Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Immigration: What concerns if any does he have regarding the operation of Immigration New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I am constantly concerned to ensure that the operation of Immigration New Zealand contributes to fair timely and consistent decision-making across its global network and I am pleased to report that that vigilance is paying off. Despite significant increases in demand there have been material improvements in all measures of those things when compared with the previous Government with whom that member’s party had a confidence and supply agreement.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which part of that answer was relevant?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: A supplementary question. Well apparently anything goes now—but supplementary question. When did he first as Minister of Immigration become aware of Iraqi national Mr AbuTarek—real name HakimSalga—issuing false documentation to smuggle people into New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. What I have become aware of is that one reporter has spoken to another reporter who claims to have spoken to a people-smuggler who claims to be making outrageous claims about the opportunities to emigrate to New Zealand. I can reassure the House and that member that there is absolutely no evidence of the veracity of any of those claims.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the Australian journalist and the team who tracked this man for 2 months is the Minister saying that all the evidence they got thatled them to produce a report on people-smuggling into this country—because we are a soft touch—is not true?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am saying two things. Firstly people-smugglers are not only heinous criminals but liars. Secondly we have in association with the Customs Service and immigration officials very very good border protection processes which mean that people cannot simply board a plane and claim asylum at the border. In fact I can report that in the last 3 months there has not been a single Lebanese national who has done so. Probably in the region of four or five jumbo jets worth of people have been declined boarding on to the plane as a consequence of those processes so I am confident that it is nothing more than a heinous lie.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well then if AbuTarek—real name HakimSalga—is a liar why did he call him a people-smuggler?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well because he is but he may well also be a people-smuggler. What I am confident of at this stage on the very good information made available by the Customs Service and Immigration New Zealand is that the claims that were made on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’sFour Corners show last night—which I hasten to add mentioned New Zealand only once in the 45-minute show—are not correct. We are vigilant and we are continuing to monitor the situation but I am satisfied that our borders are safe.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Minister is proven on this issue to be wrong will he resign?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I stand by every single statement I have made. I can reassure the House that if there are errors in process they will be quickly remedied. But there is no evidence that that is the case.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The core part of that question is simply this: if the Minister is proven to be wrong on this issue will he resign?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was heard by not only the Minister but members. The Minister can answer and I will address whether he addresses the question. Does the Minister wish to conclude his answer?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I have answered the question.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling was that if he completes his question you could make a judgment on it then. I asked him whether if he is proven to be wrong as Minister he will resign. It is a clear enough question.Mr SPEAKER: The question was very clear; there is no doubt about that. It has now been repeated three times. The Minister was giving an answer and it was interrupted so I did not hear the last part of the Minister’s answer. I asked the Minister whether he wanted to complete his answer. He said he did not so the matter rests there if the Minister does not want to complete his answer.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it does not rest there because my contention was that he was not answering the question. Your response was that he had not had a chance to finish it. Now when you gave him a chance to finish it he no longer wished to answer the question suggesting that I was right.Mr SPEAKER: The essence of the complication here is that the member in asking the question wants a categoric yes or no answer. He cannot insist on that and there are consistent Speakers’ rulings that say that.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to be fair to the member. Can I just clarify now—I have ruled on that matter. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order he is quiteentitled to do so but to now continue to relitigate a decision that I have made will only bring this House into disorder.Hon Winston Peters: With respect Mr Speaker I do not believe—Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Winston Peters: It is. I do not think that such a procedure is seen out there by the public to bring anything into disorder. They would like to know the answer as much as the House and I do. My real point is—John Hayes: So that wasn’t a real one?Rt Hon Winston Peters: No it is my real new point. For the slow-witted it is my real new point.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now resume his seat. This matter has now gone on for long enough. I asked the member whether he was raising a fresh point of order. All he has done is relitigate an answer whereby he wanted a clear yes or no answer. The Speakers’ rulings are quite consistent. He cannot do that. If the member rises to his feet to relitigate again I will have no choice sadly but to ask the member to leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will be back tomorrow with a better one.Mr SPEAKER: And the member is welcome to come back tomorrow with a better one.