Dalai Lama—Meetings with Ministers

What advice did the Minister or his ministry provide to the Prime Minister regarding the implications for New Zealand’s relationship with China should the Prime Minister or members of his Government meet with the Dalai Lama?

As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, he did discuss this matter with me. He sought some advice as to what other nations’ leaders were doing in similar situations, and he also sought some advice as to foreign policy consequences that would follow from decisions that he might make. I would be happy to discuss those in more detail with the member, if he wishes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think the Minister, in his reply, mentioned any specific implications. His reply was very general, and perhaps he could give at least—

I think the Minister did answer the question. The member has further supplementary questions in which to dig down further. The Minister may be constrained by the public interest, but that will be his decision.

In relation to his answer to my primary question, which Ministers will be meeting with the Dalai Lama, or will be allowed to meet with the Dalai Lama, when he visits New Zealand in December?

As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, he has made it clear that he has no need to meet with the Dalai Lama on the occasion of this visit. The Prime Minister has advised other Ministers of the decision that he has made, and, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, his understanding is that no other Ministers currently plan to meet the Dalai Lama.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs be quite pleased or happy if one of the Ministers in the Government did decide to meet with the Dalai Lama when he is in New Zealand, because how can we expect China to meet the Dalai Lama and negotiate a solution to Tibetan issues unless our Government sets an example and its Ministers, or one of its Ministers at least, meets with the Dalai Lama?

As I indicated in relation to the earlier question, the Prime Minister has made the decision that he personally sees no need for him to meet the Dalai Lama on the occasion of this visit. He has conveyed that information to Ministers and, as he indicated yesterday, it is his understanding that no Ministers currently intend to meet the Dalai Lama in the course of this visit. The Prime Minister has also indicated that he has met the Dalai Lama in the past and may choose to do so on the occasion of a future visit.

How does the Minister explain the fact that last December the Prime Minister said, very clearly, to a questioner that he would meet the Dalai Lama when he visited this year, and now he has decided that he will not? Surely, in response to the Minister’s last answer, the plight of the Tibetan people has not improved, so that somehow our Prime Minister can take the pressure off by not meeting the Dalai Lama and talking about Tibetan matters and how the Chinese Government must match up?

The Prime Minister, I understand in the past, as Leader of the Opposition, did refer to his preparedness on some future occasion to meet with the Dalai Lama, and yesterday the Prime Minister repeated that decision—that perhaps on some future occasion he might meet with the Dalai Lama on the occasion of a visit to New Zealand. Many factors contribute to the making of decisions about the priorities attached to the Prime Minister’s diary, and occasionally, of course, the Prime Minister exercises his own judgment about those priorities. He does not necessarily feel the need to explain those priorities to his Ministers or his officials. I can simply convey that outcome to the member and to the House.

I seek leave to table three documents. The first two are Amnesty International documents. The first one is dated 6 March 2009, is on Tibetan issues, and is headed: “A year of escalating human rights violations”.

Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The second Amnesty International document is dated 6 November 2009, and is headed: “Two Tibetan men executed” for their role in protests last year.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The third document is by Human Rights Watch, and is headed: “China: Ensure fair trial for Tibetan filmmaker”, who has been arrested and tortured for inciting separatism.