Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9848] 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the Government currently involved in any investigations with respect to arrivals from Algeria in September 2003; if so what are the circumstances of those investigations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: As the Minister has said before in this House she is not prepared to disclose information about an individual case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked this Minister a pretty serious question. I have some idea where this question is going and he has a responsibility to answer it. He has flagrantly told us all that he just will not answer. Frankly that is an abomination of democracy it is an abomination in respect of accountability at question time. I for one do not intend to put up with that and I expect you not to either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I expect the Minister to address a question when it is asked. He certainly addressed that. The member can now have a supplementary question if he wants one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated right now. The member will not argue with me about that. I have ruled. There is too much argument about whether Ministers’ answers are satisfactory. That is not my job. My job is to ensure that the question is addressed. I heard the question. I heard the Minister’s answer. He certainly addressed the question concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make one thing very clear to you. I have a right to raise a point of order in this House and I will not be put down by you or anybody. The point is that I did not ask for an individual’s circumstances. Read the question again! It states: “If so what are the circumstances of those investigations?”. How can the Minister come to the conclusion that I was asking about an individual? I shall have a point of order unless—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The member who made that interjection will leave the Chamber right now. 
 Edwin Perry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will finish his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that I asked a question in respect of any investigations and if so what the circumstances of those investigations were. The Minister contrary to your ruling said he would not answer because he said it was to do with an individual. That is contrary to the question as well. I am now asking you to get him to his feet give this House and this country some respect and tell us what is going on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 127/6 which states that an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought. The Minister gave an answer. It was within the Standing Orders. The member can ask a supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The ambit of that Speaker’s ruling cannot cover the Minister’s answer. He referred to an individual but I am not asking that question. You should look at the question; you and the Clerk allowed it through. Now I am told that he can get away with that answer. Until you can distinguish the plurality of my question from his singular answer then your Speaker’s ruling simply cannot stand. I ask again for an answer on the circumstances in respect of any occasions in September. He will not give me an answer and I am asking you to make him do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question was in order. The Minister gave an answer that was in order according to the Standing Orders. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question he can now do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This goes to the issue of the Opposition having to verify questions with the Clerk’s Office. It is not easy to get questions past the Clerk. We cannot ask questions that are based purely on supposition. We have to take evidence to the Clerk’s Office that supports the question being asked. In this case the questioner presumably has evidence that there is an investigation under way by the Immigration Service at the moment with regard to the arrival of Algerian persons in New Zealand from September 2003. The question is: if it can be so far in the public domain that we are able to prove the veracity of the question to the satisfaction of the Clerk why can the Minister simply not acknowledge that in the House? Surely that goes right to the heart of Standing Order 372 of the Standing Orders you are required to protect which says that a reply to a question must be given if it can be given consistent with the public good. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed that is the Standing Order but as the Speaker’s ruling says—and it has to be the only possible Speaker’s ruling on this matter—the judgment about whether giving an answer is in the public interest must lie with the Minister alone. If the member cares to think through why that is so it is apparent on the face of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question may well be allowable and this one was. I never ruled out the question. No one says that the question was not in order but it is the Minister’s responsibility to answer as he sees fit—as long as he addresses the question. He did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was the Minister able to answer questions about Ahmed Zaoui yet get the Speaker to agree with her that she should not answer this question today; and is it not a fact that another suspected terrorist has arrived here from Algeria— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Point of order— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a point of order; please be seated. I am not going to take that. He knows that anyone can raise a point of order. He himself insisted on that right earlier. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that rudeness. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To whom? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the House. He will do it right now or he will leave. Right the member leaves! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could enlighten some of us junior back-benchers about how the House is meant to operate. In one week we have a Prime Minister standing up and for political advantage spilling her guts on the personal details— 
Government Members 
: Sit down! 
Ron Mark 
: How many are we going to throw out Mr Speaker? We have already lost one New Zealand First MP for interjecting on a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and if I catch one member doing anything like that he or she will be going straight away. 
