Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10494] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many people have been denied entry to New Zealand as a result of the New Zealand Immigration Service’s Advance Passenger Screening system? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Advance Passenger Screening including the use of the Advance Passenger Processing system was introduced by this Government in August 2003. Even though it is still in the first roll-out phase and is not yet fully operational or mandatory for airlines I am advised that using the system between 8 to 10 people have already been denied boarding. Phase 2 of the roll-out which will commence between February and June next year will include a separate statistics reporting function so I will have more detailed good news for the member next year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is 8 to 10 people over 4 months so why is the Minister so excited about this and putting out press statements when hundreds of immigration fraud cases are going on every day right under her nose; and can she confirm whether Adele Erisnas a South African working as a nanny whose work permit having expired married Mr Quban Khel an Afghan taxi driver in a registry office in Auckland at 11 a.m. last Wednesday—and this is part of the marriage of convenience to stay in this country proposal which she supports? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have already said to the member that it is helpful if members describe in their original question the particular case they want to raise in order that I can be informed. However I can tell the member that it was this Government that changed the partnership rules. There is no ability to apply for residence upon marriage any more as there was when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact we now see a period of waiting—[ 
Interruption 
]—until a person has been married for 12 months before he or she can even lodge an application. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The Minister is entitled to answer the question. His idea of standing up and saying “Sit down” is out of order. It will not occur again. If the member wants a supplementary question he can have as many as he likes when it is his turn. 
Dianne Yates 
: Have there been any changes to the Advance Passenger Screening system since its launch in August? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. I want to congratulate Air New Zealand our own national flag carrier on being the first airline to agree voluntarily to trial the new system. Since that time Malaysia Air Royal Thai Airlines Freedom Air and Royal Tongan Airlines have joined Air New Zealand in screening most of their passengers through the Advance Passenger Processing system. That system will become mandatory for all airlines in the middle of next year as long as this House passes the Border Security Bill. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister assure Parliament that there will be no Government interference in Inspector-General Greig’s review of the Ahmed Zaoui case—clearly a man who slipped through the screening? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Mr Zaoui arrived in the country in December last year. The screening system was brought into place in August this year. There have been plenty of examples of people who have slipped through the net; that is why we have introduced the system. However in the last financial year the number of refugee status claimants in this country dropped to the lowest level since 1994. That means that nobody can say this country is a soft touch for bogus asylum claims. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically asked whether there would be any Government interference in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s review—yes or no. What is the answer? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is hard to see how that supplementary question then arises out of question No. 5 the principal question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The supplementary question was very wide of the original. The Minister was prepared to address it and she did so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If she has done so much why is Adele Erisnas a South African nanny whose work permit has expired one of the 20000 overstayers in this country; what investigations have been done into allegations that Tak Wo Kwan duped five Christchurch-based Chinese students into paying up to $100000 each to gain permanent residency because he had friends who worked as immigration officers and immigration consultants and what happened to that investigation; and why can we not hear how magnificently the Minister is performing in her administration on these simple matters? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I make the point to the member that in the last year to the end of October there were 2.062 million visitor arrivals. The member has pointed to two small examples. We are trying to make a system work that ensures we check people before they come into the country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is why I told the Minister to sit down the first time because I thought she had made no attempt to answer the question and she has not done so for that question either. I asked her about an investigation that is public—one that she must know about because she is a Christchurch member and also the Minister of Immigration. It is a serious case where people who are visitors to this country are being duped and she made no attempt whatsoever to answer that question. Mr Speaker if you let her get up and give any old ratty tirade of an answer then we will have disorder in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we will not. We will not have any disorder at all. The Minister was asked a question and she gave an answer. I adjudged she addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you tell the country what has happened to the Tak Wo Kwan investigation because no one could have heard it from the answer given in the House today. The Minister did not answer the question. It is almost the end of the parliamentary year and once again we are the victims of obfuscation and straight-out evasion. What is the answer to my question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not the original question. The Minister may not have been briefed on that particular issue. If the member asked that particular question an answer should have been given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I did. Can I have my answer please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have finished with the member. That is the end of that issue. I adjudged that the Minister addressed it. I will not have my authority challenged in this way. I said that the member asked a question about a very specific issue in very specific detail. The Minister said that had she been advised of it she would have come to the House with the information. That is a perfectly acceptable answer to give. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said that had she been asked that question she would have given an answer. Of course she was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the original question— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let me finish. I am making my point of order and whilst you say I have no right to challenge you you cannot challenge my right as an Opposition member to ask a question fairly and within the Standing Orders. You put your finger on it when you said that had the Minister been asked the question she should have answered it. The  
Hansard 
 will show that she was asked whether there was an investigation into Tak Wo Kwan. You cannot then backtrack to an earlier question that the Minister answered and say that that was an answer to the question I just asked her. I want to know now—because no other New Zealander including myself knows the answer to this question—whether there was an investigation and what has happened to it. What is the answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member once again that if he looks at the original question he will see it was about how many people have been denied entry. The Minister gave a pretty specific answer. The member then asked a question about one particular example and the Minister said she did not have that information at present. That is a perfectly acceptable answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The  
Hansard 
 will disclose that the Minister gave that answer for an earlier question which was to do with a South African nanny who was working here on an expired permit. This question—a supplementary question allowed by you—asked about Tak Wo Kwan who duped five Chinese students into paying up to $100000 each for permanent residency because of his contacts in the Immigration Service. It was a clear question very clear in its detail. Parts of it have been published in the newspaper in Christchurch where the Minister comes from. She is also the Minister of Immigration. Now can I have an answer to my question? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I said in respect of the first supplementary question if the member puts down the names of individual cases or details of factual situations in the original question then I can be briefed before I come to the House. I did make the point that there were 2.062 million visitor arrivals to New Zealand in the year ended October 2003. I do not think we are doing too badly. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seriously seek your guidance here. The case in question was a high-profile case in Christchurch which ministerial staff must have brought to the attention of the Christchurch-based Minister of Immigration. Indeed there was a colour photograph in the Christchurch  
Press  
about Yusuf. For the Minister to sit here and imply that she has no detailed knowledge at all of that case and that she requires a formal warning to obtain it is beyond belief. I ask you if not to bring her back into line at least to make her try to answer some details of that case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is not in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: For the edification of the Minister I seek to table a report from the Christchurch  
Press 
: “$400000 paid for residency” of 4 December—5 days ago in her own city’s newspaper—setting out the details of this case.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that is a classic. You sought to ensure I could not get an answer to this question. The Minister said she has no details. She got up and repeated the same answer which in my view was out of order. I am not interested in the ones who got here legally; I am interested in the thousands who get here illegally. We all know about that. Then I sought to table that document and she said “No”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was not just one person who said “No”; there were more than one—and any one member can say “No” quite legitimately.