Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment
(Levy) Amendment Bill. The House comes to Oral Questions.
Question No.1.
My
My question is for the Prime
by all her Government's statements
by all her Government's
Yes.
Yes. When, exactly, did she decide that there would be no more regional
fuel taxes while she is
that there would be no more regional
same way that this Government is not looking or considering reintroducing
the death penalty, this
Government never considered spread
ago regional fuel tax. No decision was required
because we never intended to expand
it beyond Auckland.
because we never intended to expand it beyond Auckland. Why, then, did
Winston Peters confirm
yesterday that the decision was made on
confirmed it was made then. You Phil Twyford confirmed it was made
then and Michael Wood said it
was made then
and Michael Wood said it was made
December, I believe, of last year, in conversation as
we were discussing the fact that in law, we
would be ruling out the ability to
spread the regional fuel tax. We
discussed the intention
in my view that it would not go
beyond Auckland. I simply made public
something that had already been
discussed, as a government.
something that had already been discussed, as a government. Was
Phil Twyford wrong to say on Thursday
last week that he knew about it
earlier
earlier yesterday, as Wednesday,
what I thought about the idea of ruling out future regional fuel
taxes. We had a
conversation about it and agreed it would be better to
just rule out future regional fuel
the conversation the previous year when we discussed that this would
not be
not be extended beyond Auckland. It's come back
to the reason we're even having this discussion. That
member spread false information,
false information, around this
Government's plans, and in order
to put a line in the sand to point that
he was utterly wrong, we
made sure there was no question left in
anyone's mind
anyone's mind beyond this terms because he
because he was spreading false information. Is she really
saying that Phil Twyford hadn't been
talking to the mayor and the
council
really saying that we were not and will not spread a regional fuel tax
beyond Auckland. Was her
Associate Minister of Transport, Shane Jones,
wrong to say that he only found out
about the
wrong to say that he only found out about the stopping of
the regional fuel tax when
about the stopping of the regional
Speaker, as I have already said, last year, we were having this
conversation. And again, and again,
it's there for all to see in the
fact that we put it in law
that for this term of
Government t would not happen. I've simple lip confirmed
that that will be in perpetuity as
long as I am PM. What
was the Cabinet committee that supposedly
this was talked at, and
apparently
conversation. Again, I come back to the original reason we are even
having this discussion. Somehow,
the member thinks that because
we put in law, that this wouldn't
be happening for three years. Now that I'm saying
that it won't happen for
say, between nine and 12 years,
or for however long I am PM, this
is not groundbreaking news. We'd
already put it in law.
groundbreaking news. We'd already put it in law. Why did her
Government grant residency to Karol
Kroubek. My understanding is that he
already had residency, albeit
in an incorrect name.
already had residency, albeit in an
Point of order. I asked why and that wasn't addressed. Well, I think
the question was certainly answered. It
was corrected. But answered.
question was certainly answered. It was corrected. But answered. What
is her response
her response to the Dominion Post which said this morning, quote,
yes, PM, with he have read between the lines. Our reading of it
suggests that it is a person of poor
character, a criminal who cannot be
trusted, who arrived here
under false pretences. He
should be deported. You have got
The members should known that given when he was in office, there were
roughly
roughly 100 deportations cancelled. That from time to time,
Ministers do have information put in front
of them that make for very difficult
decisions. And I have seen
information that would suggest,
from the information reports,
that suggest that they have been in
very similar circumstances.
suggest that they have been in very similar circumstances. Isn't it
clear that her Government has
prioritised a dangerous criminal's
welfare over public safety, contrary
to her statement that any further
action by Karel Sroubek sits with
this individual, anything further is
off the
has been made absolutely clear by the Minister, that he has put into
writing that anything
further would mean that he would
automatically be deported. But on the face
of it, of course it looks like an obvious
decision, which
decision, which demonstrates that from time to time, Ministers in this
position do receive additional
information. What we have to make
sure is that that information, that
the Minister makes the
decision, is consistent and clear, and that's
for officials to ensure that they're
provided that.
Has
Has the
Has the PM been told why the National Party has let this man
I have not been privy to any information in that regard. Isn't
it the case that since the early
2000s, Karel Sroubek has been back to
the Czech Republic, and doesn't that
make any
Czech Republic, and doesn't that
Minister made the decision based on the information he had at the time.
And he is no different
the information he had at the time.
different to any other Minister of any political persuasion. They
have to deal with the information
provided to them by officials. Mr
Speaker, if there is
information that contradicts the basis
of which the Minister made
the decision, then that would be for him to go back
to the owe
the owe fishes and seek further advice. I would have an
expectation that he would do that. Did she and
the Minister not know he'd been
to the Czech Republic since the
early
that they just got this clearly, badly
that they just got this clearly,
rely on the advice that they're provided by officials. And
Mr Speaker,
Speaker, the Minister is no different in that regard to the last
Minister who overturned 108
deportations. We are all,
as Ministers, relying
Ministers, relying on the information we are provided. Again,
if there is anything that
contradicts the information that's
been provided, it is
for the Minister to go back to officials,
and it would be my expectation he
would do that.
and it would be my expectation he would do that. On the basis of the
question
would do that. On the basis of the
National Party let this man back into
National Party let this man back
that was coming and going was raised by Mr Bridges. I do
not have
The PM has no responsibility for the National Party. Yes, but I'm going
to ask the member to
rephrase the question. Alright, who... No, no.
Sit down, please. I want to deal
with whoever interjected then.
Sit down, please. I want to deal with whoever interjected then. Any
supplementary questions will be taken from the
National Party today. The Rt Honerable Winston Peters. On
the basis of
information being given to this house in good faith, has
the PM been advised of the number of
times this man came back into
the country, and who was
in the government at
country, and who was in the
obviously members will draw reference from the fact that
we have only been in government for 12
months. Again,
months. Again, I would reiterate that a Minister would make
a decision based on the
information in months.
decision based on the information in front of him and we would all have a
fair expectation that if there is
information to
information to contradict that, that we would expect the Minister to go
back
back to his officials.
My
My question is to the
What is New Zealand's process for extraditing Czech nationals to the
Czech Republic, and what
stage is the application for extradition of
Karel Sroubek, also known
as Jan