4. Question No. 4—Foreign AffairsGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsQuestion No. 4—Foreign Affairs4. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is she confident that the Government's consideration of joining AUKUS Pillar Two is aligned with its stated independent and Pacific-centric foreign policy stance?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes. To be clear: New Zealand is not a party to AUKUS. In so far as Pillar Two arrangements are concerned at an officials' level they are exploring the non-nuclear aspects of those arrangements but let me again be clear: no commitment has been made.Golriz Ghahraman: Is she concerned that cooperation under the so-called Pillar Two of AUKUS by New Zealand undermines the sovereignty of Pacific Island nations and will lead to the militarisation of the Pacific?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No the assurance that has been sought by the Pacific is that the AUKUS arrangements comply with the Treaty of Rarotonga. New Zealand's position on a nuclearfree Pacific has not changed and the assurance sought by Pacific partners is one that New Zealand endorses in order to protect their sovereign interests.Teanau Tuiono: Does she stand by her statement that amplifying the Pacific voice and the impact of climate change on Pacific peoples is a key priority for New Zealand and if so does she think that joining AUKUS Pillar Two would be a significant departure from New Zealand's previous priorities in the Pacific?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I absolutely stand by my comments because New Zealand has long acknowledged that for the Pacific the greatest existential threat to their security is climate change. We know that by doing more in this area their sovereign interests can be protected within the region. AUKUS Pillar Two arrangements and the way in which New Zealand is investigating whether there is a potential benefit to the region is based on the non-nuclear aspects of that. So that would be compliant with the Treaty of Rarotonga.Teanau Tuiono: How can she claim that Aotearoa is focused on the interests of the Pacific in addressing security issues in our region when she has held six times as many meetings with Australia US and UK officials about New Zealand's potential membership of AUKUS than with Pacific Island counterparts?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of that question we undertake diplomatic dialogue with a range of partners within our region but importantly with the Pacific we are a member of the Pacific Islands Forum. We hear their primary concern in terms of climate change being a challenge for their security and sovereign interests in the region. We are working hard to ensure that our investments particularly in terms of climate finance rally towards the aspirations of the Pacific and that is how we are being responsive as a partner to support Pacific aspirations in the region.Teanau Tuiono: Then how can she be confident that involvement in AUKUS would not compromise New Zealand's commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the Pacific when it is part of a security and defence agreement with nuclear powers?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question because the clarification is very important: New Zealand has not agreed to participate in either the primary set of arrangements or Pillar Two. Being able to investigate what the potential opportunity is doesn't translate as agreeing to them. The reason why we do that is because we understand just how important it is to maintain our nuclear-free position to uphold our responsibilities in relation to the Treaty of Rarotonga and to be a country—the only country—that has a separate portfolio for the non-proliferation and disarmament of nuclear weapons not only within our region but across the world. And that is consistent with Pacific aspirations.Golriz Ghahraman: Can she confirm that this Government remains committed to the ban on cluster munitions and if so did she raise this in discussions with the US Secretary of State in relation to conversations about regional Pacific security?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Yes I did raise this issue in particular reference to the situation with Russia and Ukraine and while New Zealand supports Ukraine in its defence against Russia's illegal war of aggression Russia and Ukraine—as parties to the armed conflict—must comply with international humanitarian law. Any use of cluster munitions must be in accordance with these rules. Unlike New Zealand neither Russia Ukraine or the US are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The convention explicitly prohibits the use of cluster munitions and our position on these inhumane indiscriminate weapons is clear: we're determined to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties they cause. We're unafraid to express our view on the use of cluster munitions. We are opposed to any developments that increase the likelihood of cluster munitions being used in any conflict. And we have an obligation under article 21 of the convention to pursue universal adherence to it and to promote the norms of the convention.