9. KEITH LOCKE (Green)
to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Is it Government policy that no Minister will officially meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits next month; if so, why?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY:
As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday he did discuss this matter with me.
He sought advice from me
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 m
ight
make
.
I
woul
d be happy to discuss those in more detail with the member
,
if he wishes.
Keith Locke:
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 –
Mr SPEAKER:
I think the Minister did answer the questions. The member has further supplementary questions in which to dig down further. The Minister may be constrained by the public interest, but that will bebhis decision.
Keith Locke:
In relation to my primary question, which Ministers will be meeting with the Dalia Lama, or will be allowed to meet with the Dalai Lama, when he visits New Zealand in December?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY:
As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday
, he has ma
de 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
M
inisters currently plan to meet the Dalai Lama
.
Keith Locke:
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?
Hon
MURRAY McCULLY:
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
with
the
D
alai
L
ama
on the occasion of
this visit
. He
has conveyed that information to Ministers
and, as he indicated yesterday, i
t is his understanding that no
M
inisters 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
.
Keith Locke:
How does the Minister explain the fact that last December the Prime Minister said, very clearly, to a questioner that he would not 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?
Hon
MURRAY McCULLY:
The Prime Minister, I understand in the past, as Leader of the
O
pposition did refer
his preparedness
on some future occasion
to meet with the Dalai Lama
, and
yesterday
the Prime Minister
repeated th
at assertion – that perhaps
on some future occasion he m
ight
meet with the Dalai Lama on
the occasion of some
future
visit to N
ew 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 judgement about those priorities.
He
does not necessarily feel the
need to explain those priorities to his
M
inisters or his officials.
I can simply convey that outcome to the member and to the House
.
Keith Locke:
I seek to table three documents. The first two are Amnesty International documents. The first one id datede 6 March 2009, is on Tibetan issues, and is headed: “A year of escalating human rights violations”.
Mr SPEAKER:
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.
K
eith Locke:
The second Amnesty International document is dated 6 November 2009, and is headed: “Two Tibetan men executed” for their role in protests last year.
Mr SPEAKER:
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.
Keith Locke:
The third document is by Human Rights Watch, and is headed: “China: Ensure fair trial for Tibetan filmmaker”, who has been arrested and torutered for ‘inciting separatism’.
Mr SPEAKER:
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.