Urgent Debates — Diplomatic Incident, Malaysian Official—Negotiations Regarding Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity

I have received a letter from David Shearer seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s negotiations on diplomatic immunity for a person accused of assault with intent to commit rape. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Foreign Affairs last night spoke to the Malaysian Foreign Minister to clarify any misunderstanding following a Malaysian Government press conference yesterday afternoon. Having very carefully considered this application, I have decided to err on the side of allowing a debate. It is important that the public has confidence in the way diplomatic immunity is exercised in cases involving such serious charges.

However, I remind members that the particular case that has been accepted is the Government’s negotiations regarding the waiving of diplomatic immunity; it is not the matter that is still before the courts. The particulars of the charges brought ought not to be referred to. Although I have discretion under Standing Order 112, I have not been asked in writing to exercise it. There may yet be a trial. Therefore, I intend to be vigilant in ensuring that the House rules are followed to the letter. I call on David Shearer to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Today we heard from Murray McCully that he is not even going to guarantee that he will extradite or ask for the extradition of a Malaysian diplomat to come back to New Zealand and face the charges that have been levelled against him. He has let New Zealand down.

Today Mr McCully apologised to John Key for his bungling of this case. He has apologised to the wrong person. He should be apologising to the woman concerned, who is not getting justice in this case. She is the person who has allegedly suffered an attempted rape and burglary of her home. She was followed home and suffered that indignation. He should apologise to her because his Government failed to stand by her when she most needed that. He did not stand up for her rights. He did not listen to the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He did not seek clarification about what had happened to her and the case of this Malaysian diplomat. He stood up only when the media finally got hold of the story. What sort of confidence can the New Zealand public have in a Government that stands up only when a story gets into the media and it says “Oh, sorry, we’ve made a mistake. We’ve screwed up.”? That is not good enough. That is not what we expect from our Government.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing this debate to go ahead, because it is a debate that cuts right to the heart of what New Zealanders expect from their Government. They have not got what they wanted. They have not got what they have deserved. Instead we have seen a lot of shilly-shallying about, and that is not the end of it. Not only has this Minister failed to stand up for this New Zealander, this young woman concerned, but the bungling and ineptitude continues. It continues on and on and on.

Let me just explain. The Malaysian diplomat in question was brought before the courts on 9 May—9 May; not the end of May, as the Prime Minister spoke of today. He has not even been aware of the full account.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: He doesn’t care.

He does not. I do not believe he does. I think Mr Goff is right. I think he is completely indifferent to what has been going on.

But what do we know? Let us set out the case. A Malaysian diplomat, as I said, was brought before our courts on 9 May, facing serious charges against a woman in Wellington. That diplomat allegedly committed a crime, but he left and went back to Malaysia on 22 May. Nothing was said. Nothing was said about this alleged crime until last Sunday, when it finally broke out in the New Zealand Herald. It finally broke out in the New Zealand Herald, and then the Government started talking tough. The Government started talking tough. Mr Key said he wanted that diplomat brought to justice. Oh, good on you, Mr Key! What happened in the 6 weeks before that? What happened from the very time that he learnt about it on 10 May? Nothing. Nothing happened. It is a little bit like a tree falling over in the forest—if you do not hear about it, it never existed. That is exactly what this Government wanted to have happen: for it to not exist.

Then the Government started talking tough and John Key said he wanted that diplomat returned to New Zealand. He said it was wrong for the Malaysian Government to invoke diplomatic immunity. Mr McCully himself jumped in on the chorus. He jumped in on the chorus and started talking about the fact that he does not believe that this diplomat—at that stage nobody knew who the diplomat was and where he came from. He did not want that diplomat to have name suppression. He thought that name suppression should be lifted.

Well, what we find out is that the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, quite rightly, stood up, as a point of principle—we have a good relationship with the Foreign Minister of Malaysia—and he did the right thing and fronted the issue at a press conference in front of the world’s media. The entire world’s media was watching. I know because I have been following this on the internet. This was reported right across the world. What did that Foreign Minister say? He said that his officials had been told by the New Zealand Government that it was willing to accept the fact that the Malaysian Government had offered a waiver of immunity. So the Malaysian Government was actually quite prepared—quite prepared—to have that diplomat charged here in New Zealand. The Foreign Minister went on. He said that he thought that the New Zealand justice system was a little bit like their own, that our justice system was a fair and good one, and that the man would get a fair trial.

That is not what Mr McCully then came out and said about what the Foreign Minister had said. Straight after that press conference Mr McCully came out and showed us two documents. One document on 10 May, straight after the man was charged, asked for the Malaysians to waive diplomatic immunity and allow this man to be charged in New Zealand. The next document was a document from the Malaysian High Commission back to New Zealand, saying that it wanted to invoke diplomatic immunity and that the man would leave on 22 May. Between that time, however, some discussions had gone on.

But those two documents—think about this. The Malaysian Foreign Minister has just come out and said that they were prepared to waive diplomatic immunity and had been told by the New Zealand Government that that was not necessary, and so therefore they had brought the diplomat home. The Foreign Minister had said that in front of the world’s media, in front of everybody in the world. Then Mr McCully comes out and says: “Oh no, the Foreign Minister’s actually wrong. We asked for them to waive diplomatic immunity and the Malaysian Government refused it.” He contradicted the Malaysian Foreign Minister in front of the world’s media—an incredible embarrassment.

Three hours later—this was last night—Mr McCully came out again and said that what actually happened in the interim period between those two letters was that, in fact, there were some discussions that went on between our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Malaysian foreign ministry, and that may have led to some ambiguity. This is an outrage. Murray McCully wanted to show that he was right and was prepared to put everything else at risk, including our relationship with Malaysia. Now we are on the back foot. Now we are on the back foot, having to accept that actually Malaysia and the Malaysian Foreign Minister were right and we were actually in the wrong.

