3. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Have all recent actions of New Zealand’s diplomats been consistent with Government policy?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
I suppose that depends on what the member’s definition of “recent” is. It could, for example, refer to Jonathan Hunt, when High Commissioner in London, in which case—
Mr SPEAKERHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an endeavour to be helpful I refer to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia—
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Does the Government then stand by its decision to support the freedom of expression on the internet statement, delivered by Sweden at a meeting of the Human Rights Council on 10 June 2011, and is that recent enough?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I do not know that a statement made by Sweden constitutes New Zealand Government policy.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Did the Minister receive advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about endorsing the Swedish statement, and did he approve New Zealand’s support of it, even though the UK and France, which have similar copyright infringement laws, did not support it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
That is a very particular question. The Minister is overseas, and I am the acting Minister.
Grant RobertsonHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
If the member wants that degree of particularity, I say to Mr Robertson, she should ask the right kind of question.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider that supplementary question in light of the primary question that was asked, and ask you whether it follows. The primary question was about recent actions of New Zealand diplomats. I can imagine the Minister preparing for that. But the supplementary question actually related to the Government’s position on Swedish policy to do with something—heaven knows what.
I do not think I need any assistance on this matter. The member makes a perfectly valid point. Where primary questions are vague, there is no way Ministers can be expected to have particular information; rather than the Speaker ruling a question out as not relating closely enough to the primary question, the Minister obviously is perfectly entitled, as the Minister did, to say that he does not have that particular information, and no Minister can be criticised for that when the primary question is so vague.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Does he agree with the statements of the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs made on behalf of a number of countries, including New Zealand, that “We call on all states to ensure strong protection of freedom of expression online in accordance with international human rights law.”, and that “Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.”?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that that supplementary question is out of order, because it is actually a question without notice. The primary question was about the behaviour of diplomats. The supplementary questions have nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of diplomats, and, in fact, if that supplementary question is allowed, I think we should go back to hearing about Jonathan Hunt.
The member has a valid point that these questions are a long stretch from the primary question, but we have always had a tradition that imprecise primary questions, or primary questions that leave a wide field of supplementary questions, are in order. But the risk the questioner faces is that he or she will then ask a question that the Minister cannot be expected to have the information to answer. This particular question asked whether the Minister agreed with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of another country. I could almost rule that question out on the basis that the Minister has no responsibility for that, whatsoever, but we accept questions that seek opinions. The Minister is entitled to give his opinion on whether he agrees with a particular Foreign Minister, but I certainly will not be looking for any particular answer. The Minister has a lot of licence in answering a question such as that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order goes to your response. This question is a very specific one, which goes to whether New Zealand diplomats have been following New Zealand Government policy. It the absolute right of—
No, no. The member is now debating with the Speaker about my ruling. If the member asking the questions had a particular concern about this issue relating to a Swedish position being taken, whether that covered New Zealand, and these kinds of issues, it would have certainly been helpful if the primary question had indicated the general subject matter of the questioning. The Minister could then have been prepared to answer them. But to have a general primary question covering all of the recent actions of New Zealand diplomats is a very wide primary question. The remedy is in members’ own hands. They cannot expect Ministers to have detailed information on specific cases when a question is as wide as that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can understand that, and Ministers are quite often not across the details of their portfolios, but you should not be telling members—
I will not tolerate any more of that. The member has used a point of order to criticise Ministers. The member has just used a point of order to say that some Ministers are not across their portfolios. That is unacceptable. A Minister cannot be blamed for not having detail on a particular case when the primary question is as wide as that. You will notice today that when a specific question has been asked, Ministers have answered them, because they know I will insist that they answer them. But when a primary question is as wide as this, there is no way I can expect the Minister to have detail. As I have said, asking an opinion about the statement of another country’s Foreign Minister is on the limits of the Standing Orders anyhow. But I have acknowledged that Ministers can be asked for their opinions, and if the Minister has an opinion on that matter he is certainly entitled to give it in answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask that you review the tape on this matter, because the member, in fact, asked not about the Minister’s opinion on the Swedish Minister but about the Minister’s opinion on the New Zealand diplomats putting New Zealand in a position in which they supported a Swedish statement.
The member is debating the substance of the issue. Whenever there is controversy, I always look at what transpired. I am happy to do that, but I am pretty certain that I have not erred on this issue, in accepting that the Minister cannot be expected to have the details of this matter at his fingertips. But he is welcome to answer. I invite the member to repeat her question, because it has been so long that I want members to be aware of what the question was.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Does the Minister agree with a statement by the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of a number of countries, including New Zealand, signed up to by diplomats representing New Zealand opinion, that “We call on all states to ensure strong protection of freedom of expression online in accordance with international human rights law.”, and that “Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I refer to that part of the question by the member that refers to the statements by the Swedish Foreign Minister, and say that the Swedish Foreign Minister is not a New Zealand diplomat.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Mr Speaker—[ Interruption] I am just trying to select which of the many supplementary—
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Having effectively endorsed the report of the special rapporteur by having a diplomat sign New Zealand’s signature to a statement given on behalf of New Zealand, which finds that disconnecting users on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law is disproportionate and a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, will he now acknowledge that the ability by Order in Council to terminate internet connections, contained in our current Copyright Amendment Act 2011, is a breach of human rights, and pledge to remove it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I dispute the underlying premise of the question when the honourable member says “effectively endorsed”.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why does New Zealand say overseas it is a breach of human rights, but does it here?
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the freedom of expression on the internet cross-regional statement made on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden on behalf of a number of countries, including New Zealand, dated 10 June 2011.