2. Question No. 2—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 2—Immigration2. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Did he meet with officials on 19 September 2018 to discuss the deportation liability of Karel Sroubek also known as Jan Antolik; if so at what time?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes at 4.30 p.m.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm he first considered Karel Sroubek's case on 19 September 2018 as indicated in his answer to written question 27289?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm he wrote to Karel Sroubek's lawyer confirming his decision to grant residency that same day?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I understand that the letter was post-dated to that day but I am advised that it was sent on the 21st.SPEAKER: Backdated I think the member means.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he therefore confirm it took him less than an hour to make his decision to grant residency?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the decision maker it's important that I base my decision on accurate and robust information. Immigration New Zealand prepared a comprehensive file detailed information which I used to make that decision following exactly the same process that that member used when I made that decision. I made that decision on that day.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A helpful elucidation of the process which did not address the question which was Can he confirm he took less than an hour to make that decision?"SPEAKER: Well I'll ask the Minister to have another go at it. I mean days don't finish at half past five but carry on.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I made the decision on that day using the information that I had available to me.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why was this decision one which the Prime Minister has said he gave "careful consideration to" and was "a very difficult decision" decided just minutes or hours after being presented to him?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because I used the comprehensive file that was prepared by Immigration New Zealand and presented to me. As a decision maker it is important that I base my decision on accurate and robust information. Publicly available information may be wrong or unfairly prejudicial. That's why it is important to have a robust process to prepare the information for my consideration.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it common practice for him to consider cases to in his words "weigh matters of public safety and the criminal behaviour of the individual involved" just minutes or hours after being presented to him?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I used the same process that the member used when he was Minister.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it is your practice to often have a look at question exchanges that occur in the House and to consider what rulings might need to be made as a result of those exchanges. Yesterday we had Mr Lees-Galloway exercising the right that a Minister has not to answer a question in the public interest. He did that repeatedly. Yet minutes after the House finished question time the Acting Prime Minister was on the tiles answering those very same questions. It raises the question I think about whether it is reasonable for a Minister to tell the House that it's not in the public interest to give a Government perspective on a question that's legitimately asked in the House yet another Minister in the same Government is able to do so away from House to the news media. I think it cheapens the whole exercise and purpose of question time and I'd ask you to have a look at it to see whether or not in this case given the answers that were given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway was reasonable in calling on that particular provision in the Standing Orders.SPEAKER: Well I don't think I do need to look at anything further. If that was the case it does cheapen the House.Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In relation to that point of order I just wasn't clear which Standing Order it was that the Hon Gerry Brownlee was raising against but he does continuously make debating points under the guise—SPEAKER: No in this particular case there have been a series of Speakers' rulings around the fact that judgment as to what is in the public interest for reporting to this House is a matter for an individual Minister. I am very strong on collective ministerial responsibility. All Ministers speak for other Ministers no matter what the shape of a Government and in this particular case if we have one part of the Government saying it's not in the public interest and shouldn't be answered and another part of the Government effectively saying that it is in the public interest then it means that this House is not getting good service."