But is this not typical of Mr McCully? Is this not typical of Mr McCully? First of all, his first reaction, his modus operandi, is to not front. Do not go out, do not say anything. So journalists last night were wondering what had gone on, but Mr McCully would not front. Secondly, the second thing he does is selectively put out some documents. So he put out these two letters that contradicted the Malaysian Foreign Minister and made the situation ten times worse than it was. Then, finally, the third part of Mr McCully’s modus operandi is that when you finally do front, blame the officials. It is never your fault; it is always the officials’ fault. Now we are tunnelling down to the deputy head of protocol, whom Mr McCully is scraping the bottom of the barrel to blame for the mistake. Well, it is about time that Mr McCully stood up and accepted responsibility for the bungling that his ministry has inflicted on New Zealand.

A young New Zealander has been overlooked to cover up Mr McCully’s butt. That is what has happened here. We have sacrificed somebody who has every right to expect justice from this Government and has been deprived of it. The final point is he does not even want to go out and ask for that diplomat to be brought back to New Zealand to face charges. This is unacceptable—completely unacceptable. We have a person, a New Zealander, a young woman, who deserves justice. We have a foreign Minister who is not willing to stand up but instead is trying to butt-shove and get documents out of the way as quick as he can, and blame everybody else except himself. Thirdly, when he does try to cover up with those documents, he brings the Malaysian Foreign Minister’s integrity into question and we have a diplomatic situation on top of that.

It is an absolute disgrace that New Zealand has not stood up for its own people. The Government has not done right by our own citizens. We should always—always—stand up for New Zealanders, no matter if the issue is in the public arena, in front of the public spotlight, or not. In this case, the Government has demonstrably failed.

That there have been some shortcomings in this case is something that is not denied by members of this side of the House, but the member who has just resumed his seat, David Shearer, does himself no credit by dealing in such an intemperate fashion with what is such an important matter. First, it might be useful to the House if I were to outline the facts as they are known to me.

The incident that is at the heart of this matter occurred on the evening of 9 May of this year. A diplomat, a serving military officer, from the Malaysian Embassy was arrested by police, and there was some confusion about the matter because steps were taken by the police that probably should not have been taken without the waiver of immunity. There was a discussion, I know, involving Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials the next morning to establish whether immunity applied in this case or not. I was informed on 10 May—the Saturday—that an arrest had been made involving a Malaysian diplomat and was advised that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as is its customary practice, had sought a waiver of immunity, as is conferred under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I was fully satisfied that those were appropriate steps. The nature of the advice that came to me was to enable me to deal with any media inquiries that might occur, not to solicit any approval or action on my part.

Can I say to members opposite that they are being either wilful or foolish in making assertions that Ministers in any Government should get themselves involved in the prosecutorial process or in the consideration of a request for waiver of diplomatic immunity. That is something that Mr Shearer and others have tried to put abroad in the last day or two. Let me be very clear about this: the day we see Ministers become engaged in decisions in process about prosecutions and the day we see Ministers get involved in determining which diplomats might be the subject of a request for immunity or not is a very sad day in a country that prides itself on promoting the rule of law. Indeed, can I point out to members opposite that just a few weeks ago they were dining out on some allegations against one of my colleagues, asserting that he had been involved in a conversation with police about a prosecution matter, and here we have those same members of Parliament asserting that my crime is that I did not interfere in a prosecutorial process.

What is very clear is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did exactly the right thing by lodging a third-person note, asking formally for the Government of Malaysia to waive the immunity that was available to this individual under the Vienna convention. Mr Shearer criticises me for making those documents available. Well, let me respond to that. The third-person note is a rather anodyne document—one that simply outlines in diplomatic language the formal request for their Government to waive the immunity that was available. The response that was received by our Government is, again, an anodyne document declining it. There is no question of embarrassment of any sort in releasing those documents. There was clearly, last night, an appetite amongst some commentators and members of the news media to check that we had, in fact, had the exchange that the Government had informed the media we had had. I had no objection to those documents being released, and I am sure that the Malaysian Government has no objection to those documents being released.

Let me fast-forward a little bit to what happened subsequently. Last Friday, for the first time, I was made aware that this diplomat had gone home to Malaysia and that the waiver of immunity that had been sought by the New Zealand Government had not been granted. Mr Shearer and others have suggested that I should have known earlier and that I should have done something about it. As to the first part, I agree with Mr Shearer. I agree with him very strongly that on a matter of this sort I should have been informed by the ministry. There are a number of formal ways in which that should have occurred, because this is a matter of significance. A New Zealand complainant who has been the victim of an alleged serious assault was clearly going to be denied the right to see this person brought to trial in New Zealand if the waiver of immunity was not granted. That is a matter of significance and it should have been brought to my attention.

It is also blindingly obvious that if this person was brought to trial by way of a court martial in Malaysia, or, indeed, if anyone had followed up on these events domestically through the police or elsewhere, it was likely to become a matter of media interest anyway. So the idea that somehow the Government might be part of some cover-up is frankly ridiculous. What has clearly happened here is that there has been a shortcoming in the ministry in failing to inform its Minister and other Ministers that this formal request has formally been declined by the Malaysian Government. I agree with Mr Shearer and others that we clearly should have been told, and we were not.

Can I say to those who think that this is an incident that occurs only once in a decade or something of that sort that, sadly, we do from time to time receive these matters—

💬 David Shearer: Not an attempted rape, Murray. God, how often does that happen?

I have actually been asking exactly that question; I have got quite a lengthy list. It is also the case that sometimes these requests are declined. In every case I would expect the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to draw these matters to the attention of its Minister. As to what should happen after that, that is a question of judgment, but what I say is that Ministers cannot take steps if they do not know, and in this case I did not know, and I should have known.

Last night I was confronted with a situation where the Malaysian Foreign Minister was making public comments in Malaysia, with every good intention, that did not match with the statements I had made in the New Zealand media. I had been quite clear, and I had advised the Prime Minister so that he was quite clear, of the New Zealand policy, which is that we would, in all of these cases, seek a waiver of the immunity available under the Vienna convention. That is the position we have adopted in the media over the last few days. When it became clear to me that Minister Anifah, whom I know and have worked with for some time, was under the impression that the outcome in this case was one that was acceptable to the New Zealand Government, I thought I should make some further inquiry.

