Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7430] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Did she say “If there was an agreement to lie heads would roll absolutely they would”; if so in terms of her ministerial responsibility why did she say that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes because the implication was that I was a party to such an agreement. I was not a party to any agreement. There was no such agreement. I have also been assured by the general manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service that there was no such agreement. I made the comment because if I lost confidence in the service I would be able to refer that matter to the Secretary of Labour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not prepared to admit that this is a matter to do with her administration of her portfolio over a long period of time that she has had an experience in the past where she claimed her officials were not telling her the truth as late as 11 October 2000 and that her words bind her in this matter when she said on Television One last night: “If there had been an agreement to lie yes I would have to resign.” and that does not include whether she knew because if she did not she should have been fired for incompetence anyway? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have received from the general manager was that there was no agreement to lie. I was not a party to any agreement to lie and I stand by what I say. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister accept that if it is found that both Mr Smith and Mr Lockhart misled the Ombudsman as to the existence of information he sought from them that those facts on top of Mr Smith’s answer to the  
New Zealand Herald  
in December of last year would be absolutely consistent with there being an agreement to lie amongst those officials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it would not be consistent with that and it would not be inconsistent either. I make the point that all employees of the Department of Labour have a responsibility to carry out their duties to the best of their ability. They are required to act with integrity in all matters. I take those obligations seriously. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why should anybody have confidence in the Minister’s recent statement that “heads would roll absolutely they would” when on 11 October 2000 she stated in this House: “I was misinformed by the Immigration Service” and “I am not prepared to stand up to justify it when my officials have not even told me the truth.”; and how many heads rolled absolutely rolled during that fiasco? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I can certainly inform the member that I felt very bruised at the end of that experience. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister might like to expand on that a little further. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware there were personal grievance issues arising out of that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and asked “how many heads rolled” as a result of that incident. Whether or not there were personal grievance matters the answer does not point to the specific question which was “how many heads rolled”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question in terms of the issue of personal grievance. I am not here to judge the answer. An answer was given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that a person may have brought a personal grievance action and been restored to the former position. We just want to know how many heads rolled and why does she not know? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was going to invite the Minister to continue answering the question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not know the answer to that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Ombudsman’s statement that points to his being denied disclosure of a very critical document and second that no referral to the Ombudsman—at that level of any administration—would be brought to the Minister’s attention immediately how can she now say in any competent way as a Minister that she did not know what was going on in her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is true that on most occasions I am aware when a request has been lodged under the Official Information Act. On this occasion I was not aware that an Official Information Act request had been lodged or that there had been a complaint made to the Ombudsman. This is a matter I have raised with the Immigration Service. I am unhappy about that fact. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In the light of the Minister’s statement to the House yesterday that the original questions were responded to by the spokesperson from the Immigration Service and herself from her ministerial office and that she claimed to be well briefed on this matter early in December what responsibility does she take for the compliance of her officials with an Ombudsman’s inquiry that has lasted over 6 months? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There appears to be a non sequitur—the beginning of that question does not relate to the end—and I cannot see the connection at all. I was present in my office when the phone call came through on 12 December. The information I received at the time indicated that the individual from the Immigration Service had answered the question he was asked. If journalists do not ask precisely the correct question then officials cannot be blamed for answering the question they are asked. I think the member should await the result of the inquiry of the Secretary of Labour on the other matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many suspected terrorists came into this country and were arrested and sent to prison in the 2 weeks prior to the Zaoui case or the 2 weeks prior to 12 December 2002; more important how can it possibly be that although the Minister is informed in most cases about Official Information Act requests this one at a much higher level—a complaint to the Ombudsman—was not brought to her attention and that being the case why should she not just resign for being utterly incompetent? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. Two were outside the scope of the original question. The last two questions were in order and the Minister may comment on those. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of any other individual who was detained in the maximum security prison in the 2 weeks leading up to 12 December. In response to the second question most Official Information Act requests that relate to an individual person are managed through a different section in the Immigration Service. The member can appreciate that lawyers and immigration consultants acting for people who have appeals and reviews make requests under the Official Information Act on a regular basis. They are not referred to my office. This one should have been referred to my office and I have raised the matter with the Immigration Service. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could the Minister claim that Mr Smith has some sort of sanctuary in the question asked of him by the journalist when in fact the question was the other day and no other suspected terrorists had been picked up in the prior 2 weeks so only one person could be the person who was the subject of the original inquiry; and why is she always a Minister who never knows what is going on in her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The answer to the first question is that the question that was put to Mr Ian Smith as I understand it was a question that was very explicit about it having occurred the night before. In fact the individual concerned had arrived on 4 December.