1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all of her Ministers?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have full confidence in the Minister of Immigration's handling of every aspect of the Karel Sroubek case?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister Mr Lees-Galloway inherited a defective flawed inadequate and insufficient system of scrutiny for such applications. Ultimately he himself became a victim of that inadequate system admits that openly and is committed to fixing it and we have confidence in him doing so.Hon Paula Bennett: Was the original decision to cancel Mr Sroubek's deportation liability and grant him residency the right one to make?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the evidence that Mr Lees-Galloway had at the time and in the absence of the critical information he needed to know and which was never presented to him—that Mr Sroubek had gone back to the Czech Republic on more than one occasion—Mr Lees-Galloway can be forgiven for making that decision.Hon Paula Bennett: Why didn't the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway ask officials about the travel that was so clearly set out in the report and whether or not that travel included a visit back to the Czech Republic?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be axiomatic that if there was a proper complete system in place the officials would have presented all that information to Mr Lees-Galloway. He admits and we know that this system which we inherited is flawed and we are intending to fix it up. This is the same system that allowed this following group of people to come to this country and stay: an Afghan convicted of sex crimes on Kiwi children a grandfather-killer and a woman who killed her husband just to name but a few under the previous administration.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with Winston Peters who said and I quote I have got a full paper in front of me that tells me the details and I am confident the Minister has made the right decision."?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister most definitely so given that Mr Peters himself was a victim of not having the information that should've been provided to him such as that Mr Sroubek had falsely put in a claim with respect to his life being endangered should he have to go back to the Czech Republic and he'd already gone back to the Czech Republic.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe her Minister should have given any weight to Mr Sroubek's claim that the Czech Republic a European Union member would "kill him while making it look like an accident." and if he did give it weight what implications would that have on foreign affairs?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well first of all Mr Sroubek did not narrow it down to just one agency that may be threatening his life. But the reality is that the critical piece of information that Mr Lees-Galloway needed to have to override his humanitarian concern for his fear of Mr Sroubek losing his life was that he had gone back contrary to his application to the Czech Republic. That's what Mr Lees-Galloway—indeed the Government—needed to know and we were not afforded that information.Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Minister of Immigration the Prime Minister herself and also her Deputy Prime Minister having read the file think it was justified to cancel the deportation liability on the information they had in front of them which said that he was a fraudulent lying criminal drug dealer currently in jail?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There was information that was provided by his wife for example who I understand is the National Party's informant on this matter. [Interruption] Don't deny it—that's a fact. His wife was backing him to the hilt. She was then but isn't now but the one piece—Hon Gerry Brownlee: What's the problem with that?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well the problem with that is that the member's informant has changed her tune now. She asserted one thing when the process was in place—again falsely—and said something else today. What's wrong with that is we were entitled to know that the very grounds on which a humanitarian decision was going to be made were indeed not extant. That's the fact of the matter. We didn't know that—and it's not in the file by the way.Hon Paula Bennett: What does she say to the over 600 families who have been denied residence in New Zealand in the past year in favour of giving a fraudulent lying drug-dealing criminal residency?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that to make that statement is to pursue the most cheap line in politics horrifying as it is—to follow cheap nasty politics. These people have not been chosen as against Mr Sroubek's case; they're all examined independently.Hon Paula Bennett: Based on the line that the Prime Minister is taking today of the concerns around Karel Sroubek's safety if he had gone back to the Czech Republic were they putting the safety of him ahead of the public safety of New Zealanders?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well at the point in time a whole lot of evidence existed that he was not a danger to New Zealand society—quite the contrary. But the real decision that the Minister had to make was going to be dependent upon whether or not his life was in fact endangered should he go back to the Czech Republic. Now here comes the rub: he should never have made it to New Zealand in the first place because he lied on his original application to get access to New Zealand way back in 2003.Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah but Labour gave him residency—Labour gave him residency.SPEAKER: Order!Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Prime Minister claiming that someone that has imported 5 kilograms of Ecstasy into New Zealand pleaded not guilty then appealed that decision and was denied parole is not a danger to the safety of New Zealanders?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well that member's going to have to understand a bit more about the basis of the law in this country because he appealed successfully—remember? He was not convicted—as that member said—on two occasions. Hon Paula Bennett: Could she have saved the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars maintained actual confidence in the immigration system and not put New Zealanders at risk by simply ensuring her Minister of Immigration made the right decision in the first place? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The National Party and the member can make all sorts of claims but the reality is that over a hundred people came in under the defunct deficient flawed system that the National Party for nine years left to my colleague and he is setting out—having made only one mistake in a year—to fix it up."