It concerns me very greatly indeed that the Malaysian Government might be under the impression that the formal steps we had taken were not the only options that were acceptable to us as an outcome in this case. I had not given any mandate beyond that, and none had been sought from me, so I started to search the files, which were eventually, I must say, made available to me. Immediately upon drawing the conclusion that our stewardship of this issue had some shortcomings attached to it, I made a statement to be clear about that with the New Zealand public and the New Zealand media.

I want to try to portray as accurately as I can what I did see in those files, because there were a number of exchanges; in particular, a meeting on 12 May between New Zealand officials and Malaysian officials, and there was also some email traffic. Firstly, I must say—and I do want to emphasise this—that the third-person note that the New Zealand Government forwarded to the Malaysian Government very clearly stated our desire to see this person be able to stay in New Zealand to stand trial for his alleged crime. That formal request is there. It was also clear to me that there were a number of informal interactions, both oral and email, that had the nature of blurring that information. It was clear to me that officials had engaged in informal communications over some of the complexities in this case—and I will not comment on those complexities—in a manner that would have enabled the Malaysian Government to draw more inferences from the discussion than I felt comfortable with. In short, I am saying that the officials who advised Minister Anifah that the Malaysian decision would have been one that was satisfactory to the New Zealand Government had been given a basis for making those statements.

I am very confident that Minister Anifah, in making his decision, did so with the very best of motives, believing it was possible that New Zealand would accept the outcome of Malaysia declining the request. It is very clear that the chief of the defence force in Malaysia had a very strong desire to see this person put on trial by way of a court martial, and if any members present doubt the severity of that, I think they need to learn a little bit more about Malaysian military law.

I was also comforted to see Minister Anifah state very clearly that he was open to an extradition application if New Zealand was not satisfied with the process. I say again to Mr Shearer and others that that is not something that Ministers initiate. We do not initiate extradition proceedings. Police, independent prosecutorial authorities who have conducted the work and who are able to make an assessment, make those applications. The New Zealand Police, I am sure, will give consideration to whether such a step is warranted in this case.

Finally, I just want to say this. Minister Anifah made it very clear to me that he regarded the alleged actions of this official as tarnishing the reputation of every Malaysian diplomat who serves in New Zealand or anywhere else around the world, and his Government will leave no stone unturned to hold this person to account. I want to place on record my very considerable confidence that Minister Anifah is a man of his word and stands firmly behind those commitments. I am also saying that in this case there are clearly grounds, if the police want to, to initiate the extradition proceedings that Mr Shearer and others are urging should be initiated, and Minister Anifah has indicated his preparedness to grant such extradition.

This is not a situation where I can say I am satisfied with the steps that have been taken. The victim here is due an apology and her family is due an apology, because what should have been a straightforward application that was supported by straightforward informal communication by the ministry for which I hold responsibility—it did not carry out its business in that straightforward fashion, leading to a response that is out of line with the wishes of the New Zealand Government and, I am sure, the New Zealand people. It has also been the case that some of the assurances the Prime Minister has given in public have been given without the full knowledge of the informal communications on the file. I have taken responsibility for that. I have indicated to the Prime Minister that I am deeply apologetic, for that reason, and I have done my best to set the matter straight, to set the record straight, at the first available opportunity.

This is not a series of events that we can look back on with great pride, but the important thing is to secure justice for this victim and her family. There are some avenues available for us to ensure that that occurs. They all involve us engaging properly with the Malaysian Government. That is a duty that I take very seriously and one that I will pursue over the days ahead.

I rise with some trepidation, actually, to speak in this urgent debate, because it is about real lives. There is a young woman who is at the heart of this and I wish to give absolute respect to her experience, while being very sensitive around the legal issues in this debate. I also feel a responsibility in this House to convey some of the anger that I am seeing reflected in the community in response to how the debate and the discussion have been happening around this. It is a very sensitive issue and an issue that is reflective of much wider public concerns around what I think I could characterise as rape culture in this country, and a concern that the response by this Government has been reflective of a rape culture, and has actually fed the beliefs that justify and continue that culture.

I would like to just go back to some of the core points. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has finished his speech just now, talking about his apology to John Key, about the Prime Minister not having the full information, and about how the victim is due an apology. I would like to note in this House that the victim is yet to receive an apology. The apology to the Prime Minister has come first, before the apology to the victim. Wrong has been acknowledged, yet that victim at the heart of this situation is still to come up to the top of the priority list for this Government. That young woman was told only the day before the defendant was leaving the country that he was not going to face charges in New Zealand.

We heard from the Minister, in response to my questions during question time, that he had been told by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that it would apply for a waiver, and then the Minister just, I guess, assumed that that was happening. The Minister has also told us that this is a once-in-a-decade type of event. My question is again to the Minister: you say you should have known and you did not know, so why did you not ask? This is a once-in-a-decade event. They have come to you—

💬 Hon Murray McCully: No, it’s not.

Minister, those are your words you are now disputing. I guess that sums up some of the confusion we are getting from you on this issue, because that is what you said, and it is a rare event. They have come to you, your officials, and told you that this is the process, and you did not even bother to check in to find out what happened. If a Government was putting victims at the heart of our responses, if we were putting violence prevention at the heart of our responses, that question would have been asked. Before that question was asked, I would suggest, Minister, that you would have told the officials in that initial briefing that you, because, as you said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! You must leave the Speaker out of this debate.

Sorry, Mr Speaker. The Minister would have informed the officials in that briefing that he expected them to do everything possible to keep the man here to face justice, because, as the Minister said in question time, you had the assumption that that is what the victim wanted. Well, if you had that assumption, you should have called—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

The Minister should have called the department to take every means possible to make sure that happened, and the Minister should have followed up—a simple phone call. What happened with that? How did that conversation go with the High Commission? Are they happy to waive it or not? I think that is the least that this country could expect, in terms of putting victims at the heart of our processes rather than just providing lip-service to them.

I would also like to note that in this situation and because that did not happen, this young woman has been told by the police that she may well have to go to Malaysia to provide her evidence.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: That’s one option.

