Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4494] 
7.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Is the New Zealand Government presenting a statement today to a United Nations forum commenting on the war in Iraq; if so is that statement to be either explicitly or implicitly critical of the actions being taken by the United States the United Kingdom Australia and their allies? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand this morning delivered its statement to the open session of the United Nations Security Council on Iraq. That statement focuses constructively on what must be done to alleviate suffering arising out of the conflict and to help Iraqi people achieve a better future once the conflict is ended. It emphasises the key role that we believe the United Nations should play in that process. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What was meant in the statement on Iraq delivered by the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the UN today: “Our common objective must be to end hostilities as quickly as possible.”; is it the New Zealand Government’s preference for the coalition of the willing to down tools and withdraw leaving in place the regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baath socialist party or does he believe that it is necessary to finish the job and effect a regime change quickly—which of those two is the preference of the New Zealand Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think there is no question that the coalition forces are likely to withdraw from Iraq at this time. Of course we would like to see an end to hostilities as I am sure the member would like to see an end to hostilities. New Zealand has never supported and has consistently condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think we condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein from the time certain security forces put it in place and at a time when other countries were arming Saddam against other countries. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What specific points did New Zealand make in its statement to the United Nations Security Council? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That statement first of all expressed our regret at the breakdown of the diplomatic process and our concern over loss of life in the conflict. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that most of that loss of life has been amongst civilians. We emphasised that we should focus on what needs to happen now with the provision of humanitarian relief funds and the immediate resumption of the oil for food programme; and post-conflict the full and active engagement of the United Nations in the reconstruction programme. Finally we said that New Zealand was willing to work alongside others in the United Nations to assist with both reconstruction and humanitarian aid. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister believe that the failure of the Government’s statement to the United Nations today to make any distinction between the actions of our close traditional allies Australia Britain and America to liberate Iraq and the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein will not—I repeat “not”—have an adverse effect on our relationship with our traditional allies; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The statement will be tabled in the House. There is absolutely nothing in that statement that could in any way be regarded as offensive. If the member takes offence at the fact that we regret the loss of life on both sides that is his judgment. But I deeply regret the growing number of civilian casualties that notwithstanding efforts to avoid inadvertent civilian casualties are occurring and the suffering of people such as those in the city of Basra who are now without electricity or water supplies. 
Keith Locke 
: Would it not be consistent with the Government’s opposition to a unilateral US-led invasion and its desire to avoid civilian casualties for the Government to follow up its call this morning for an end to hostilities with an appeal to US-led forces to halt their advance and negotiate a ceasefire with Iraq so that humanitarian aid can reach—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide will leave the Chamber. I have warned about interjecting while members are asking questions. Every member in this House is entitled to ask his or her question. After all we have a democracy and every member is entitled to ask a question. Mr Locke will continue and Mr Hide will leave. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber 
Keith Locke 
: I will start again. Would it not be consistent with the Government’s opposition to a unilateral US-led invasion and its desire to avoid civilian casualties for it to follow up its call in the Security Council this morning for an end to hostilities with an appeal to the United States to stop its advance and negotiate a ceasefire with Iraq so that humanitarian aid can reach the many thousands of people in desperate need in places like Basra? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I regard it as highly unlikely that a ceasefire will be entered into on that basis. Probably the best way to end hostilities would be for Saddam Hussein and his family now to uproot themselves out of Baghdad and leave the country.