Ron Mark 
: On the one hand we had the Prime Minister spilling her guts on details of a private health situation in order to shore up a political position. On the other hand we now have a question lodged—with 4 hours’ notice—about which a Minister could even have had the decency to make a phone call before turning up to the House some 4 hours later and with the House’s acceptance batting the question off by stating that he would not discuss the personal details or circumstances of an individual. It seems to me that this House cannot have it both ways and that we need some consistency here in order to maintain discipline. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is consistency and I have ruled on each of the issues the member has raised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will find in the  
Hansard 
 that at least part of a question—certainly the first tranche of a question—was asked by Mr Peters before the Deputy Prime Minister took a point of order. Surely the House is entitled to an answer to that. Can I also add that the National Party has a supplementary question to come. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point made by the member is accurate but Mr Peters should not have involved the Speaker in that issue. My job is not to judge on the quality of the answer as he knows; my job is to ensure that the Minister addresses the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He did ask a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did ask a question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point I was going to raise was that it seemed to me that on the face of it the question was out of order. The member sought a question asking how the Minister had got you as Speaker to agree with something the Minister was stating. In any case that is not a question for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister is not responsible for your rulings in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I am going to rule in favour of the member—if he sits down. As far as I am concerned there were two parts to the question asked by Mr Peters. The second part most certainly was out of order because it involved me and it must not do so. The first part was in order if the Minister wanted to answer it but I cannot remember its exact wording. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Could the member repeat the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One of his own party can repeat the question. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I will repeat it as closely as I can. Will the Minister confirm one way or the other whether an investigation is going on concerning a suspected terrorist who arrived here in September 2003? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the House that one of the difficulties the Minister of Immigration gets into is that she is not allowed to talk about individual cases. In this case the member asked a general question at the beginning. It seemed obvious that that was leading towards an individual case which it has. Individual cases are not something that the Minister of Immigration is allowed to comment on. Under section 129T of the Immigration Act she is explicitly prohibited from saying anything about cases to do with refugee status—for example while they are being heard. Members asking questions of the Minister of Immigration need to realise how closely circumscribed by the law her comments must be. Therefore I have no intention of commenting on her behalf on a case like that. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has said that he cannot give us an answer based on an individual but right throughout this year we have had answers based on Mr Zaoui. I understand that Mr Zaoui is an individual. This House has been given information about an individual. Why can the Minister not maintain the same policy that has been maintained all year on that individual Mr Zaoui. Really all we need is a simple affirmative or negative. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot second-guess the way the Minister was going to answer. All I have to ensure is that he addresses the question. His answers can lead to further supplementary questions but that is his answer not mine. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If the Minister is not willing to talk about an individual case can he assure the House that there is no one—other than Mr Ahmed Zaoui—who is now subject to a national security certificate and is being held in custody so that we can avoid the kind of situation that happened in August 2000 when there was an apparent terrorist plot to blow up the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No because the member is inviting me to talk about individual cases on behalf of the Minister of Immigration. In general if anybody enters this country with anything they should not have having done things they should not have done or with a moral character that might be under question those matters are always under scrutiny and if appropriate they go to the police. We will not be invited to talk about a particular case. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whilst I referred to the nature of the question I also wanted an assurance that a person subject to a national security certificate would be in custody. Do we have that assurance? We need an assurance that that person—or persons—subject to a national security certificate would be in custody. That can be answered in a general sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That part of the member’s question is in order. The Minister might like to comment on it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the circumstances of the questions today it would require the Minister once again to confirm or deny an individual case. I am afraid that I am not able to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a general question. He was not asked a specific question. The Minister can give an answer to the general question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question invited me if I remember correctly to confirm or deny whether someone was being held in relation to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes they would. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister confirm that in recent times many people fleeing the repressive Algerian Government have been granted refugee status in New Zealand including supporters of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and that negative information provided by the Algerian regime on such people is not always credible? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes to the first question and yes to the second. It is not always credible.