That is the information she has been given by the police in New Zealand. We know how tough our court system is here in New Zealand. We know how brutal a process it is to give evidence in these cases. Everyone in this House knows that. Imagine putting ourselves in her place of having to go through what we can only assume is a comparable system in another country, in another cultural context, with another language involved, and with no family support—not being able to go home at night, put on the kettle, and have a cup of tea and try to cope with what you have been through. If we were putting victims at the heart of our processes, there is no way we would just fob this off as a side issue—that this may be what is required of this young woman—because that is not doing justice to our supposed commitment to survivors or victims of sexual violence.

I would now just like to take this wider, because I do know that there are some quite deep concerns about some patterns that are arising. Every country in the world is struggling to get on top of violence against women and children. It is a global problem, we have to take it seriously, and we need a whole-of-Government response if we are going to do it. In New Zealand we are hearing about family violence initiatives today, interestingly enough. We heard last week from the Minister of Justice that it was going to be a few weeks before she announced her family violence initiatives. It was interesting to see it in the House today while we were asking these questions, having been brought forward.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: It wasn’t brought forward, for heaven’s sake!

Well, that is interesting. We were told it was going to be later, Minister, and it is interesting—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: No, you weren’t.

Yes, we were. So we are now seeing this happening today while these questions are coming up. It is interesting. Although the Government is saying that this is a core priority for it, just in the last short period we have seen a Minister resign because he had interfered on behalf of an abuser by calling the police on behalf of somebody accused of domestic violence. Now we are seeing a Minister who says that he should have known but did not know, and never thought to ask, around the situation of a victim of domestic violence in a diplomatic situation. We have also seen the case in the Ministry for Primary Industries, where a senior director has been appointed to a position, with a history of having been disciplined for sexual offending, without any notice having been given to the staff, and without any necessary information around whether that person appointed to that position had done any kind of personal development work to be able to change their values and behaviours to make them safe in that workplace, considering that the previous offences had happened within a work context.

We are seeing this pattern of the Government saying on the one hand that it takes this seriously, yet across ministries we are seeing the core leadership missing the fundamental point and not connecting the dots that unless we actually make this a core priority in all of our work, we are not going to start reducing the violence. In fact, we will be, and we are, creating the environment and the culture that enables it to feed and grow. Unless victims know that they will be listened to and that their needs are respected and put first in all of our systems, it is difficult for them to come forward, and it is difficult to get justice. I think that this Government needs to be held to account for the choices it makes on whether it sees this as a whole-of-Government problem or just a one-off incident that the Minister does not even need to follow up on.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also express our grave concern about how this whole matter has been handled. A very serious crime has allegedly been committed against a young 21-year-old woman in this country, and it would appear that this Government has wished to just brush it under the carpet and allow it to go unaccounted for, hoping that the media and the public of New Zealand would not become aware of it. However, the media did uncover it, and it has now been fully put out into the public. Also, again, the media has gone to the High Court and had the suppression order overturned to ensure that the name of the individual who is alleged to have committed this crime is known.

It is concerning that there seems to have been a litany of errors by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and also by the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister himself, in terms of handling this. It is somewhat concerning that still today on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website, listed under foreign representatives accredited to New Zealand, this individual, Mr Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail, still appears as an accredited diplomat in this country.

💬 John Hayes: Big deal.

So the first thing I would suggest to Mr Hayes, sitting over there in the back seat, and to Mr McCully would be that perhaps they should suggest that, out of respect to the young 21-year-old woman, that individual’s name is at least taken off the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website in the meantime. The very least that they could do is get on with that. When you look back at the time frame of this whole incident, the Minister said this afternoon that this occurred on 9 May 2014—that was a Friday evening—and he was informed on Saturday, 10 May. However, he did not have any subsequent discussions, briefings, or updates from the ministry until last Friday, 27 June—7 whole weeks. From one Friday when the offence was committed, it was 7 whole weeks until the Minister then got a subsequent full briefing last Friday, which occurred only because he got wind of the fact that the media were on to it. That is most disappointing.

Any Minister who is aware that a serious crime has taken place in any ministry, regardless of which ministry it is, should be on top of his game. The Minister should have been ensuring that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was keeping him fully informed on developments. He does not have to interfere, he does not have to get involved, and he does not have to intervene politically, but he should have at the very least ensured that he was receiving regular briefings on how the matter was proceeding. Had that been the case, we probably would not have seen the indecision and the ambiguity that has apparently gone on, which has allowed the Malaysians to infer something out of the discussions—the unofficial discussions—so that they now feel that they are somewhat aggrieved that the chap is wanted back in New Zealand in order to face the consequences and the proper police questioning.

So we have been left in this sort of no man’s land of very indecisive decisions being made by the ministry, by the Minister, and also by the Prime Minister, as well. The Prime Minister has not been on top of his game in this respect. He should have been up with this. This is, again, one of the many instances of a National Minister not properly informing the Prime Minister and, in turn—as happened with the Government Communications Security Bureau, as happened last year with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and as has happened with other ministries—the Prime Minister not making sure that his Ministers are properly keeping him briefed and informed.

I am somewhat disappointed by this whole diplomatic situation with Malaysia. I am the deputy chair of the New Zealand - Malaysia Parliamentary Friendship Group. Melissa Lee is the chairperson of that group. We both established that group about a year ago. I did that because my brother is buried in Terendak Camp in Malaysia. When he was killed in Viet Nam, his body was flown to Malaysia, and he is buried there. So I have a close connection to Malaysia. I have visited Malaysia on a number of occasions in order to visit his grave, so I have a close affinity to Malaysia. I know that over many, many years the Malaysians have had a close relationship with New Zealand, going back to the Colombo Plan. Many students come and visit here and are educated here, including many leading Malaysian politicians who have studied here and have subsequently gone back to being leaders in the Malaysian political system. So we do have a longstanding relationship with Malaysia, and it is very strong. So this whole incident and the way that it has been handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is somewhat disappointing because it very much undermines that whole relationship and stability of the friendship with Malaysia.

