Collins Judith: General Debates 
Collins Judith: General Debates 
[Volume:615;Page:11306] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Why was Lianne Dalziel untruthful? She was protecting her leader. In this instance all roads lead to Helen Clark. Lianne Dalziel was untruthful about how the media got the “guinea pig” letter. She was untruthful to the New Zealand Press Association on Monday 16 February. She was untruthful on Radio New Zealand’s  
Morning Report 
 on Wednesday 17 February and she was untruthful to Television One’s  
Sunday 
 programme later that same morning. In the House later in the afternoon she confessed. Yet Helen Clark did not sack her. Helen Clark’s reaction was: “Well she has been misleading.” The Prime Minister supported her because Ms Dalziel was supporting the Prime Minister. 
On Wednesday morning Ms Dalziel was protecting the Prime Minister when she refused to say how the “guinea pig” letter had got to her but she did say that it was sent independent of TV3. In fact if we can believe anything said by the Prime Minister’s office or by Lianne Dalziel the “guinea pig” letter was sent not once but three times in one month to Ms Dalziel’s parliamentary office—first on 3 February then on 13 February and again on 16 February. Why was it sent again and again? 
Are we expected to believe that Helen Clark’s electorate office sent through the “guinea pig” letter three times within 13 days or is it true that the second faxing was done by the Immigration Service? We do know that the “guinea pig” letter did not come from the lawyer’s office. It was never in the lawyer’s office. The lawyer received the decision from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and a covering letter. She took the covering letter with her when she went to see the girl. The lawyer made some notes of legal advice and drew a guinea pig because when she talked to the girl about different pets the girl did not know what a guinea pig was. Did the lawyer get the girl a pet? Yes she did but it was not a guinea pig it was a cat. 
The lawyer gave the “guinea pig” letter to the girl to keep. It was kept by her bed and the last time the lawyer saw that letter was the day the girl was bundled up drugged and flown out of the country on Thursday 12 February. 
 The State Services Commissioner has now published terms of reference for an inquiry into the actions of the staff of the Immigration Service and the Parliamentary Service. Will it do any good? No it will not—not a bit. The inquiry will not be able to look at a whole lot of different things including the role of other groups in obtaining the “guinea pig” letter—in particular the role of Shakti the group that is headed by Farida Sultana who just happened to be working out of Helen Clark’s electorate office at the relevant times. 
It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister’s ministerial staff. It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister in perpetrating untruths around the media as her press secretary was doing as late as 5.30 last Thursday night. How do I know this? Because I saw her press secretary doing it. The inquiry will not be able to look at why Ms Dalziel could not tell the truth about the leaking of that document who she was covering for and why it took until Friday afternoon until she was sacked. Finally it will not be able to look at why Helen Clark tried to stop the media from investigating this matter—because she did. 
Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know about this matter? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know what her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield was doing? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister tried to shut down media interest in the story but did not know what her own Ministers and staff including her press secretary were doing? 
This Prime Minister is worried. She is worried enough to drop her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield into the mud. She is worried enough to drop her close friend Lianne Dalziel as well. The Prime Minister is worried because she is involved and this State Services Commission inquiry is intended to leave her untouched. It will simply be a whitewash.