Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6549] 
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she requested for any reports to be undertaken detailing costs posed to the taxpayer by immigrants; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I received a report on 16 April 2003 on the fiscal impacts of immigration. I am pleased to be able to say that this report noted that migrants are fiscally positive to New Zealand. Although $4.1 billion was detailed as costs with regard to Government expenditure that was offset by the $5.8 billion that migrants contribute to Government revenue a net benefit of $1.7 billion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not wishing to offend any sub judice rule and not referring to the merits of the case can the Minister tell me how much the Chinese nationals Qie Dong unemployed Shangbin He unemployed JiaLiang Hong unemployed and JieOu have contributed to New Zealand whilst they have been here; can she tell me just how much in legal aid this immigrant-hugging Government will spend on defending imported fraudsters? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That comment was very unnecessary. To refer to immigrant-hugging by way of a desire on the Government side of the House to try to address some of the— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is for you to determine whether the question is out of order not the Minister. Last night one of her colleagues—namely Mr Carter—was on the television saying that he was going to hug immigrants. What I said was correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question and the Minister was giving a reply. Up to that point the Minister was giving a reply. I will judge whether a question is out of order but she is entitled to say what she wishes. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Obviously I cannot give details of the actual benefit for three migrants of whom I have no information. I have absolutely no idea how long they have been in the country. I have no idea what they have done while they have been here. I have no information on them other than a report from that member that they have been charged with an offence. I find it interesting that he has chosen migrants of Asian descent when we had a recent case of an individual who was a migrant from the UK convicted—not just charged—of attempted kidnapping. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the beneficial effects migrants have on New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have recently received a report from Venture Southland on the progress being made in the implementation of the regional immigration initiative in the Clutha-Southland region. In the past 15 months while the pilot has been operating 29 new migrants and their families have been attracted to the Clutha-Southland area. A further 15 migrants and their families are expected to arrive over the next few months. Most of them are filling vacancies in industries facing acute skills shortages. The regional immigration initiative is a great success. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I submitted this question it was in reference to the four people I named in my supplementary question. That does not offend any sub judice rule because I was not referring to the merits of the case but to the facts of the case as published by the  
Dominion Post  
on 6 June 2003. I was told by the Clerk’s Office that I could not refer to those people in any way shape or form because their cases were sub judice. That is not the sub judice rule. The sub judice rule relates to any reflection conversation or discussion on the question of merit mens rea or any other issue. As to the fact that there is a case and that people are involved in it that is surely far too narrow an interpretation and that was proven by the fact that I was able to ask a supplementary question in the form in which I had sought to ask the primary question in writing 4 hours ago. After a long discussion with the Clerk’s Office I was told that the sub judice rule prevented any reference to any case whatsoever. Frankly I think that is nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have taken some advice on this matter. The member did not submit the question; he was not able to do so this morning. This morning Dail Jones sought to lodge a question that made reference to a case currently before the courts. Standing Order 112 is quite clear: matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to in any question including a supplementary question. This goes back over 100 years of rulings. The question as originally submitted was not in order. It made reference to a particular case and asked about matters related to that case. 
The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to. That is what Mr Jones sought to do in his question as originally submitted. The application of the law to a particular case may not be discussed because argument about it could prejudice the conduct of the case or its outcome. 
The House is not in the same position as the media when reporting cases. Standing Order 112 seeks to ensure on the one hand that a judge or jury is not influenced by parliamentary discussion and on the other hand it enshrines the special relationship between the courts and Parliament. It reflects a comity between Parliament and the courts. What is before one ought not to be discussed in the other. There can be no overriding public interest in allowing reference to a particular case currently before the court when the House is not prevented from pursuing the general policy matters that question No. 3 as amended sought to address. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you saying that the media has greater rights than members of Parliament? I understood the rule to apply to matters awaiting adjudication. The fact that people are unemployed is not a matter awaiting adjudication. The fact that they may get legal aid is not a matter awaiting adjudication. The issue awaiting adjudication is whether they are guilty and knowingly committed a crime. That is what the sub judice rule is about. We now have a situation where the rule is so narrow that the whole press gallery can refer to the case but we in Parliament cannot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am saying that members of Parliament have special responsibilities in this case. That is an established ruling that has been made for over 100 years.