10. KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Will he, today in the House, support Amnesty International’s call and demand that independent observers be allowed into Tibet to assess the situation and protect Tibet from further violence; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
The appropriate channel for dialogue about developments in Tibet is the Chinese Government. We are engaged with that Government and have made our views clearly known, as have many other Governments. We continue to follow developments closely.
How can the Minister refuse to add our voice to calls for international observers when all around the world people are protesting the brutal Chinese crackdown, and outside our Parliament yesterday Karma Tenzin, a Tibetan now living in Christchurch, told us that some of his family members had been imprisoned and killed, and that he had seen pictures of bodies with gunshot wounds; if the Minister will not support the call for international observers, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The United Nations has not made such a call—that would represent an international response. I say to that member over here that he is asking for the precise things that would do the very least for the people of Tibet or for anybody else around the world. He wants boycotts of all sporting, economic, and cultural ties with China in order to address human rights issues. That would do the very reverse to what the rest of the Western World—and New Zealand—has sought to do in these last 30 years. We intend to go on with the proven method of change to a stance of a country rather than take this knee-jerk reactive response that the Greens so irresponsibly take, which was best epitomised by their spokesman himself when he supported Pol Pot back in 1975.
Madam SPEAKERRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If he can get up and talk about other members in this House as not having a good conscience, as though he has a mortgage on conscience, as the Greens regularly do on so many issues, like they care more than the rest of us—us not having seen one evidence of proof of that—why can I not raise the issue about his good conscience?
As the member knows, he cannot, because a personal statement has been made and the member’s word has been accepted.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that in the member’s personal statement he indicated that he welcomed the change of regime but not later events. I think to say that he welcomed Pol Pot in 1975 is not, in fact, going against the personal explanation that the member gave. In fact, I think it was confirmed by the member.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to correct the Minister. I do not call for a sporting boycott of China. In fact, the Green Party supports the New Zealand team going to the Olympics.
Does the Minister agree with the editor of the Dominion Post, who this morning wrote: “For New Zealand, there may be short-term benefits to turning a blind eye to events in Tibet but in the long run this country’s interests will be better served by a stable, open, transparent China that respects human rights and the rule of law than a repressive regime.”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
It will come as no surprise to members that I do not agree with the editor of the Dominion Post, and the reason is that he does not have a very good grasp of history. The reality is that economic freedom has usually been the beginning of political freedom and the growth of human rights. That has been the record of history, and that is what we and other nations, including the United Nations, seek to persuade to be the course of China, rather than this short-term, knee-jerk, populist reaction that the Green Party is famous for. Mr Locke, in particular, is famous for having no coherence to his policy, and no past, promised, historical record of it ever working, but it makes him feel good.
Hon Peter DunneDoes the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the leader of New Zealand First, who recently told an audience of elderly people: “Let me be clear. Our policy position has not changed; we do not favour FTAs with low-wage economies.”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
In an audience best described as legend, the New Zealand First leader did get up and say that our policy in respect of low-wage economies—for many, many decades, not just, conveniently, lately—remains the same. However, we were prepared to await the detail—
Gerry BrownleeYou are anticipating it, Madam Speaker. It is to do with the way in which the Minister is answering. He was asked a question as a Minister of the Government, and is now answering as the leader of New Zealand First. We have been told many, many times that the Prime Minister answers as Prime Minister but not as leader of the Labour Party.
The member is quite correct. The question has to relate to ministerial responsibility. So the Minister should respond to that, but not as leader of a political party. Do you wish to proceed, Mr Peters?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
In fact, I advised my audience that on such matters they should consult Phil Goff, Minister of Trade, but in other respects the audience was delightful and happy with the event.
I seek the leave of the House to table an editorial from this morning’s Dominion Post, headed “No time for silence on Tibet violence”.