Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: As Minister of Immigration does she insist that her New Zealand Immigration Service operate on a policy of no surprises to her? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes but it is probably no surprise to the member that it does not always work. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is so does the Minister consider it excusable that it took the Immigration Service 6 long months to investigate an attempt by one of her officials to obtain sexual favours from a woman applying for residency in this country and that she learnt about it only 11 days ago; and how many other women’s dignity is she prepared to exploit due to her lack of control and knowledge and cover-up over what is happening in her own department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Firstly I have looked at the reasons why it took 6 months to undertake the investigation and although we would like to think it could be done more quickly I am aware that the individual who was being investigated was absent from New Zealand for a period of time. But I would have liked to see it dealt with more quickly. Secondly no it is not acceptable that I did not know about it and thirdly it is absolutely unacceptable that anyone approaching any Government official would be spoken to in that way. 
Dianne Yates 
: Did the “no surprises” policy mean that the Minister was informed about allegations of corruption prior to it being reported in the media late last year and what steps did she take as a result? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No again I was not informed. When the allegations were made I immediately referred the matter to the Minister of State Services requesting an independent inquiry into the specific allegations and into the procedures that the Immigration Service had in place for responding to allegations of corruption within its own ranks. The review and its recommendations along with my feedback on the report are being implemented including a memorandum of understanding with the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister always the last person in this country to know and why did she constantly and adamantly convey on the  
Holmes 
 show last night that the “sex for residency” investigation was not in her words a criminal matter but a sexual harassment matter; and now today she concedes that officials should have involved the police; and can she explain the sudden change of heart in less than 24 hours or are we to trust nothing that comes out of her mouth? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Many complaints are made against immigration officials. The New Zealand Immigration Service investigates each and every one of them. Not all of them are genuine complaints. In cases where there is evidence of criminal offending the police are involved. What I have said today after reflecting on the matter is that the Immigration Service not so much should have referred the matter to the police but should have concerned the police with the complaint because it may have been possible to obtain sufficient evidence against him which is a criminal standard of evidence rather than the civil standard that applies in an employment matter against this individual as this has been done in cases involving bribery. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Who does she hold responsible for the failure in this case to call the police and what action has she taken to hold them to account for their decision since learning of this failure? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There has been a change in staff at the Immigration Service since this matter occurred; there is a new general manager. I cannot hold the current general manager responsible for something that occurred last year. The thing that I want to make very clear is that many complaints are made against officers of the Immigration Service. As with members of Parliament when there are complaints made about allegations of corruption investigations have to be carried out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that the Minister is always the last person in New Zealand to know and was her continual refusal to treat the “sex for residency” investigation as a criminal matter another indication that she has absolutely no regard for women to be free from sexual harassment and exploitation in this country but cares more about covering up the inadequacies and the so-called rights of for example the horrible fleabag who infected New Zealand women with AIDS or the rapists and con men who happily live here even though she has been told over a long time who and what they are? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was too long but I let the member finish. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I should be allowed to ask a serious question of this nature without the moans and groans of people over there namely Ms Tizard. It is a serious matter and I think that I should be able to ask the question in an environment where I can actually hear the question myself rather than have that groaning and moaning from so-called “femin-nazis” over there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not like that term being used about a member of Parliament. I would like the member to withdraw that term. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also say to the member that I do not want interjections while questions are being asked. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am not always the last to know. I have a report from my immigration officials on a regular basis identifying complaints that have been made in respect of Immigration Service staff. The difficulty in this particular case is that there was an exception in that it was not reported to me because the reporting to me related to aspects of dishonesty. I do not believe that my officials tried to cover up for this particular set of circumstances. I think they tried to find an outcome that saw this matter resolved so that this person lost his job knowing that the higher criminal standard of proof would not have been met in these circumstances.