Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10145] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
:: In light of emerging evidence concerning the operation of the New Zealand Immigration Service does she still have confidence in the Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In view of recent bombing attacks against civilians overseas and now published threats in Australia how can the Prime Minister tolerate a Minister and a department that allow another Algerian this time found with explosive material into this country deny his existence and then grant him legal aid for court action while claiming to be a refugee? What on earth is he doing here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will be aware that last week the Immigration Service issued a press statement stating that it had not had referred to it any evidence that anyone was a terrorist. If people are found with such substances on them as the member suggests then that is a matter for referral to the police. 
Keith Locke 
: When will the Prime Minister respond to the public outcry and ask her Minister of Immigration to lift the security risk certificate on Ahmed Zaoui and release him from prison; or if her Government continues to detain Mr Zaoui when will she recommend that he be transferred to the most relaxed form of detention for asylum seekers—that is the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows Mr Zaoui is in the middle of a process. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is reviewing the issuing of the security risk certificate. A hearing is set down on that for mid-December. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who has allowed Salah Eddine Bouta into this country—someone found to have evidence of explosives on him—and why is it that the New Zealand people will again put up with paying for legal aid and all other sorts of costs like imprisonment in respect of a suspected terrorist? What on earth is this man doing in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not the practice of the Minister to discuss individual cases. There is a clear duty of confidentiality around a number of cases. If the member is putting names in the public arena and if he is doing that in defiance of court orders he should probably take legal advice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is Parliament. If the Prime Minister cared for the security of this country she would have referred to a name that was given in this House last week. It therefore does not carry any proscription at all in respect of what any court may say now. However more important looking at the carnage abroad we see that to have the Prime Minister fobbing off evidence in this House when every New Zealander is being asked to be part and parcel of our security arrangements is downright irresponsible. She should have been stopped in her tracks for purporting to answer the question when in fact she is saying that I am proscribed from even asking a question about this man the evidence on whom I gave last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say quite clearly to the member that I did not stop him from asking the question. He had a perfect right to do so. The Prime Minister has a perfect right to reply if she wishes; that is her right in this House also. Rulings on suppression of name orders are in Speakers’ rulings 44/4 45/1 and 45/2. Speaker’s ruling 45/2 reads: “Whilst the House jealously guards its freedom of speech it needs to be mindful of other jurisdictions particular the courts where if a suppression order is in force it ought not lightly to be circumvented in the House except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” That ruling was made in 1999 by my predecessor Mr Kidd. It is for members to act responsibly with regard to this matter. However I must point out that reports outside this House of proceedings in the House are not exempt from liability in respect of a contempt of court. I did not rule out the member’s question and he was perfectly entitled to say what he said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that this matter is a joke and a matter for giggling and sniggering in this House when a week ago she received evidence of someone who arrived in this country being a suspected terrorist who was found to have evidence of explosives on him and who was named in this House and therefore no proscription can apply in the way sought by the Prime Minister; when will she take this country’s security seriously? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that the Immigration Service last week issued a statement that it had not had advice that there was a suspected terrorist among us. I might say that if there were a case where traces of explosive material were picked up at the border I would regard that as a great success of our border security system. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is such a roaring success what the hell is he doing here being paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer and on legal aid? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am prepared to answer only questions in the abstract because I will not drag people’s names through this Parliament and the public arena. However in the abstract when people arrive and claim refugee status they are subject to treatment under international conventions. This country upholds the law in respect of those conventions just as the Government that the member was previously part of did.