3. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement, “Overall, the relationship New Zealand enjoys with Australia is the closest we have with any country. It rests on the firm foundations of common values; a comprehensive trade and economic partnership; a defence alliance; close and effective cooperation across many policy areas and, of course, on many family links.”; if not, why not?
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the public statements of senior Ministers over recent days in relation to Air New Zealand’s charter contracts with Australian defence forces, including Mr Goff’s accusation today that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, had gone “off the deep end”, are intended to contribute to maintaining this country’s strong relationship with Australia?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think I would put it this way: “and I think the right advice from MFAT should have been to tell them”—that is, Air New Zealand—“not to do it, simply because by association it involves them in something with which the declared position of the Government was not to be involved.” That is a quotation from Mr John Key, leader of the National Party.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Has the Prime Minister been advised by her Ministers who hold the shareholding interest in Air New Zealand that the airline currently conducts tens of millions of dollars worth of business annually with the Australian defence forces; and can she assure the House that that revenue has not been placed at risk by the actions of her Ministers in the past week?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am advised that the total contract income from contract work last year was $18 million. I am further advised that on Friday Australian troops were transported from Sydney to Honiara, and that such transport did not require any advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade because it clearly was consistent with New Zealand Government policy. I am further advised that no attacks were made on Australia last week. The criticism was of the failure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to advise Air New Zealand correctly, and of the failure of the ministry to advise its Minister—and, indeed, other Ministers—of the approach of Air New Zealand, which clearly acted properly in seeking advice in that matter.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is climate change one of those areas of “close and effective cooperation”; if so, does the Prime Minister agree with the Australian Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, that APEC leaders would not accept binding climate change targets, or does she agree instead with Opposition environment spokesperson Peter Garrett that without mandatory targets the APEC document made a mockery of claims that APEC would be the most important climate change summit in 15 years and exposed the Australian Government’s weak and inconsistent position?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The New Zealand Government will not intervene in arguments between Mr Garrett, who clearly has changed his views about climate change since being part of Midnight Oil, and the Australian Minister for the Environment. We do notice, however, that the Australian Government has announced a “cap and trade” system for emissions, and that is consistent with the approach being taken by the New Zealand Government.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Has the Prime Minister been advised that Air New Zealand provides extensive engineering services for the Royal Australian Air Force, worth millions of dollars annually, and earns substantial income from servicing the gas turbines on frigates operated by the Australian navy; and will she express confidence that none of those contracts are likely to be lost as a consequence of the actions of her Ministers in the last week?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Let me spell this out as clearly as I can: the New Zealand Government did not support the invasion of Iraq. It has never been confused about its position on the invasion of Iraq. It has never held more than one position on the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, it does not deem it appropriate that a company of which it holds nearly 80 percent of shares should be seeking to make money out of transporting troops to the war in Iraq, and it is not going to surrender those principles for the sake of money. Of course, had Air New Zealand received advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it could still have proceeded to undertake those charter flights, but I am quite clear from the statements made publicly by Mr Palmer that had Air New Zealand had different advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it would not have undertaken those charter flights. In that situation the issue would never have arisen, because it never would have applied for those particular charters.
Keith LockeDoes the Prime Minister agree that one of our common values with Australia is nuclear non-proliferation; if so, how does she think Australia is upholding that current value in violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, by agreeing to sell uranium to India to make more nuclear bombs?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The New Zealand Government does have a very strong stance on nuclear non-proliferation. The Australian Government has engaged in uranium exports for many years. The exact nature and extent of those exports is a matter, at the moment, for debate between the two major Australian political parties. The New Zealand Government is not going to come into the middle of that debate.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Prime Minister confirm that she became aware of an Australian Defence Force - Air New Zealand charter that carried troops to Honiara late last week as a consequence of a confidential no-surprises briefing by the airline to its shareholding Ministers; and can she explain why it was in New Zealand’s interests to use that confidential information to slag Mr Downer, when that was clearly not the purpose for which it had been provided?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, I cannot confirm that. My understanding is that the Prime Minister is advised separately from the shareholding Minister, and there is only one such Minister, which is myself. That information was not used to slag Mr Downer at all; Mr Downer was not slagged at all last week. All the Prime Minister has done is take exception to, in our view, Mr Downer’s rather strong and over-the-top reaction to the fact that we were concerned about the lack of advice the New Zealand Government had received—a point on which the Government has been fully supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Key, who is clearly in disagreement with Mr McCully.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Prime Minister advise the House why, according to her public statements, Mr Downer breached a convention by addressing the National Party conference recently, when it was perfectly acceptable for the then deputy British Prime Minister, John Prescott, and the Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, to address Labour Party conferences here; and can we take this as confirmation that there is now one rule for the Labour Party and another rule for everybody else?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, the House cannot take that conclusion from that. Firstly, Mr Prescott was the Deputy Prime Minister of a fraternal Government a long way away. Secondly, the Australian visitors are from state Governments, not the federal Government. The New Zealand Prime Minister has declined invitations to speak in Australia in a context that might be considered political. Thirdly, and most important, all those speeches were given in public, not in secret like Mr Downer’s speech to the National Party.
I seek leave to table an article by Michael Costello, headed “Downer knows better” from the Australian, criticising the decision to send uranium to India.