Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3424] 
3.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of her statement that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation “strongly suggested a pattern of deception and concealment” of weapons of mass destruction programmes why will her Government not support a second United Nations resolution designed to enforce Iraq’s disarmament? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Government believes that alternative options to secure Iraqi disarmament should be exhausted before the use of force is considered and mandated by the United Nations Security Council. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is only the credible threat of imminent force that gets any level of cooperation from Saddam Hussein’s regime and how much longer can she expect that what she has called a small group of countries—in fact our traditional allies and much of Western Europe and Eastern Europe—will be able to continue to provide the pressure to disarm Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two parts to the member’s question. The Labour-led Government has always accepted that an ultimate resort to force is necessary for the United Nations to secure compliance with its resolutions. The member also asks how much longer we would need to wait. Given the fact that the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission team has been in Iraq for barely 3 months and has only just reached the full personnel strength to carry out its job we believe that it should be given the time to do that job. 
Tim Barnett 
: What support has the Government received from other political parties for its position on this issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Progressive party and the United Future party I think are broadly supportive of the Government’s stance. The Green Party and ACT both disagree. The former thinks we are too soft; the ACT party thinks we are too hard—or the other way around actually—but like the rest of New Zealand we are still unclear on what position the National Party will take on this issue today. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer was an invitation for the member to give comments on other parties’ views. The question itself asked about support—and that was reasonable enough. Then the Minister went on to give other parties’ positions and in the case of my party he completely put it the wrong way around. I strongly object to that. My party has taken a principled view on the matter. We think New Zealand should be supporting its traditional allies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct. The Minister should not have done that. Does the member want a supplementary question? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Did the Prime Minister see the British Labour Cabinet Minister make the statement on television last night that the UK would ignore a veto on a second UN Security Council resolution and if so does the Government support the British position especially as they claim that is the same view that was taken over Kosovo for which New Zealand supported the United States and the UK; if not why does this Government support a veto from say France or Russia? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government supports acting multilaterally through the United Nations. That has been this country’s position since 1945. Though the member may not be aware the United Kingdom and New Zealand are separate countries. We are an independent and sovereign country. We make our own decisions notwithstanding that that member thinks we should follow other countries without thinking for ourselves. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with most intelligence analysts that Colin Powell himself was being deceptive or concealing of the truth in trying at the United Nations to prove a link between the fundamentalist al-Qaeda and the secularist Saddam as he was doing again yesterday when he described bin Laden and Saddam as being “in partnership” when bin Laden had just attacked Saddam as being an infidel and called for his overthrow? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: First of all I do not accept the member’s first assertion about what analysts may or may not believe. Speaking for this Government we have yet to see any evidence that links the Government of Saddam Hussein with the events of September 11. The member said as others in the House may have observed that Osama bin Laden had described Saddam I think as an infidel and said that while the terrorists should support Iraq he did not support the sort of ignorant Government that existed in Iraq. It suggests to me that the position of bin Laden and Saddam—neither of whom is a person I admire; I abhor both of them—is quite separate in terms of their actions. 
Ron Mark 
: Reflecting on that answer I ask whether the Government has seen or requested any evidence from France Britain Germany or the United States as to the types of military assistance they were lending to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The short answer is no but some people will have observed inconsistencies in supporting Saddam at one point and not supporting him at another. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister aware of Colin Powell’s comments today that “We are reaching a moment of truth with respect to the relevance of the United Nations Security Council to impose its will on a nation such as Iraq”; if so what steps does the New Zealand Government consider are still available to the United Nations Security Council given the imminence of the threat implied in Mr Powell’s statement to both lead to the disarming of Iraq and to prevent unilateral military action from being taken against it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware of Colin Powell’s statement today. I do not accept that war is inevitable although I must say that I think at this stage war is likely. It can be avoided of course if Iraq complies with the legal obligations on it. Equally we would ask that the United States observe the procedures of the Security Council and that other methods that are still available including pressure on Iraq by the international community be allowed to run their course before any commitment of force is made. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why is the Government irrevocably committed to multilateralism as it has said many times even though that effectively means that a veto by France Russia or China would end up determining New Zealand’s own foreign policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would observe that Resolution 1441 went through the Security Council unanimously with the support even of Syria. That shows that there is a will in the international community that Iraq should comply with the obligations on it. What we are saying is that time should be allowed for that process to be followed through before force is used in this instance.