New Zealand off its near-bottom status in the OECD aid table—it is currently languishing around 0.27 percent of gross national income—and what timetable will the Government establish to meet the accepted international target of 0.7 percent of gross national income by 2015 so that we can re-establish our international aid credibility? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: First of all that is a significant priority for me and my ministry; bearing in mind that we had a massive decline in funding for foreign aid and for the ministry itself of 40 percent by 2002 under firstly a National administration. That was turned round in 2002. Admittedly it is not what I would like it to be but it is far better than it was and we have hopes and aspirations to lift it much more rapidly than was planned. We will have to rely on our persuasive powers in respect of that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister seen any substantive policy alternatives to the Government’s aid policy in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Actually I have seen a policy on the National Party’s website on the question of aid. It is one sentence. Since the election National has put out two statements one by Simon Power attacking our desire to help better the police force in Vanuatu and one by John Hayes saying he would deny the people of Tokelau the constitutional right bound by the United Nations to self-government and determining self-government—an attack he also made on the Government of Niue which has seen a very strong response from the Prime Minister just this week. 
Hon Member 
: Do your job and stop looking at our website! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I did look at the website. Those members have barely asked a question in this House but they have spent their time sniping on the World Wide Web report Mr McCully puts out to a few misguided people every week. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why is it part of the foreign policy of the Minister’s Government to provide special immigration quotas for the people of Kiribati and Tuvalu to immigrate to New Zealand as well as providing those countries with substantial aid; and why when concluding those arrangements did it not occur to the Minister to tie down a few loose ends like the way those countries vote at the International Whaling Commission? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We have to have an understanding of the way some parts of the world work. Sadly one of the greatest focuses we have is to ensure that we by our policies bring about better governance and less corrupt Government in many of those countries. Some of those political acts are not though the people’s fault; they are the fault of some politicians and some Governments. If we take the Solomon Islands for example we can see that there is every bit of reason to prove that in fact the interference of a foreign Government caused the recent uprising there. What would Mr McCully have us do? Would he have us abandon our modelled project that has some integrity and some honour to it and start behaving like them? We are never going to do that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister agree that if New Zealand were to withdraw its aid budgets to Pacific nations because of their position on whaling we would be giving the whaling nations and their aid budgets even more leverage in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is precisely what would happen. In fact there are some countries that would clap their hands all the way to the bank if we were to depart the scene. But the principal piece of information that this House needs to know is that it is fundamental to our policy as a good and responsible neighbour that we seek to improve Governments around us—from Fiji to Tonga and all the way to Micronesia. The point is that we are not always successful and to say we should abandon them for that policy for a temporary victory by Japan is I think a very very bad policy position taken by the National Party.