However, having said that, I am also somewhat disappointed in our police. This was a serious crime and I believe, once again, that perhaps the police should have been far more proactive in terms of ensuring, again, through the Minister of Police, that the Ministers round the Cabinet table were informed of this situation, to make sure that they were aware that this was a potentially serious political situation and also a serious crime against a New Zealand citizen. That did not occur, and again one does wonder—and we do often have questions raised in this House and around New Zealand—what level of political interference goes on within our New Zealand police force, so that things are kept under the radar and so that there is no political fallout from it.

However, I would also, through this House, urge the Malaysian High Commissioner to New Zealand—whom I have met on a number of occasions, Her Excellency Ms Zahid. I am somewhat disappointed that she has not perhaps taken a greater role as a woman—as a woman—and as a head of a mission in this country to ensure that this incident was properly investigated and that the perpetrator was properly brought to justice in this situation. I would call on the high commissioner to do what she should do as a woman in a situation like this and ensure that the young 21-year-old woman has her rightful justice and her day in court here in New Zealand, so that the New Zealand judicial system can properly take account of this.

I am not doubting that a Malaysian military court of inquiry would be thorough, but I do not believe it is fair for a young New Zealand woman to be put through the situation of having to provide evidence through the New Zealand Police to then ensure that her situation is properly represented in a far-off country through a military tribunal. I think it is only fair that this matter is brought to justice in this country. I would implore the high commissioner, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and, indeed, the Prime Minister to say that we are humans here and we are honourable. The honourable thing is for this gentleman to face a proper judicial process here in New Zealand and to be properly held to account for his actions.

We hope that this is the last time that we have to have a situation like this, with Ministers going AWOL. It is such a shame that so much time is being spent by both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Trade on jet-setting around the world to try to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council. They are spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers’ money to try to get a seat on the Security Council, while back at home the basics of humanity, the basics of ensuring that we live in a civil society where such crimes are not perpetrated on our society and on our citizens, are not being upheld. I think those Ministers should perhaps spend a little bit more time overseeing their ministries and overseeing what is happening and functioning within their ministries, and a little bit less time in the first-class cabins of 747s and other aircraft around the world on the junket trips. They should spend a little bit more time back in New Zealand, making sure that New Zealanders are also protected in terms of foreign affairs and trade on our home patch.

New Zealand First registers its strong, strong disappointment in the way that this whole situation has been handled. We would like to see it resolved very, very swiftly and expeditiously.

The Hon Tim Groser, and I understand that this will be a 10-minute call.

I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has outlined the facts, as we know them, in a clear way. I will not attempt to replicate his explanation of the facts. But I think we can already draw some conclusions about matters that are actually crystal clear and matters where we have to accept that events are unfolding. All the information is not in front of us, and people should be just a little hesitant about reaching hard and fast conclusions at this stage in the process.

When I think about what I might put under the heading of “certain facts are already crystal clear”, let me start with the issue of concern for the victim. This is of central importance to all members of this House; we all understand that. This is of central importance to this side of the House, to this Government, and to the Minister’s consideration of the most appropriate steps to be followed. The allegations lie near the absolute height of gravity of offences that can be levelled against anyone in our country. We take this enormously seriously, and we are deeply concerned, as we would be in any situation where similar allegations were made, not only about the situation of the victim but the very real and understandable desire for justice, which has lain at the heart of a number of issues of great importance to our society over literally a hundred years or more. So the idea propagated by one member that somehow this shows indifference is bordering on the insulting—bordering on the insulting. We take this concern for the victim with the utmost seriousness, and we will do whatever we can to ensure, through proper procedures, that the victim gets justice in this case.

The second reality is that already people are firing bullets far, far too early at the New Zealand Police. As a citizen of our country I have developed enormous respect for our police over many years—the incredibly difficult pressures they are put under and the conflicting demands made on them. I, along with, I am sure, a vast majority of New Zealanders, hold our police in very, very high regard, and the central fact is that this matter was investigated by our police officers. I do not know the details around it, understandably, but this matter was investigated immediately. I am informed that support services were put round this young victim immediately when the police became aware of it. Charges were laid. The idea that the New Zealand police force has somehow fallen off the pace is, I think, completely wrong. People should sometimes just keep their mouths shut before the facts are known to them, and before putting out absurd allegations against honourable members of the New Zealand police force, which in this case has followed exactly—so far, as far as I can tell—the procedures that any of us would want it to if it were a member of our own family involved in this.

The third reality is a complex one. It revolves around the entire practice of diplomatic immunity. Of course, there is a whole series of conventions that flow from that, including declaring people persona non grata and reaching agrément for ambassadors, and it all plays into a very complicated part of international relations. This goes back over literally centuries of bitter experience. There is the need for countries that may be even literally at war to have in place procedures that protect envoys from the interference of the political process, through a quasi-judicial process. Although this gives rise to grave difficulties of interpretation, as in this case, the underlying practice that all countries have accepted is that this is a very special place where you would want to keep politics and the judicial process quite separate. The idea that the Minister should somehow become some operating police officer in his—or, had it been somebody else, her—right is completely ignorant of the underlying need to follow the very strict procedures that have developed over literally centuries of bitter experience.

Different countries have different interpretations in terms of their interests and how they apply these cases. I know that in the case of the United States, so grave is the concern over decades, or 100 years, I think, of US State Department policy about the danger of judicial processes being manipulated, that in cases where even the most flagrant abuse by its own diplomats has been at least alleged, it will always—always—invoke diplomatic immunity. It will never ever grant a waiver. It is a matter of State Department policy and, as far as I know, it has been a permanent policy position for at least as long as I can recall.

With New Zealand, we take a slightly more nuanced position in terms of our own diplomats serving overseas. Not only do we expect them to obey the laws of the other country but, my understanding is—and I do not have the details on this—I believe that there have been cases where we have waived diplomatic immunity and allowed the prosecution of certain people to take place. I think it has been very rare, and I stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding. Most certainly, on very minor matters involving, for example, traffic infringements such as minor speeding events, it is standard operating procedure—I can assure the House, having worked for the diplomatic service over decades—that you are expected to pay the fines as if you were an ordinary citizen of the country to which you are accredited.

