1. Prime Minister—Statements on Proportion of People Who Claim Refugee Status or AsylumRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterWEDNESDAY 17 AUGUST 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSPrime Minister—Statements on Proportion of People Who Claim Refugee Status or Asylum1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes with one clarification: when I said yesterday that the numbers of people who come to New Zealand and claim refugee status or asylum are significantly fewer under this Government than when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was a Minister I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not hear the last sentence from the Prime Minister. Could he repeat that? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If we could have a little less interjection then it is easier for all members to hear the answer. Would the Prime Minister mind repeating the latter part of his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The last sentence was: I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a process for Ministers to correct answers they gave—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. This is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: —if they subsequently realise that they are incorrect. Waiting until question time has already started is not the appropriate way to do it. They are supposed to do that at the first available opportunity.Hon Gerry Brownlee: This was not a correction to an answer; it was a clarification of an answer—quite a different matter. It is quite a different matter. Mr SPEAKER: I think there is some relevance to both the points that have been raised by Chris Hipkins and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. If it is a correction to an answer then the expectation is—in fact the Speakers' rulings are very clear—that the member or Minister upon becoming aware that he has inaccurately answered a question must come to the House as quickly as possible. If it is a matter of minor correction—in other words it could be interpreted as a clarification—I think in this case it is acceptable for it to be done in the way that it has been done.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to approved visas for applicants seeking refugee or protection status that what I do know on the advice of the Minister of Immigration is that the numbers are considerably less under this Government than when the member was a Minister."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in my answer to the primary question I stand by the view that that is correct when it is taken with the word "proportion".Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile that statement with his Minister of Immigration saying that he was "advised that information before 2009 is not captured in a reportable format and would require substantial manual collation and research." which he was not prepared to authorise? How does he stand by his statement against what the Minister has told me?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You will have to take up the written question with the Minister's office. I cannot answer that and I have not actually even seen that parliamentary question but in the information provided to my office—I can give the member an example if he wants. If you go back and have a look for instance at the 2005-06 period the number of people who temporarily came to New Zealand was 498009 on the advice I had. The number of people who claimed for asylum was 317. The proportion was 0.063653468. In the 2015-16 equivalent the number was 925365 the number of people who made claims was 339 and the proportion was 0.036634193. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House that the Minister of Immigration advised him that the number that had come was considerably less when in fact the Minister of Immigration in an answer to a written parliamentary question said—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Different question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No it was not a different question. You are not going to switch the grounds now—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just read the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister of Immigration said that no such information had been collected pre-2009 how could the Prime Minister tell the House that yesterday he had already been advised otherwise by the Minister of Immigration?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister of Immigration advised me that the proportion is less—and the proportion is less.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said he was advised by his Minister of Immigration yesterday was that statement true or false or did the Minister of Immigration misinform me and the House in a written answer to a written question?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot make any comment on the written question because I have not seen it but that was the advice that the Minister gave me and it is correct.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact Prime Minister that yesterday not once but twice he misled the House intentionally and he seeks now to sneak away from his statement yesterday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. If anyone was misleading the House yesterday it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was taking the opportunity to make a quote about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme where he used the words I had used about the UNHCR programme deliberately misleadingly actually in his supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister digging a hole for himself by making that statement when in yesterday's answer he specifically said that it was not UN refugees we were talking about but other categories which was the subject of my question upon which he then told the House something demonstrably false twice?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to go and look at his own Hansard and my quote that he used in his supplementary questions to me. As I said I should have used the word "proportion". Other than that the answer was quite correct and I stand by it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the answer yesterday when he pointed to the fact that it was not UN refugees he was talking about how could he have gone on from that—and Hansard is very clear—and made a statement about numbers that he did not at that time have? That information about not having the numbers was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of Immigration. Which one of these two Ministers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Questions need to be—[Interruption] The right honourable Prime Minister—the first part. I did not hear the last.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Neither of the Ministers. The member if he wants a very detailed answer on something completely different from his supplementary questions should ask the Minister of Immigration but the Minister of Immigration advised me—because the member was asking a question—about proportions and I gave the member the answer."