Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11163] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How many times has she told the House that she has confidence in her Minister of Immigration and does she still hold that view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Fifteen times in the last year including three times when confidence was expressed in all Ministers. But clearly the current issue has not been handled to her usual high standard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How did the Prime Minister lose two of her answers? It is 17 times. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Why did you ask the question then? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wanted to be told the truth; that is why I asked the question. Given that it is 17 times and that they included for example the event in 2000 of blaming the officials then the “lying in unison” and the “Puff Daddy” PR scheme and now this issue of having the ability to explain documents yet lying about them or— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —I apologise—grossly misleading the media about them about when would the Prime Minister think that this Minister is not conscientious or competent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said 15 times in the last year. We did not go back beyond that point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that it was 17 times in the last year and not 15 that the Prime Minister has endorsed that Minister and said she was hard-working and conscientious what is conscientious about making a statement to the media that is demonstrably and palpably not true and what does it take in the Labour administration for someone to be fired for straight-out incompetence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly as I said the Minister’s handling of the current issue was not up to her usual high standard. Equally clearly yesterday in the House she attempted very early on to correct the impression she had left but was denied leave by a member of the member’s own party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it was National. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it was denied by Ron Mark. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would he comment on those 15 or 17 questions and is it not the reality that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been attempting in question time for the last 3 years to destroy the Minister of Immigration with no success and yesterday Judith Collins a junior National Party back-bencher asked one question and now the Minister is toast. Where is the fairness in that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that Miss Collins used to head the Casino Control Authority. Maybe she learnt something about luck in that respect. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable for any of her Ministers to release personal information about individuals without their permission; if not why is Lianne Dalziel still in her job? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The information was made available to the Mt Albert electorate office from the lawyer’s own office and that is clear. It was sent over—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not interested in an affidavit from the lawyer. It came from the lawyer’s office including the cover sheet on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority document which I have here. It is correct to say also that permission was given for the release of information into the public arena in that context—not the material that was sent to the office. I am happy therefore to seek leave to table the cover sheet. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer that has just been given to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister does serve to exacerbate the situation somewhat and it might cause us to reflect a little bit about where we go from here. It seems that the Minister of Immigration was able to engage in a meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday morning after being on the  
Morning Report 
 programme and then go on the  
Sunday 
 show— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is debating the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is quite simple. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the acceptability of an action. What Dr Cullen then did in his answer was suggest that they knew the source of this letter all along yet there are three documented cases three televised interviews with the Minister of Immigration saying that she had no idea what the source of the information was. If the validity of question time is to be upheld members answering questions must be truthful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I certainly hope that is the case and I accept the word of members. The Minister chose to answer the question in the way that he did and it certainly addressed the question. It might not have been what the member wanted but there is an opportunity—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member is happy about it then I wonder whether we could carry on. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a member asks the leave of this House to table a particular document one would expect that the document tabled would be the document the Minister has asked to table. The document that was tabled by the Minister is not a cover sheet. It is not from the lawyer’s office. It is in fact a copy of the document the lawyer gave to the little girl. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The letter is the letter from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to the lawyer and that is what was given. That is what she both doodled the guinea pig on and wrote her media strategy on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to rule on the point of order. If the member feels that the House has been misled there is a way she can deal with that and she should do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to Mr Prebble’s question and the fact that clearly it is beginning to emerge that the confidentiality issue was waived by the girl’s solicitors—and that is a key point here—how was I to know that Lianne Dalziel would take a cap gun turn it into a howitzer and turn it upon herself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: All I can note is that on all the previous occasions the member has sought to express no confidence in the Minister because somebody has been allowed to stay in the country. This time when somebody has left he seems to again want to express no confidence in the Minister.