So there are different interpretations of this, but ultimately we have to respect the choice of the Government concerned on how to interpret these conventions that do lie at the absolute heart of international relations and the role of envoys to prosecute matters. Literally, as I said, even when there is war going on between States, we need to maintain avenues, and countries have learnt the importance of ensuring that their envoys do have diplomatic immunity for precisely those reasons. This of course, understandably, gives rise to outrage in a case like this, where there is no question of the national interest of Malaysia being involved. But this has meant that very clear procedures are laid out that are designed to protect the process from political interference, and the Minister has done absolutely the right thing by letting the process work.

It seems—it seems—that bits of that process have not worked correctly. That is why my understanding is that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade has apologised to Mr McCully, and a review of the procedures being followed is under way. But the idea that this means that the Minister should have been personally executing this procedure himself is quite the wrong conclusion to be drawn from this situation.

The third reality relates to our relationship with Malaysia. The proposition that I have heard through the airwaves and in some of the media today that this has “damaged our relations with Malaysia” is unfounded. We have an incredibly close and productive relationship with Malaysia. We will continue to have a close and productive relationship with Malaysia. The very fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was on the phone to his Malaysian counterpart indicates that that relationship is very strongly in place. This is a highly respectable country. I am not, like the previous member, going to start to lecture the Malaysian High Commissioner on what she should or should not do.

I believe that the Malaysian system is a robust system. We will watch now with great interest to see what unfolds. But in the light of the very clear statement of the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that this serious—very serious—offence calls into question the integrity of the Malaysian diplomatic service, albeit the military arm of the diplomatic service, it is something that members should take note of. We will watch and see how the procedure unfolds in terms of what we assume will be a court martial. Although I am not familiar with the penalty regimes of the Malaysian court martial system, the thought just occurs to me on a personal level that should the allegations be proven, it may well be that the person who allegedly perpetrated this may even regret the decision not to be tried in New Zealand. We will wait and see.

Events are unfolding. All the facts are not before us at this stage. We know that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, through his offices, to keep the Minister informed. Clearly, the Minister considers that that obligation has not been fully lived up to in the circumstances. So we will watch this, and the key point I wish to finish on is the very clear and, I would have to say, encouraging statements from the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that further legal procedures, including extradition, are not being ruled out.

Just before I call the honourable member, I advise that it is a 5-minute call.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, and because it is a 5-minute call I may have to speak more quickly than usual because there is quite a lot to say about this.

First of all, there is a young woman here in New Zealand, at the heart of this matter, who deserves an apology. That is the first thing that this House needs to be mindful of. Secondly, I want to go to the issue of diplomatic immunity and whether there has been any interference with police procedures. In my view there has been none. There has been no interference in police procedures. There are things, as the previous speaker, Tim Groser, has outlined, that are done under foreign affairs protocol and international convention, but I will come to those in due course as well.

One fact that is clear is that a 35-year-old man, who has now been named, was arrested in the Wellington suburb of Brooklyn on 9 May after he followed a 21-year-old woman. The following day he was charged with assault with intent to rape, and burglary. So he has been charged. Then he claimed diplomatic immunity and skipped the country. This has happened before. I remember an occasion when a diplomatic staffer—I think he was under the influence of alcohol—killed a New Zealander with his car. He immediately applied for diplomatic immunity and skipped the country.

New Zealanders do not like it. New Zealanders do not like it when people are not brought to justice for alleged crimes. I do not wish to stray into the judicial process but the point here is that diplomatic immunity, with all its convention and its history, is not a carte blanche for every diplomatic staffer to career around the country without regard for the laws of that host country. Every diplomatic staffer understands that. Every diplomatic person understands that.

I feel for the Malaysian High Commissioner. I feel for Malaysia in this. They will be mortified. They will be mortified at this man’s alleged behaviour. But for the Malaysian Government to have received mixed messages from New Zealand about whether we wanted immunity waived, whether we thought there was a sufficient trade-off by subjecting the man to a military court martial in his own country, is the fault of this Government. This is the fault of the Government and this is what we are railing against. How could mixed messages possibly have gone to a country with which we have had a longstanding, very strong, and deep relationship?

We understand the justice processes in Malaysia; they understand ours. We respect each other’s justice processes, but for them to have been given the impression that we would forgo justice in our country for the young woman at the heart of this alleged crime in exchange for a court martial process in Malaysia should not have occurred. The Minister should have been getting weekly briefings on this. There has been a 6-week gap between cup and lip in this case—a 6-week gap. Why was this not coming up in weekly briefings—in weekly briefings—to the Minister? And for the Minister to confuse this issue with the case of Maurice Williamson is absolutely specious.

There are things that can be done and are legitimately done, like applying for a waiver of diplomatic immunity, that should have been done in a clear-cut way in this instance. It has been done before; it can be done again. So let us not have any of that silly nonsense of pretending that Ministers are interfering with police process. We understand what the police process has been. We would like to see justice effected for this woman here in New Zealand.

I just advise that the next member also has a 5-minute call.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this very serious matter that is before the House today. Firstly, I have to say that listening earlier to one of the speeches from the Green Party I felt that we were being dished up a very large serving of sanctimony, and I repudiate and utterly reject any suggestion that this Government buys into, is party to, or supports in any way the sort of rape culture that the member Jan Logie referred to. The very suggestion is not only absurd, it is obscene, and I think members on this side of the House were utterly disgusted by that suggestion.

I spent a year working as deputy chief of protocol in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so I am reasonably familiar with the technical matters, and I will get to those shortly. But, first, I want to say that I, along with other members of the Government, stand utterly behind the young woman who was allegedly attacked in her own home. New Zealanders have a right to feel safe in their own homes in particular, and in our communities in general. I think that this Government has done a number of things to improve, for instance, the access by victims to the different support services that they can benefit from, and also, thanks to the work of the Minister of Police, Anne Tolley, and others, to make sure that we are preventing crime and domestic and violent crime, and sexual assaults in particular.

