Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7643] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the Government spending on managing any adverse impacts of immigration and has she received any reports from the Minister of Police about the costs of immigration he has to contemplate? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The 2003-04 component of Vote Immigration allocated to managing the adverse impacts of immigration is $21 million—around 15 percent of the total allocation. I have not received any specific reports from the Minister of Police on effects that adverse impacts of immigration may have on Vote Police expenditure although given that we have budgeted for increased removal activity where these are not voluntary departures it will result in the use of police resources as immigration officers do not have the power of arrest; nor do they have the power of strip search as some of our media seem to think. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister has raised the issue of the media why was the report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 5 August reciting that $54 million a year is the figure she gave in respect of managing the adverse effects not $21 million as she just said; and does she not read newspapers such as the  
New Zealand Herald  
“Weekend Herald” which sets out a police suggestion of a migrant back-up force in Auckland because they cannot cope with migrant crime? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I cannot understand why the  
Sunday Star-Times  
contained that particular figure unless and I assume the reporter was referring to last year’s figures which would then show it to be accurate. We have changed the way we allocate expenditure around managing adverse impacts of immigration which would have been quite clear to an individual. However I do note given the rest of the article that as the article was written before I was interviewed I am not surprised. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister advise whether adverse consequences of immigration include the risk of people presenting false documentation and whether the increased budget is intended to improve both verification and enforcement action? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the total budget has been designed to improve the Immigration Service’s ability to verify documents although that is now not in the adverse impact section of the vote and also to make appropriate investigations to ensure enforcement where false documents have been presented. Criminal charges are of course laid by the police and it is not just the Immigration Service that is susceptible to document fraud. An  
Assignment  
programme last year referred to a scam that related to false Inland Revenue Department certificates being obtained for education purposes. I am advised that the police investigation that was already under way has now resulted in four successful prosecutions of the people involved two of whom have already been deported from New Zealand after serving prison sentences. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister capable of doing some simple calculations: a report elicited under the Official Information Act from her department shows that 44 percent of the $124 million of the immigration budget is spent on the consequences of immigration flows on infrastructure laws and policies—and how does $21 million become 44 percent of $124 million which is a global figure which is all in her document; and second why is she paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to detain asylum seekers every week by way of a weekly allowance when poor old Joe Bloggs burglar from New Zealand does not get a cent? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I explained 2002-03 was the first year of outcome-based accounting in Vote Immigration. When the service was allocating activities to sub-outcomes all risk management activities such as application verification within the visa and permits management output class were counted in the activities undertaken to minimise adverse impacts of immigration. That no longer occurs because risk management is now considered an integrated part of interaction with customers. As to the second question—and it was clear from the article that obviously I was interviewed after it was written—the $3 a day allowance is paid for toiletries and for the necessities of life. If that member thinks that we would keep somebody in detention without enabling him or her to buy toothpaste toothbrush and soap for goodness’ sake I do not think that anyone would accept that that was a fair and reasonable situation. That is not a new allowance paid. It was simply allocated from a different budget as is clear from the article. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave of the House to table a simple supermarket account that shows that if one is buying a toothbrush toothpaste and soap it will not cost one anything like $21 a week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.