5. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Does he have full confidence in the foreign policies of this Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
Madam Speaker—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERI ask members please to keep their level of interjection down, because all members in the House are entitled to hear the answer.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the member answering on behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, given the Cabinet Office dictum, could indicate which hat he wears as he answers this question.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not speaking on behalf of anybody else; I am the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs by Cabinet decision.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell us on which day the Cabinet reaffirmed the Cabinet Manual in 2005, which would allow him to make that claim.
Hon Bill EnglishI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think there is an issue here that we ought to clarify. When Dr Cullen is the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs is he subject to the same set of rules as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which is the unusual arrangement that is not yet laid out in the Cabinet Manual, or when Dr Cullen answers those questions is he required to exercise collective responsibility as a full Cabinet Minister? That will determine what kind of questions we can ask Dr Cullen when Winston Peters is away.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Mr Peters is bound by collective Cabinet responsibility on matters of foreign affairs. If the member wishes to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he can ask it only about matters of foreign affairs. On those matters, Mr Peters is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. I am, as Acting Minister, bound by collective Cabinet responsibility on this, but of course with various other hats on I am bound by Cabinet collective responsibility on all matters.
I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 152/6: “Where an Acting Minister has been appointed, the Acting Minister is for all purposes the Minister and does not answer a question on behalf of anyone. If an Acting Minister is present when a question is reached it is the Acting Minister’s responsibility to reply.”
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we to assume that there will be a different level of responsibility according to the particular Minister who acts for another Minister who, like Winston Peters, claims he is not part of the Government—and Peter Dunne is in the same position—when, a Minister acting for either of them is able to say: “I am bound by full collective responsibility.”? One of the things that has been interesting in this House is that where Acting Ministers have spoken, a Minister has to wear the answer, as if he or she had given it himself or herself. Now, we all know that Mr Peters has views on foreign policy that are quite different from the Labour Party’s, and even in recent days, in radio interviews, he has freely expressed those views. So we do need to get it fairly clear as to just where the bounds of Dr Cullen’s answer will take us.
I thank the member. I think it is quite clear in the ruling I have given, and in the ruling that applies here, that the Acting Minister, when appointed the Acting Minister, is for all purposes the Minister, and answers that question. It is a matter for the Government to decide how that reply is given, and obviously the Speaker does not judge the quality of the reply. I think we shall now proceed to hear the reply.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I ask you to imagine a situation where, for instance, we put down a question about free trade and Dr Cullen is the Acting Minister, and he gets up and gives an answer that directly contradicts the comments that Winston Peters is giving outside the House, because, even though as foreign Minister he is apparently bound by collective Cabinet responsibility, he actually has already expressed views that are at odds with those of the Government. It will put Parliament in a difficult situation whereby the Minister says one thing through the Acting Minister here in the House, but outside says something completely different, because he does not feel bound by collective responsibility. How are we then to judge the veracity of what the Minister says in the House?
That is not a point of order. It is, in fact, debating material. If Ministers answer inconsistently that may be of significance politically, but it is not a matter of procedure and not a point of order in this House. I ask the member to answer the question.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House, with regard to our relationship with the United States, precisely which foreign policy he is expressing confidence in: the policy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who stated that rebuilding New Zealand’s relationship with the US is his top priority, for which purpose he will enlist the assistance of the Australian Foreign Minister; or the Prime Minister’s policy that we do not need to rebuild the relationship with the US and do not need any help from Mr Downer; which of those two very different policies is the policy of the Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Minister of Foreign Affairs represents the Government on foreign policy issues. I do note that Mr Peters has denied on a number of occasions saying that he has asked for Australian assistance. It would of course be a help at this stage if Australia would help us more with the Rugby World Cup than with any other matter.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House why, when the Prime Minister had already stated publicly that she did not want any help from Mr Downer because we can “paddle our own canoe”, the Minister has confirmed that he has asked for help from Mr Downer and that Mr Downer has agreed to give that help?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The transcript that I have does not suggest that Mr Peters asked for assistance. But, certainly, Mr Downer said that he was happy to help us. We, of course, are happy to help Australia with its relationships with other countries.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that, in relation to China, securing a free-trade deal is one of the Government’s highest foreign policy goals; if so, can he tell the House how he managed to spend a whole meeting with the Chinese Minister of foreign affairs without once mentioning New Zealand’s strong interest in such a deal?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Yes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals. But, of course, the Minister responsible for trade matters is in fact Mr Goff, not Mr Peters.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House whether the fact that New Zealand’s Prime Minister and foreign Minister have been spelling out different policies on our relationship with the United States, with Australia, and now with China is the reason that the Australian Government has now issued Mr Goff with a “please explain” about the role of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new Government; if not, why has the Australian Government asked for such an explanation about Mr Peters’ role?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not responsible for the Australian Government, but I can say that the only area where I am aware of immense contradiction in terms of our relationship with the United States is in the Opposition, where the National Party cannot make up its mind whether it wants to have nuclear ships here to pay for a free-trade deal or to continue to keep them out. Dr Lockwood Smith is not the spokesperson on foreign affairs, because he does want nuclear ships in New Zealand.
The Minister has no responsibility for that. If that is the member’s point of order, the member is correct. What is the member’s point of order?
My point of order is this. How can that Minister, as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, give this House an answer and deny things that the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself has said? That is exactly the problem Mr English pointed out a few minutes ago, and I do not think that it is fair to the House for you, Madam Speaker, to say that it is simply a debating matter. As far as the Opposition is concerned, this House has the opportunity, and a responsibility, to hold the Government to account. If we are to have an Acting Minister deny in this House what the Minister has actually said, then where do we go from here, and what will be the value of that sort of scrutiny?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Media reports are not regarded as gospel by most members of this House. For example, when one reads that senior managers in the National Party want to get rid of Gerry Brownlee I do not necessarily believe that that is true.
I do not think that we need any more assistance on this. The same matter is, in effect, being relitigated, upon which I have already ruled. So that was not a point of order. However, the member is perfectly at liberty to ask the Minister a question along those lines.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen referred to a transcript. A number of us actually heard the voice of Mr Winston Peters explaining his dinner with the Chinese Foreign Minister, and that is at variance with what has been said in the House. What are we supposed to do? Every time we have this situation, are we to push the House into some sort of privilege charge? It would be rather ridiculous if that were to happen day after day.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have said nothing in relation to the Chinese ambassador’s dinner that is contrary to any media report. I was referring to the matter of a request made of Mr Downer.
I just repeat to members that we are discussing debating material. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality or anything else of the answers that are given. It is, however, for the Opposition—quite rightly—to question the Government. So perhaps we can proceed.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table a New Zealand Press Association piece that was filed at 1 o’clock today, directly quoting Minister Goff and headed “Canberra confused about Peters’ role”.