Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7509] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is she concerned that the “lie in unison” issue if left unchallenged may undermine confidence in the integrity of her and her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. However the issue is not being left unchallenged as an investigation is taking place led by the Secretary of Labour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister intend to redeem any confidence in herself or the department of which she is in charge when in the last 3 days after hearing about the “lie in unison” memo we have heard the following lame statements by herself and her officials: the language used in the document was “highly regrettable”; “Normally if there is anything untoward they would let me know and I haven’t heard anything.”; or “I’ll have to get back to you. I’ve got no recollection of the thing. It sounds like some sort of flippant aside really.” and when all those statements are in relation to a suspected terrorist who was able to enter and stay in this country? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The person who entered this country was dealt with under legislation that took effect in October 1999. The law has been that way for some time. Those procedures have been dealt with appropriately. I have fully accepted that the comments that were included in the media log that was put together by the media adviser in the Immigration Service were not reflective of an agreement to lie because I would have had to be party to such an agreement and I was not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is it correct that she gave an address on 16 July in which she said: “I can assure you that the New Zealand Immigration Service reinforces with all staff the code of conduct that emphasises the highest levels of integrity”; can the Minister advise how an agreement to “lie in unison” and how destroying evidence or withholding it from the Ombudsman are consistent with that high level of integrity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I did say that. I do take those matters extremely seriously. I can say that the Secretary of Labour has taken over this inquiry and has established his own terms of reference for an investigation into all the allegations that have been made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When she said the language used in the document was “highly regrettable” why did she not pursue the true intent of Ian Smith’s words when he said: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.”; can she as Minister explain why she accepted a non-explanatory apology? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I accepted the apology from Ian Smith which was given to me over the telephone. What I should say though is that that very quote highlights the reality of the situation for me. I was the only person who spoke about the matter. It must refer to me and therefore I could be a party to such an agreement only if one existed. No such agreement existed. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the Minister has just told the House that if there had been an agreement to lie then she would have had to be a party to it can she understand the absurdity of having an investigation that is conducted by a public servant who reports to her and who is dependent upon her recommendation for his bonus and ultimately for his job? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is not correct. The Secretary of Labour is accountable to the Minister of Labour in that regard. I have confidence in Dr Buwalda’s ability to deal properly with this matter—as the State Services Commissioner said in his letter to the Hon Murray McCully yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister this again and request that she give me an answer this time: why did she accept a non-explanatory apology from the spokesperson for the Immigration Service Ian Smith? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have been offered a profuse apology by the individual concerned and I have accepted it. That is a personal matter. Questions of discipline and questions of investigation relating to the individual concerned will be dealt with by the department. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister claimed in this House that she got an apology. I am asking her where the explanation was that went with the apology. It is a pretty clear question. I have now asked it twice and I am raising a point of order about it. I want to know why the apology was not accompanied by an explanation. That is pretty clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did give a reason. She said that she had had an apology by phone—I think she said that it was a profuse apology by phone—that she accepted that apology but that that did not in any way interfere with the process of the inquiry. That answer certainly addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It addresses the question of the apology but I am not asking about that. That is known to be a fact. I want to know where the explanation was that usually accompanies an apology—for example: “I was late because I missed the train.” That is pretty clear but she is saying that she got an apology and everything else will go to the inquiry. The Minister has it in her province and knowledge to tell us whether there was an explanation from Mr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again: was there an explanation accompanying Ian Smith’s apology; if not why did she accept the apology and if there was what was the explanation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No there was no explanation accompanying the apology. He was profuse in his apology to me. It was offered in a personal way and accepted in a personal way. It has nothing to do with the investigation into the matters and there are others to whom he is accountable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked three questions on this specific issue of whether there was an accompanying explanation. Now the Minister prefers to answer it— 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I said “No”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister could have answered it the first time and told me there was no explanation with the apology. I ask why she will get away with that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address both the previous questions. She can answer in any way she wishes. I do not judge the merit of the answer.