There has been a little bit of misunderstanding, I think, in the media on some of the technical matters. Minister Groser was absolutely correct when he referred to the centuries of hard-won experience that are the reason why we have diplomatic immunity and all of the other different protections that are afforded by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Vienna convention, as it is currently codified, came into place in 1961—the same year that the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 came into effect in this country, and which provides for the current offences under which Mr Rizalman bin Ismail would have been charged had immunity not been invoked.

But I think it is important to point out that, aside from the issue of immunity from prosecution, there is also an additional issue. It is addressed in the note that was sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—its note verbale, or its third person note No. 125 of this year—in which it also asked the Malaysian Government to consider revoking personal inviolability, which is provided under article 31 of the Vienna convention. This refers to whether the gentleman could be arrested, detained, held in custody, or prevented from leaving this country. He was not expelled from New Zealand. He was not declared persona non grata. And in their third person note the Malaysians decided to invoke inviolability as well as immunity—response No. BP04 of 2014—which is available for members of the public who may be interested in the media. It is available on the New Zealand Herald website. It does outline exactly that—that they chose not to drop immunity or inviolability. That means that, unfortunately, that person is not able to be kept in New Zealand and not able to be tried in New Zealand. But, like others, I too hope that the person who is at this stage only alleged to have committed those offences does face the full force of the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian military authority should that person be found to have committed those offences, should they be found to be guilty.

Lastly, I just refer briefly to some comments that were flung across the House and that alleged ministerial responsibility in this matter. There was a press statement put out by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I want to put on the record that I am proud to have worked in that ministry but I also have the utmost regard for New Zealand officials, who are doing a very good job for this country, both offshore and back in Wellington. However, the statement of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes it very clear that in this case there were failings.

There were two failings in particular that Mr Allen refers to. He says that he is initiating a review process within the ministry “to reassess our policy and procedures for handling similar situations”. The ministry is likely to appoint an independent reviewer to do this work. The review will focus on two areas in particular: firstly, whether informal communications with the Malaysian High Commissioner left open the possibility of a different course of action to be expected from the New Zealand Government; and, secondly, that the Minister was not sufficiently informed of events. So, although it is true that we need to back up our officials, it seems that there were failings, and these need to be investigated and, hopefully, resolved.

An alleged attempted rape and a burglary by somebody who is a diplomatic representative of their country is a rare and extraordinary event in New Zealand. I know that when there was news that that happened, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been notified immediately. The Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been notified immediately and he would have talked to his Prime Minister, Mr Key. I know that because I have served in that position for many years. Mr McCully would have been told immediately, and Mr McCully’s response would have been, I imagine, the same as any of his predecessors on either side of the House. It would have been: “This is a serious event. I want you to keep me informed on an ongoing basis about this matter as it evolves.” That is what Mr McCully would have demanded of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and what it would have readily provided him with ongoing information about.

I simply do not believe that Mr McCully could have said: “Oh yeah, alleged rape, burglary, foreign affairs representative—yeah, you guys handle it. Don’t bother me with it again.” That is what Mr McCully was claiming in this House. He was claiming that once the request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity was lodged, he never heard anything more about it. Whose responsibility is that? The primary responsibility is with Mr McCully. A serious crime capable of a sentence of 10 years is committed by somebody who has diplomatic immunity, and Mr McCully says: “OK, you’ve gone for a waiver. Now don’t bother me with that again.” That is appalling.

💬 John Hayes: Just not true.

That is appalling, Mr Hayes. That is not worthy of a Minister who is doing his job properly. The letter was fine. The letter sent by the ministry was fine. What was not fine was the lack of follow-up by the Minister. What we have is an extraordinary indifference and perhaps incompetence on the part of the Minister, in that he never followed through on that. Not only did he not follow through on that but as of yesterday he was prepared to release a letter from the ministry to Malaysia, and a Malaysian letter sent back to New Zealand, and say: “Look, we tried to get a waiver of diplomatic immunity and it’s the Malaysians’ fault because they wouldn’t give it.” This is what Mr Key said. I listened to the radio all over the weekend. Mr McCully and Mr Key each time said: “We went for a waiver. They wouldn’t give it to us. It’s their fault.” Here it is from Mr Key in the New Zealand Herald on 1 July, yesterday: “ ‘New Zealand’s very strong preference was that he would have been charged. Effectively that sending country stopped us from doing that,’ he told reporters.” There you are. That was the Prime Minister saying it was Malaysia’s fault; it would not let us seek a waiver of the diplomatic immunity.

The report goes on: “The Government made a show of hauling in the diplomat’s head of mission to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last night ‘to make it clear how seriously it views this situation’.” There we are. We have our foreign affairs Minister and our Prime Minister blaming another country because they were not prepared to lift the diplomatic immunity that would allow this man, charged with serious offences, to be heard before a court in New Zealand, to give the victim in this case the chance to hold that offender to account and to see justice done. Then we had the statement from Minister Anifah Aman. This came out yesterday. He is the Foreign Minister of Malaysia. This is what he says in a point-by-point account of what happened. Point six: “ ‘At the same time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia was prepared to waive diplomatic immunity of the accused to enable prosecution under New Zealand law against him to proceed.’ ” That, in definitive terms, is a statement by the Malaysian Foreign Minister that Malaysia said to New Zealand: “If you want us to waive the immunity, we will, and the man can go through the normal court procedures.”

Prime Minister Key and foreign affairs Minister McCully misled this country in saying it was the other way around. Was McCully so poorly informed that he did not know what his ministry was doing? Was he so indifferent to the plight of the woman who was the victim that he did not bother following it up? What explanation can National give us for that gross incompetence and indifference by the foreign affairs Minister? I have waited all afternoon to hear an explanation; I have not heard an explanation yet.

This is what else the Foreign Minister of Malaysia said: “But during discussions on May 12, the New Zealand side offered an alternative for the accused to be brought back to Malaysia. It was never our intention to treat the matter lightly.” It was not the Malaysians demanding that he be given immunity; it was the New Zealand foreign affairs ministry, either under the direction of its Minister or because the Minister was not sufficiently concerned to direct them, that was offering to send the man home. We had a weekend of our Prime Minister and our foreign affairs Minister blaming the Malaysians for their own incompetence and indifference. Not a word is heard from the National side, because that is the truth. That is the truth.

