English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4126] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of her statements regarding an invasion of Iraq “I think it’s a very bad precedent to go in without explicit sanction from the UN” and that she believed some of New Zealand’s “best friends” were wrong is it her Government’s official position that an invasion of Iraq by New Zealand’s traditional allies and friends is illegal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government has not reached that conclusion. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Government taken any advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about whether this prospective invasion would in fact breach international law; if so what was that advice; otherwise can she tell us why she has not reached a conclusion on the legality of an invasion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The question of legality or illegality is one about which there is a great deal of debate. The fact that there is a great deal of debate is reflected in what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has had to say about it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case why on  
Morning Report 
 this morning was the Prime Minister stating what she perceived or thought to be a majority legal view without any evidence whatsoever of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On  
Morning Report  
this morning I said I had no doubt that the United States and Britain would go to considerable pains to construct a legal justification for their action. It is also noteworthy that they tried very hard to get a resolution to give explicit authorisation. I think we can infer some meaning from that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can clarify for the House who are New Zealand’s best friends. In a post - Saddam Hussein world is it France which has always opposed the advancement of New Zealand’s agricultural trade and has committed State terrorism against this country or is it the United States which has always supported New Zealand in peace in trade and in war? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not prepared to attack any of our close and best friends and certainly I deplore the attack that the member has just made on France. The truth is that among Western democratic nations there is a range of views on this issue. I think we should respect those differences and I decline to enter into the sort of attack he has entered into. 
Keith Locke 
: Could the Prime Minister confirm that it is contrary to international law for one country unilaterally to invade another country to enforce regime change and that Resolution 1441 gave the Security Council not any individual nation the right to decide any enforcement of that resolution? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That seeks a legal opinion and that is out of order according to the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister may comment on it if she wishes but may not give a legal opinion necessarily. The second part of the question is in order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I completely disagree with my honourable friend the question was about whether something is illegal. I should have thought that would be very hard for the Prime Minister to answer without her giving a bit of a legal opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She can give a legal opinion; he cannot ask for it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I do not have legal training I decline to give a legal opinion but I note that Resolution 1441 did not authorise use of all necessary means if Iraq declined to take the final opportunity. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: As the Prime Minister has consistently backed the UN route for resolving this crisis and now that that has apparently failed does she consider that that failure is due to a failure of UN processes; if so is the Government prepared to look at playing a part in reforming the UN in that regard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am one of those who do not believe that it is a failure of the UN process. I expressed my concern in my statement to the House today that some members of the United Nations—and they include our very best friends—have elected to step outside the framework. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister believes as she has stated that Resolution 1441 does not give full authorisation for an American invasion does she mean that she believes that it may be legal under international law for the US to proceed with this invasion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said in my initial answer that the Government had not reached a conclusion either that the invasion was legal or that it was illegal. It acknowledges that there is great debate about it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Perhaps the Prime Minister could clarify further. Given her statements regarding an invasion of Iraq what sort of access does she expect New Zealand to have to say the White House in a post - Saddam Hussein world compared with the access that Australia will be given given that Australia has responded to the United States’ call and we have not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no reason to think that the level of access will change. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Prime Minister’s difficulty in expressing a legal opinion though she is happy to express the legal opinion of others when war does start as seems inevitable which side does she expect or hope to win—Iraq or the coalition of the willing parties? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not a question of expectation. There is no question about who will win. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the Prime Minister’s own statement that it is debatable whether UN Resolution 1441 authorises the use of force why have she and her Government supported an interpretation against enforcement of the UN resolution rather than the interpretation taken by our traditional allies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The matter that the member raised at the beginning of his question is not debatable at all. Resolution 1441 does not explicitly sanction the use of force. It does not mention “all necessary means”. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Prime Minister seriously telling this House that she does not believe there will be any consequences for New Zealand from the fact that we have consistently opposed our traditional allies Australia Britain and the United States and have lined up with France? Is she really saying she thinks things will be no different in the future from how they have been in the past and what possible evidence has she got for that extraordinary notion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in my earlier statement I believe that it is well understood that New Zealand has adopted a position of principle that has integrity. I repeat what I said to the member earlier: I have no reason to believe that access will change. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister disagree with Dr Ramos Horta who in an article published in the  
New York Times 
 stated that he backed the war against Saddam Hussein as the best way to liberate the long-suffering Iraqi people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I assume it is the same article that was reported in a New Zealand newspaper in the last few days. His argument was a little more sophisticated than that but no I do not agree with that particular statement.