Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

The Government has not reached that conclusion.

💬 Hon Bill English: Has the Government taken any advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about whether this prospective invasion would in fact breach international law; if so, what was that advice; otherwise, can she tell us why she has not reached a conclusion on the legality of an invasion?

The question of legality or illegality is one about which there is a great deal of debate. The fact that there is a great deal of debate is reflected in what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has had to say about it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why, on Morning Report this morning, was the Prime Minister stating what she perceived or thought to be a majority legal view, without any evidence whatsoever of that?

On Morning Report this morning I said I had no doubt that the United States and Britain would go to considerable pains to construct a legal justification for their action. It is also noteworthy that they tried very hard to get a resolution to give explicit authorisation. I think we can infer some meaning from that.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can clarify for the House who are New Zealand’s best friends. In a post - Saddam Hussein world, is it France, which has always opposed the advancement of New Zealand’s agricultural trade, and has committed State terrorism against this country, or is it the United States, which has always supported New Zealand in peace, in trade, and in war?

I am not prepared to attack any of our close and best friends, and, certainly, I deplore the attack that the member has just made on France. The truth is that, among Western democratic nations, there is a range of views on this issue. I think we should respect those differences, and I decline to enter into the sort of attack he has entered into.

💬 Keith Locke: Could the Prime Minister confirm that it is contrary to international law for one country unilaterally to invade another country to enforce regime change, and that Resolution 1441 gave the Security Council, not any individual nation, the right to decide any enforcement of that resolution?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That seeks a legal opinion, and that is out of order according to the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister may comment on it, if she wishes, but may not give a legal opinion, necessarily. The second part of the question is in order.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I completely disagree with my honourable friend, the question was about whether something is illegal. I should have thought that would be very hard for the Prime Minister to answer without her giving a bit of a legal opinion.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: She can give a legal opinion; he cannot ask for it.

As I do not have legal training I decline to give a legal opinion, but I note that Resolution 1441 did not authorise use of all necessary means if Iraq declined to take the final opportunity.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: As the Prime Minister has consistently backed the UN route for resolving this crisis, and now that that has apparently failed, does she consider that that failure is due to a failure of UN processes; if so, is the Government prepared to look at playing a part in reforming the UN in that regard?

I am one of those who do not believe that it is a failure of the UN process. I expressed my concern in my statement to the House today that some members of the United Nations—and they include our very best friends—have elected to step outside the framework.

💬 Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister believes, as she has stated, that Resolution 1441 does not give full authorisation for an American invasion, does she mean that she believes that it may be legal under international law for the US to proceed with this invasion?

I said in my initial answer that the Government had not reached a conclusion either that the invasion was legal or that it was illegal. It acknowledges that there is great debate about it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Perhaps the Prime Minister could clarify further. Given her statements regarding an invasion of Iraq, what sort of access does she expect New Zealand to have to, say, the White House in a post - Saddam Hussein world, compared with the access that Australia will be given, given that Australia has responded to the United States’ call and we have not?

I have no reason to think that the level of access will change.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Prime Minister’s difficulty in expressing a legal opinion, though she is happy to express the legal opinion of others, when war does start, as seems inevitable, which side does she expect or hope to win—Iraq or the coalition of the willing parties?

It is not a question of expectation. There is no question about who will win.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the Prime Minister’s own statement that it is debatable whether UN Resolution 1441 authorises the use of force, why have she and her Government supported an interpretation against enforcement of the UN resolution, rather than the interpretation taken by our traditional allies?

The matter that the member raised at the beginning of his question is not debatable at all. Resolution 1441 does not explicitly sanction the use of force. It does not mention “all necessary means”.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Prime Minister seriously telling this House that she does not believe there will be any consequences for New Zealand from the fact that we have consistently opposed our traditional allies Australia, Britain, and the United States, and have lined up with France? Is she really saying she thinks things will be no different in the future from how they have been in the past, and what possible evidence has she got for that extraordinary notion?

As I said in my earlier statement, I believe that it is well understood that New Zealand has adopted a position of principle that has integrity. I repeat what I said to the member earlier: I have no reason to believe that access will change.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Prime Minister disagree with Dr Ramos Horta, who in an article published in the New York Times stated that he backed the war against Saddam Hussein as the best way to liberate the long-suffering Iraqi people?

I assume it is the same article that was reported in a New Zealand newspaper in the last few days. His argument was a little more sophisticated than that, but, no, I do not agree with that particular statement.

Iraq—Diplomatic Process

2. GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) to the Prime Minister: What is New Zealand’s assessment of the state of the diplomatic process with respect to the situation in Iraq?

The diplomatic process being conducted through the UN Security Council is effectively at an end. The only chance now to avert a war is for Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq within the next 2 days, and in the interests of their people I urge them to do so.

💬 Graham Kelly: What role does the Government see now for the United Nations in the Iraqi crisis?

The Government believes that the UN will have a role to play at the end of the likely conflict, when there will be huge humanitarian needs to meet, and when huge reconstruction of Iraq will be required. We in the New Zealand Government are prepared to play our part in meeting those needs.

💬 Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister believes that this war does not have sufficient sanction, if she believes that our best friends are wrong and that war is always a catastrophe, why has she not expressed that view more strongly and more publicly to Australia, the UK, and the US?

Mr Howard was our guest here for 3 days over the past weekend, and he and I got the opportunity to discuss that fully. Our diplomatic posts have also ensured that the Governments of the US and the United Kingdom are well aware of the New Zealand Government view.

💬 Keith Locke: Why has the Government refused to initiate moves under General Assembly Resolution 377, to call the General Assembly into urgent session to demonstrate to the American, British, and Australian leaders that the great majority of UN members are against a war on Iraq?

I am not convinced that any especially useful purpose would be served by that. There have been two opportunities for open debates at the Security Council. It is a matter of record that many countries have not elected to take up the opportunity that that afforded to make a statement. New Zealand was one of those that did make a statement on both occasions.

Intelligence and Security Committee—Meetings

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: On how many occasions has the Intelligence and Security Committee met since the last election and does the frequency of such meetings since 27 July 2002 reflect her Government’s idea of consultation with Parliament?

The committee has met once. It is not easy to get times when everyone can meet. Given the member’s interest, I have asked staff to canvass whether members could meet at any time Thursday morning or afternoon. Everyone was able to come at 3.30 except the member. I am now endeavouring to see whether time can be made to fit with his programme on Wednesday afternoon.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has the Prime Minister made a pathetic attempt to mislead this House on that issue, when my office has been approached nine times and has agreed, on nine former occasions, to meet in respect of this committee; why is she trying to tell the House something else at this point in time?

No disrespect to the member, but there are other members involved.

💬 Rod Donald: Can the Minister guarantee that the information collected at the Waihopai satellite communications interception station is not used by the United States National Security Agency for its war aims, including the agency’s announced spying on UN Security Council members; if not, why not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is very wide of the original question. The Prime Minister may comment.

It is not my practice to comment on the uses to which New Zealand intelligence is put.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why did the Prime Minister decide today to call a meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee?

We have been trying to find time for a meeting for some time.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: What items of business actually before the committee necessitate a meeting at this time?

No matters of formal business, but the committee did agree that it would like to meet again to discuss intelligence in the post-Bali era.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect Parliament to take the work of that committee seriously, when she clearly does not, having last year had only one meeting, back in December, after the 27 July election, and this year, with her being the chair of that organisation, being able to effect no meetings at all at this point in time, right on the edge of war with Iraq?

With the exception of the period when the committee was considering legislation around the amendments to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act, it has been the practice of the committee to meet three or four times in a calendar year. Last year it met three times.

Question time interrupted.