McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8392] 
5.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she accept the explanation of the memorandum asserting “everyone had agreed to lie in unison” provided in the report to her by the chief executive of the Department of Labour that it “was intended as a sarcastic and humorous response to media criticism of Departmental staff failing to answer media questions”; if so could she explain to the House which part was sarcastic and which part humorous? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I accept that that was what was intended. Whether it achieved the intention is a matter of personal opinion. I note that the Secretary of Labour also stated that “the annotation made by Mr Smith seems to display poor judgment a lack of professionalism and a lack of respect for the media”. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the report of the Secretary of Labour finds that the “lie in unison” memo was sent to 300 individuals but does not tell us whether any of them were Ministers of the Crown in this Government or staff in Ministers’ offices and can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that no Minister or ministerial staff member received that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware that everyone who received the memorandum read it. I did not receive a copy of the memorandum. The immigration private secretary in my office was not on the mailing list at the time that the memorandum was sent out. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tony Ryall withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that is grossly unfair. Mr Ryall was not interjecting on the Minister. He was giving a line to Mr McCully for further supplementary questions and I think that to turn round and say a member cannot do that is absolutely unfair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way: I heard the interjection quite clearly and loudly. I heard it and it distracted me from the question being asked. On this rare occasion I will be reasonable and let the member back in. However the member had better not make any more comments to anybody during the asking of questions today. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it the Minister’s position that the public of New Zealand should accept it as a coincidence that a senior manager in communications at her ministry wrote on a memo that “everyone had agreed to lie in unison” and subsequently did lie to the Ombudsman and to the  
New Zealand Herald 
; if so how does she explain that remarkable coincidence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Neither of those two assertions is substantiated by the report. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I ask the Minister again: can she absolutely assure the House that no Minister in this Government and no staff member in a Minister’s office received the memorandum that stated: “everyone had agreed to lie in unison”; if she cannot give that assurance which staff or which Ministers received that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not inquired of colleagues whether they received the memorandum or whether they were on that mailing list. I have looked at the mailing list for the time in question—from what was disclosed on the mailing list for that particular memorandum. I did not receive a copy of that memorandum in my office until the day that it appeared in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Firstly is this Minister telling us that 300 people were privy to that memorandum but that she and none of the officials in her office were and secondly why does she expect us to believe that there was no lying when that is precisely what happened in respect of the Ombudsmen’s office and the  
New Zealand Herald 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The memorandum itself is a media log that is prepared every week. I do not know how many people receive it but if the member says 300 people receive it then I am prepared to accept that. Not everybody reads it and a lot of people have made comments about how objectionable they have found it because of the consistent comments from the individual concerned. That has been happening for a very long time—going right back to the previous Government. I can tell the House that the immigration private secretary I have today who was not my immigration private secretary at the time is on the mailing list for the media log now but the immigration private secretary whom I had at the time was not receiving it—so no it was not received in my office at all. There has been no substantiation of the allegation that there was an agreement to lie. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: If the report of the Secretary of Labour—which is based on his investigation into this matter—can tell us that 300 individuals received the memo but does not tell us whether any of those persons were Ministers in this Government or staff members in Ministers’ offices then what sort of investigation did the Secretary of Labour conduct; and can the Minister understand that in those circumstances the public will conclude that the Secretary of Labour has been used to conduct a whitewash to cover up for Ministers or staff members in this Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. Two can be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I really do not understand the relevance of that member’s question to the extent that there are many people in this House who receive an electronic newsletter daily that is called “PEN”. How many people delete it without reading it? That is the reality with the media log. It was not essential reading for every person who received it and many people deleted it on a weekly basis without even reading it.