Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11366] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by the Government’s decision to accept an internal inquiry by the Secretary of Labour as an appropriate response to allegations that officials had agreed to “lie in unison” and how is he able to reconcile Dr Buwalda’s finding that there was “no evidence that officials deliberately misled the Ombudsman” with the conclusions in the Ombudsman’s report released today? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: Yes both the Ombudsman and the Secretary of Labour found there was no evidence that officials were involved in any agreement to lie in unison. However the Ombudsman did find that two officials in respect of their duties under the Official Information Act had “failed in different ways to display the professionalism and diligence required of public servants”. 
I am advised by the Secretary of Labour that following his report he has already initiated disciplinary proceedings and performance management action. He has told me today that he intends to take the Ombudsman’s findings into consideration in determining any future action. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given the Minister’s response to that question does he now wish to express regret that his Government did not allow the independent inquiry called for at the time by the National Party? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In hindsight an independent inquiry would have been better. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What did the Ombudsman’s report state precisely and what action has been taken as a result? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The report was a severe blow for the conspiracy theorists in the Opposition. No evidence was found on any agreement to “lie in unison” on any agreement whether Mr Zaoui had been detained. Besides commenting on the two officials the report found that the manner in which the Immigration Service handled official information requests was sloppy. I have been advised by the Secretary of Labour that the guidelines for handling official information requests are being reviewed and that ongoing training will be given to ensure they are being applied. 
I take seriously the obligations on the public service in respect of the Official Information Act and have instructed the Secretary of Labour to report to me on the implementation of those guidelines by the end of March. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the $300000-plus cost so far of having this terrorist in the country; the fact that three countries—France Belgium and Switzerland—have found him to be so and got rid of him; and now with the independent Ombudsman’s report and every other cost what on earth is this man still doing in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a bit wide of the original question but the Minister may comment very briefly. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am awaiting a recommendation from the inspector-general and at the appropriate time I will make a decision. 
Keith Locke 
: Was the secrecy surrounding Mr Zaoui’s presence here motivated by the same anti-democratic reason advanced by the police in a memo 6 days before the “lying in unison” memo stating there is “the political risk that he”—Mr Zaoui—“will try to gain some support by utilising the media”; if not what was the reason? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is getting very very wide of the original question which related specifically to an internal inquiry by the Secretary of Labour. I allowed the Minister to comment on Mr Peters’ question which was also wide. I will allow the Minister to comment on this question but I do not want it to go any wider. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just missed the first part of the question. Would it be in order to repeat it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The very first part can be repeated. 
Keith Locke 
: Was the secrecy or super secrecy surrounding Mr Zaoui’s presence here motivated by the same anti-democratic reason advanced by the police in a memo 6 days before the “lying in unison” memo stating there is “the political risk that he”—Mr Zaoui—“will try to gain some support by utilising the media”; if that was not the motive what was? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may comment briefly. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No because they are not related. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Noting that the State Services Commissioner previously has said that Dr Buwalda had done “a good job” in producing a report that had the hallmarks of “fairness and thoroughness”—a statement that is directly contradicted by the Ombudsman today—how can the House have any confidence in the inquiry by the State Services Commissioner into events involving the Prime Minister's own electorate office and the actions of one of her Ministers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for the State Services Commission. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Ombudsman’s report make any reference to the fact that this man Zaoui had three hearings in respect of France Switzerland and Belgium all of which found him a terrorist risk with regard to their populations; and what on earth is he doing in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order because it refers to the report. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No the report made no reference to the matters the member raises. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of this report which confirms at least the unprofessional behaviour of senior immigration officials when responding to an official information request and to the Ombudsman and given the series of scandals that have rocked the Immigration Service including the “sex for visas” scandal that the department did not call the police in to investigate does this Minister now accept that the department is scandal-ridden and out of control; and what will this Government do to give New Zealanders confidence in a department that is responsible for determining who will and who will not be a New Zealander? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may comment on two. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I do not accept the first part of the question. As far as the second part is concerned both myself and the Secretary of Labour are working on those recommendations so the public can have confidence in this important department of State. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect again on the question that Dr Brash asked the Minister—Michael Cullen was very quick to say there is no ministerial responsibility that it belongs to Trevor Mallard. I have just looked at the question and the first part I think does stand. You have given other members the opportunity to have parts of their questions heard by the Minister and answered. I suggest it would be only reasonable to let Dr Brash ask that question again leaving out the last reference to the State Services Commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am prepared to be generous on this occasion. If the reference to the State Services Commission is removed then the member can ask the rest of that question. [ 
Interruption 
] The part that refers to the administration under control of the Minister of State Services is not relevant. I am sure the member can adjust the question concerned. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Noting that the State Services Commissioner has previously found that Dr Buwalda had done “a good job” in producing a report that had the hallmarks of “fairness and thoroughness”—a statement that is directly contradicted by the Ombudsman today—how can the House have any confidence in the Secretary of Labour? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points. The first is whether it is the original question and the second point is that a question about whether the House should have confidence in the Secretary of Labour is a matter for the State Services Commission and for me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am going to rule that the Minister can answer that question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The House can have confidence in the Secretary of Labour. The reality is that both reports found no evidence. The two inquiries differ in the sense that the Ombudsman has greater powers. For example he can accept information on oath and is also able to proffer an opinion. The Secretary of Labour is required in order to act to have evidence and facts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer may have been an address to the question but I think the Minister needs to reflect on what he said. Has he said that it is OK to mislead the House and the public— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is debating material.