English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9299] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she raise with President George W Bush during their 12 minute pull-aside in Bangkok the speech on United States - New Zealand relations prepared by United States Ambassador Swindells for delivery at Victoria University earlier this month; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 No because there was no reason to. 
Hon Bill English 
: Noting that President Bush has said he wishes to complete a free-trade agreement with Australia by Christmas is the Prime Minister aware of the serious costs to New Zealand if that occurs and can she tell the House what those problems are? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The best information firstly is that the economic benefit to Australia is relatively small—that is the official Australian analysis. Secondly it is unlikely to get any rapid access for agricultural products particularly beef. Thirdly there may be some investment diversion. But fourthly in so far as there is any benefit to Australia as it is our largest trading partner some benefit will flow on to New Zealand. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of the United States the “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear ships? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The United States policy on this issue is well established and is unlikely to change in response to calls from the leader of a minor party in a small country. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does she think that on reflection perhaps she and her Government are reading a wee bit too much into the significance of the 12-minute pull-aside in view of the fact that all APEC leaders had at least 12 minutes with President Bush and the fact that a long string of APEC countries received flattering comments from the President immediately prior to that meeting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is not attempting to make too much of the meeting but the meeting was a very friendly one and President Bush continued to make very friendly comments about New Zealand including about our contribution to the war on terrorism. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Did the Prime Minister suggest during her meeting that New Zealand would surrender its nuclear policy as some political parties in this Parliament have suggested we should do? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because in part the President might well have asked for further information about the views of various political parties. It would have taken far too long to explain the differing views of the National Party on this issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that one political party in this House—namely the Progressives—is so beset on its roller coaster ride to oblivion that it is painting other parties’ policies on the question of nuclear-capable and nuclear-powered ship visits in a totally maliciously false light? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot answer a question about what another party is doing. That is up to the other party—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to reflect for a moment. Perhaps the member could repeat the question. I think he did actually have it in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Bearing in mind that the Progressive party is a part of the Government is the Prime Minister aware that a political party on a roller coaster ride to political oblivion is so beset with its journey that it is now painting other political parties in this House on the question of nuclear-capable and nuclear-powered ships in a totally false light à la Mr Robson’s latest newsletter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because it would be impossible to misrepresent the National Party’s position; it has had so many that any possible statement must be true. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think the Prime Minister answered the question. Winston Peters’ question was about the way that New Zealand First’s position has been misrepresented by Mr Robson—nothing to do with the National Party whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the member mention his own party but if he was doing that perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could make a brief comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not aware of that. I am aware that the New Zealand First Party has consistently stood in favour of the ban on nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us what benefits New Zealand has derived from her warm open friendly and insulting relationship with the US apart from photos and headlines that could conceivably bear any relation to the contribution New Zealand has made with its significant troop commitments on the other side of the world; and when is she going to have something to show for all the grovelling? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand has committed itself in support of the reconstruction of Iraq and against the issue of terrorism not in order to grovel—although that is an interesting indication of why the member might do such a thing—but because they are the right things to do.