Point eight in what the Malaysian Foreign Minister said: “With the agreement of the New Zealand side, the accused person and his family returned to Malaysia on May 22 [2014].” If our Government, our foreign affairs Minister, and our Prime Minister had wanted to see justice done for the victim, all they had to do was take up the offer of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that would have happened. They did not care. It was not important. It was better to sweep it under the carpet and not worry about any consequences afterwards. Well, if it was a misguided attempt to avoid embarrassing the Malaysians, it has backfired completely. What does the Malaysian Foreign Minister now think of his counterpart in New Zealand and the Prime Minister of our country misrepresenting the position of their country, when he was prepared to do the right thing and say that if this man was alleged to have committed that offence, we have confidence in the justice system of New Zealand and we should let him face that justice system?

I know that under my watch and under the Prime Minister I served, that would not have been treated in that way. Helen Clark would have been focused on the issue. She would have been asking for daily reports. She would have had empathy with the victim. She would have insisted that the offer of the Malaysian Government be taken up so that this matter would be handled in the way that any other criminal offence in New Zealand would be handled. This Government let the victim down. Murray McCully says he will apologise to the Prime Minister for not keeping him informed. He should apologise to the victim, because it is the victim whom this National Government, through its indifference and incompetence, has let down. It is not good enough. It is not good enough, and it is not good enough for this House once again to see a National Minister of Foreign Affairs blaming his officials when something goes wrong.

Murray McCully knows that the officials cannot answer back. He has done it before. John Hayes knows that he did it over the botched restructuring of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I have had a gutsful of a Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is paid to take responsibility for the actions of his Government, not taking that responsibility. You never blame your officials, Mr Foster-Bell. You were an official, you know that. You would have deplored—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The member knows he would have deplored a Minister who blamed his officials, and that he should do so now.

💬 John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The speaker on the other side of the House should not be drawing you into the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I am not drawing the Assistant Speaker into the debate; I am saying that the negligence of that National Government has let down New Zealand, has let down the victim, and has damaged our relationship with the Malaysian Government. We have seen the poorest form of ministerial behaviour that you can possibly see, in a Minister who is blaming his officials when he should take responsibility. He is the Minister. He is the person who let the victim down. He is the person who should be resigning.

A sickening aspect of politics is the sanctimonious comments from Jan Logie in the House this afternoon, and those from Andrew Williams. They are based on no knowledge whatever of the issues of diplomatic immunity. I could go on to the Labour Party and have a little discussion about David Shearer, who is trying to turn a very nasty alleged event into political capital, as the last speaker, Mr Goff, has done on that side of the House. The debate this afternoon has been nothing to do with the young victim of this alleged crime and everything to do with putting an event into the public domain, not for the victim but for a private, party political purpose. Some facts are clear. The concern for the victim should be absolutely paramount. We should be deeply concerned by the allegation and the importance that justice must not just be seen to be done; I think all of us in this House want to see it done. The victim deserves justice.

It might help to say a few words about what diplomatic immunity is, and I say that as a former high commissioner, ambassador, and diplomat for this country. I have used diplomatic immunity on occasions when I have been offshore in some, shall we just say, difficult countries. Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under law, though they can still be expelled. It is an agreed international law, and it is set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961. Diplomatic immunity allows Governments, as my colleague Tim Groser said, to maintain a dialogue and a relationship even during times of armed conflict. As Mr Groser also said, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course, but it is possible for a diplomat’s home country to waive immunity. I remember being in Saudi Arabia at the time that a Chilean diplomat was charged with drunk-driving causing death here, and every head of mission at that time received a letter from Prime Minister Lange making it clear that if a New Zealand diplomat infringed the law of his host country, diplomatic immunity would not be invoked.

Diplomatic immunity usually is used only when a person’s role is as a diplomat. For example, it is not generally invoked if there is a crime, unless perhaps one was accused of spying. But a home country may prosecute an individual if immunity is waived by a Government so that the diplomat or the family member can be prosecuted because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. Diplomats are representatives of nations with a tradition of professional civil service. They are expected to obey regulations governing their behaviour, and they suffer strict internal consequences if they flout local law, as has happened with colleagues of mine over the years in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and with colleagues I have worked with, for example, from Australia. None of us is perfect in this world, and all countries have had their problems. Diplomats are not exempt from the law in their own countries, so prosecution can also be undertaken by the sending State. Mr Groser made some interesting points about that and said we should stand back and wait for events to be dealt with, and not carry on like barking dogs about an issue that few of us here have the facts about.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is very explicit. Diplomats who have privilege and immunity are obliged to respect the law and the regulations of the receiving State. I have every sympathy for the victim in this case. I have faith in the police. I have absolute faith in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and my ex-colleagues there. I accept the apology of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which has been published today. I have every sympathy with the people of Malaysia, because they have been let down by one of their own, but it was an individual letting them down, not the whole country, and I feel sorry for them. The ministry has fallen well short of the expectations of the Government on this occasion, and we take this failure very seriously. I passed greetings to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade this morning as he moved through Bowen House to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, the way the ministry dealt with this issue left some ambiguity around our position, which was that the accused should face justice in New Zealand, as John Allen has said. This is a very sad occasion, and I extend my condolences to the victim, but I have every faith in the robustness of our system to deliver the right outcome on this occasion.

The time for this debate has expired.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a 5-minute call that has not been taken in this debate.

It is a 10-minute call, and the member has used up nearly 7 minutes of it, so the time for the debate has expired.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been nine calls on this debate. An urgent debate allows for 10 calls. One of those calls has not been taken. I believe it is a 5-minute call.

I have been advised that the urgent debate was to have eight calls—that is what I have been advised.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. After the debate started, the National Party decided to combine two of the 5-minute Government calls to make a 10-minute call. So the time was still the same. That was discussed and negotiated with the Speaker.

That is as I understand it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.