Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: In 208 weeks as Minister of Immigration is she satisfied she has in place sufficient checks and investigative systems to ensure people are not abusing New Zealand’s entry and exit laws? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Not entirely because there is always room for improvement. However I am satisfied that the checks and investigative systems in place today are far more stringent than they were in the 208 weeks before I became Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Now that the Minister has had time to be briefed on the case I raised yesterday pertaining to Adele Erisnas a South African working as a nanny with an expired work permit having married Mr Quban Khel an Afghan taxi driver at a registry office in Auckland at 11 a.m. last Wednesday—clearly a case of marriage of convenience—will she tell this House what she has done about this case and thousands upon thousands of overstayers who are staying in this country abusing our system of Government; is she going to do something about it at last or just allow this abuse to go on in the name of the New Zealand people? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. Two can be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Raising a case in Parliament does not actually absolve an individual of his or her responsibility to get permission from the individual to breach the provisions of the Privacy Act but because such a disservice has been done to this individual I have decided to reveal to the House that she has a work permit valid to 31 January next year. The member should get his facts right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell us why on earth this person’s work permit was extended given the fact that we are not short of people who can act as nannies in this country and we have tens and tens of thousands of people unemployed; why on earth was this person allowed to come here and stay here? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: All I have done on this occasion is to establish that the advice the member gave to the House yesterday was inaccurate. He alleged that she was an overstayer; she is not. 
Marc Alexander 
: In 208 weeks as the Minister of Immigration is the Minister satisfied she has ensured that people are not abusing New Zealand’s entry and exit laws compared with her predecessors particularly the Minister who tried to bend the rules and allow a group of Chinese immigrants to buy their way into the country—New Zealand First MP Tuariki Delamere? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: While there is a point of order I will not have any comment at all or people will be leaving. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that the case about which the member speaks related to a person who was not a New Zealand First MP. The member should get his facts right or he will be stopped in his tracks if he seeks to abuse the Standing Orders. He was not a New Zealand First MP. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If there is any reflection on a member of the House then of course it is out of order. Is this person currently a member of the House? 
Marc Alexander 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question can be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Many more checks and balances have been put in place to ensure that cases such as the one described relating to an individual Minister who entered Parliament as a member of the New Zealand First party do not happen again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister also enlighten the House as to the status of the investigation into allegations that Tak Wo Kwan duped five Christchurch-based Chinese students into paying up to $100000 each to gain permanent residency because he had friends who worked as immigration officers and immigration consultants; and how many more cases do we have to hear about before this Minister does something in respect of her portfolio responsibilities? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Again the information that we were given in the House yesterday does not quite stack up with what we have discovered—that is this man is facing charges and no convictions have yet been entered. It would be inappropriate to comment on a case where no convictions have been entered although I do note that he first visited New Zealand in 1998. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of her assurances to this House has the Minister been briefed by the Immigration Service on the case of the Pakistani national who was caught in Fiji on a false Fijian passport then before appearing in court absconded through Pakistan and Malaysia to arrive at Auckland airport this time on a false Malaysian passport whereupon he claimed refugee status was granted a certificate of identity and work permit and then married a New Zealand citizen before the Refugee Appeals Authority could throw him out in return for which our Government granted him permanent residence; if the Minister knows about this case what details and explanation is she prepared to provide to the House? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think she is doing a proper job in respect of the tens of thousands of overstayers in this country given that it is 2003 and we have a fully computerised system or is sitting on her hands doing nothing her speciality? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I note that the overstaying rate has reduced of recent times. In fact it was much higher when the member was the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister give us the assurance that if I provide her with the name of the Pakistani national privately she will ask her department for the ministerial file that has been prepared on this case and provide an explanation in the House next week of how this could happen? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Because of the claims that have been made and the obligation I have to protect personal private information the undertaking I will give to the member is that if he does give me that information in confidence I will ensure it is investigated and will answer him to the best of my ability without breaching confidentiality. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth is she pleading the privacy rights of criminals and fraudsters who have come to this country in the way that Mr Hide has described and as she has done in the past when we in New Zealand First have sent her information and have never ever had one report back from her? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I get very few letters from Mr Peters. In fact the last letter I recall getting from him related to him asking for residence for an English-speaking lawyer who did not want to practise as a lawyer in New Zealand— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No such case has been brought to that Minister’s attention by me. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the member did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No the woman I talk about is sick. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is entering into debate. Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a matter of debate. She is required to answer the question and to be terse to the point and relevant. She is not being relevant now. Perhaps the Minister could table the case in front of the House now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the Minister was addressing the question asked by the member and the member then interrupted her. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was very interested in the answer. The member said that his party has sent some letters they had not been answered and the Minister was recalling to us the last letter she could recall getting. We were just getting to the interesting part about an English-speaking lawyer who did not want to practise law. I sort of empathise with that and I want to know what was coming next. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was giving her version of the correspondence she had received. The question was about correspondence. She was entitled to answer in the way she did. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding from the exchange is that the leader of New Zealand First has given his assurance to the House that that letter was not sent. My understanding of Speakers’ rulings is that when a member says that his or her word must be accepted. Rather than you ruling out the point of order your normal course in these cases has been to say that the member has said that that did not occur and we have to accept the member’s word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course we accept the member’s word which was said after the comments of the Minister. I accept her word. I accept the Minister’s word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Either there is such a letter or there is not. If you accept her word you are saying that my word because I gave it first is not to be believed. Perhaps you could ask the Minister to find the file and table it now. Stop being a dreamer! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. Is that clear? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is on his final warning and I mean that. As far as I am concerned I accept the word of every member of Parliament. If there is a dispute that dispute is covered either in debate or by one member acknowledging that a mistake has been made. Once I start not accepting the word of a member of Parliament then we get into pretty serious trouble.