Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15037] 
3.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What human rights abuses if any would lead him to advise the Prime Minister to reconsider the April signing of a preferential trade agreement with China? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: New Zealand’s policy on human rights which was repeated and endorsed in this House yesterday in the motion on the situation on Tibet is very clear. We raise human rights issues in the appropriate forum and using the appropriate channels. 
Keith Locke 
: Would an incident on the scale of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre be sufficient for the Government to reconsider its April signing of the preferential trade agreement with China? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Foreign Affairs is not responsible for the Government’s free-trade policy. That is a matter for the Minister of Trade. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand has a far greater influence over China while staying engaged in our present preferential trade opportunities; if so does he also acknowledge that this privileged position carries with it a high degree of ethical responsibility that obliges this Government to strongly condemn China for its actions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister laid out clearly the New Zealand Government’s response yesterday. That was amongst the strongest responses of any Government in the world. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just like clarification given the Minister’s previous statement that questions of trade were out of scope to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because I wish to ask a supplementary question in a moment that pursues that. The original question did ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs on what basis he would give advice to the Prime Minister that the foreign affairs situation had become so serious that we should reconsider the trade agreement. Therefore can you rule whether trade agreements are totally out of scope of this question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It depends on the nature of the question. So if the member would like to ask the question then we will be able to assess that. As the member said if one reads the question as it is it is relating to advice from one Minister to another but it is not on the substance of the trade agreement. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given previous statements from his Government that there are very few tariffs left on Chinese imports into New Zealand what exactly is China getting other than Western legitimation of a repressive regime; and if it is simply that the democratic stamp of approval is being given away then does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that the situation in Tibet at the moment demands that this be urgently reconsidered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: China continues to seek to open up its economy to the rest of the world. New Zealand is fortunate to actually be in the forefront of that process and from the perspective of developed countries. The situation in Tibet remains unclear and I note that the Dalai Lama himself has said that there was violence on the streets in Tibet that did not come from the Chinese authorities. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In light of an earlier answer the Minister gave about the New Zealand Government’s reaction what was the reaction to the meetings of the New Zealand Ambassador to China with Chinese officials in the last few days; who did he see; and what did they indicate to him in response to New Zealand’s protests about the situation in Tibet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The ambassador in China has made representations and the Chinese Government has noted those representations. 
Keith Locke 
: How many cases like that of Ye Guozhu sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for his opposition to forced evictions in Beijing associated with construction for the Olympic Games and subsequently tortured while in detention would it take for him to reconsider the April signing of a preferential trade agreement with China? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government regularly raises human rights issues with the Government in Beijing. It has done so for many years. However it is fair to say that the Chinese Government’s record in these matters is somewhat better than in the depths of the days of the Cultural Revolution when that member supported the Chinese Government’s approach. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of misrepresentation. I did not support the Chinese Government’s approach in the Cultural Revolution. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a point of information. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take offence at the sort of abuse directed at me by the Minister. Surely that is out of order in this House. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It does not come within the rules on personal reflection. It is a matter of debate but if the member would like to ask another supplementary question he should please do so. 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation. I assure the House that I have never supported the Chinese regime—the one-party State—in its activities during the Cultural Revolution or at any other time. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly my memory as a fellow student of the member at Canterbury University is now somewhat faulty on these matters. I must remember him referring to the Pol Pot regime. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have assured the House on several occasions in the past that I have never supported the Pol Pot regime or its genocidal policies and many members have been forced to withdraw and apologise for saying that. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to do so and I think it is a disgrace for a Labour Deputy Prime Minister to sink to that level. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the first statement about personal reflection; the second statement however has actually been ruled on before so I would ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Keith Locke 
: Is he telling the House that there is no level of violence or human rights abuse that would trigger a reconsideration by his Government of its plans to sign a preferential trade deal with China when he does not give a preferential trade deal to the Governments of countries such as in Myanmar or Zimbabwe and in fact put sanctions here on the movements of their leaders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I remind the member that this Government legislated to remove tariffs on the least developed countries in the world and that member and his party opposed the removal of those tariffs. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think that addresses the question of whether there is any level of violence or human rights abuse that would force a reconsideration of the free-trade agreement or the question relating to the sanctions on travel by members of the Zimbabwean and Myanmar regimes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member dragged in some of the least developed countries in the world in relation to trade policy—and Myanmar is certainly amongst the least developed countries in the world—and I was reminding the member that his party voted against the removal of tariffs on those countries. One cannot give a more preferential trade policy than zero tariff across the board. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That did address the question.