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 stand by all her answers to oral questions in the last two weeks in relation to Karel Sroubek?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still say There's no way that I can answer that question." regarding who made representations on Karel Sroubek's behalf; and if so has she asked who made those representations?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister when the Deputy Prime Minister was answering for me the National Party then admitted in the House on multiple occasions who the leak was.Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I don't think I need it. I will ask Ms Bennett to repeat her question.Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. Does she still say that "There's no way that I can answer that question." regarding who made representations on Karel Sroubek's behalf; and if so has she asked who made those representations?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As much as one wants to with integrity and sincerity stand in for another member of Parliament or Prime Minister in this case when that person the substitute is asked what was in the mind of the primary person—in this case the Prime Minister—one just cannot possibly answer the question because I just don't know. That's what I said. It wasn't the Prime Minister that made that statement; it was me on her behalf. SPEAKER: No I think there is slight misunderstanding occurring here and I think people have put two statements together: one made by the right honourable gentleman on behalf of the Prime Minister in regard to the identity of the leak; the other relating to an answer to a supplementary question yesterday where the Prime Minister indicated that she was not aware or could not be aware hadn't been made aware or something similar about who had made submissions. So the question is in light of that: does she stand by it and has she asked the Minister or asked someone for a list of the submitters?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister the answer is we don't know other than of the ones that did go public such as Mr Sweeney—and there may be others but we're not aware of them.Hon Paula Bennett: Is she concerned that there might be Cabinet Ministers who have links to people who have made representations on behalf of Karel Sroubek?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We're not in the business of engaging in the permission of this House to allow someone to enter a fishing competition in the hope that somehow they might catch something. Here is the reality: I made a very clear statement on behalf of the Prime Minister that there are hundreds of people who would have been associated for a number of reasons with Mr Sroubek. To incriminate them all on the basis of their innocent association is just so wrong. Hon Paula Bennett: Has she asked whether her Ministers have links to any of the people who made representations on behalf of Karel Sroubek?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is on behalf of the Prime Minister there will be a number of members of Parliament who if they go through their recent decade-old associations would quite possibly because of their sporting engagement and interest have been associated. But that in no way means that they are responsible for the criminality for which Mr Sroubek's in prison at the moment.Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that an issue of concern around the estranged wife's safety had been raised with her when was it raised with her?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister despite the police offering safe house protection on more than one occasion the issue of that matter of safety was raised most profoundly in this House in 56 public statements by the National Party and 23 oral questions by the National Party.SPEAKER: Although it might be repetition from yesterday—I think the question was in fact answered yesterday by the Prime Minister. It was more "how" than "when" but "It was raised publicly by the media." was the statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday I think. Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Certainly sir; yesterday the Prime Minister made an answer to a question in this House. She said "When the issue was first raised with me I told the Minister directly about that issue" and I'm asking when that was first raised with her.SPEAKER: Yes and I think we've struck one of those situations which occur where someone's been asked for an exact date without a primary question heading in that direction so it does becomes very hard to answer if the Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister indicated that he's not fixed with that knowledge. On behalf of the Prime Minister that would probably suffice.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister if the member's asking the question and if the answer is "recently"—but as to the exact time and date the Prime Minister wishes to check her diary. Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that an issue of concern around the estranged wife's safety had been raised with her who raised it with her?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—the National Party in this House: 56 times in public statements outside the House and 23 times in oral questions inside the House. In short you've got someone who for political purposes—and for venal political purposes at that—is being used as a trump by the Opposition members. That's how this matter has got so much publicity. So if protection and secrecy and privacy are core to this issue then the National Party has been a major offender.Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that she told the Minister directly about the safety issue that was of concern—so she indicated it was her yesterday that actually told the Minister directly about the safety that was of concern—which Minister did she talk to?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister and answering for her the reality is that the Prime Minister discussed this matter—as you would expect her to—with the Minister of Immigration and no doubt the Minister of Police. The problem was she received advice that though the offer of safe protection had been made by the police on numerous occasions—a practice that Mr Mitchell would be well aware of because of his past career—she did not the person in question avail herself of that offer.Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that the Minister followed up this safety issue what was that follow-up?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Answering on behalf of the Prime Minister and to the best of the Prime Minister's knowledge the Minister of Police would have appraised her of the fact that the police on three occasions had tried to ensure that there was protection if that was a concern and the woman in question said that she did not want protection; she just wanted to speak to a lawyer. So they couldn't get to even offer the protection that seems so much central to this case right now from the Opposition.Hon Paula Bennett: Was the estranged wife under the protection of police when an immigration officer visited with the police?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be very axiomatic that if on three occasions the police had offered protection and she hadn't availed herself of it then maybe when the police came with the immigration officer she wasn't under protection. It sort of follows like night follows day.Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Iain Lees-Galloway are the victims in all of this as she said last week?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister when one is seeking to arbitrate or decide on a process and critical information is denied to that referee arbitrator or in this case judge or in this case Minister then yes they do become a victim because the system that we would have expected and had a right to expect was in place when we became the Government was a system that would work not one that was shot full of holes and inadequacy."