2.
Keith Locke
(Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Will he consider not relying on the security risk certificate issued against Mr Ahmed Zaoui, in light of the Court of Appeal ruling that the security criteria for issuing the certificate will only be met “if there are objectively reasonable grounds based on credible evidence that Mr Zaoui constitutes a danger to the security of New Zealand of such seriousness that it would justify sending a person back to persecution.”?
Hon Paul Swain
(Minister of Immigration): The Crown is currently considering the Court of Appeal decision. In light of that, it would not be appropriate to comment further.
Keith Locke
: What basis is there for believing that Government agencies can provide the credible evidence required by the Court of Appeal, when only a fortnight ago the police provided completely incorrect information to the Prime Minister linking Mr Zaoui’s party to al-Qaeda-information that the Prime Minister was forced to admit was incorrect?
Hon Paul Swain
: As I said before, the Crown is currently considering the decision made by the Court of Appeal. Given that, it would not be appropriate to comment on the matters raised by the member.
Rt Hon Winston Peters
: Why has the Government not relied upon the findings of three First World jurisdictions-Switzerland, Belgium,. and France – and sent that person offshore to anyone of the scores of Islamic countries, where he apparently does not want to live?
Hon Paul Swain
: The member is right that those three jurisdictions did find in the way the member has outlined. The Refugee Status Board thought Mr Zaoui could not be a refugee. He appealed, and the appeal board has now decided that he is a refugee. The matter has been before the court, and is still before the court. We are currently considering the decision of the Court of Appeal, so therefore it is not appropriate to comment further.
Keith Locke
: Does the Government now accept that its attempts at both the High Court and the Court of Appeal to argue that the inspector-general need not take into account Mr Zaoui’s rights under the Refugee Convention were misguided; if the Minister does not believe that, why not?
Hon Paul Swain
: As I have said twice before, the Crown is currently considering that Court of Appeal decision, so it is not appropriate to get engaged in this discussion.
Keith Locke
: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question did not relate to whether the Government is going to appeal. I wanted to know whether it now thinks it was misguided to take that line of attack.
Mr Speaker
: The Minister is quite entitled to give the answer he gave to that particular supplementary question.
Keith Locke
: Will the Government now amend the Immigration Regulations so that Mr Zaoui can be either conditionally released or released into a form of detention other than a penal institution, as recommended by the Court of Appeal in its 17 September decision, given that Mr Zaoui has now been in jail for nearly 2 years; if not, why not?
Hon Paul Swain
: I have tried about three times now to say that the whole matter that was the subject of the Court of Appeal decision is currently being considered by the Crown. Therefore, it is not appropriate to talk about that matter any further.
Rt Hon Winston Peters
: Is it not a fact that Ahmed Zaoui could be out of prison tomorrow if he decided to go home, rather than cost the New Zealand taxpayer millions of dollars?
Hon Paul Swain
: Yes.
Keith Locke
: Is the Labour Government not somewhat ashamed that rather than advancing democratic rights it is taking court cases to stop human rights being taken into account, to keep Mr Zaoui in prison after 22 months, and to stop him having access to the media; and what possible reason is there for the Minister not to free Mr Zaoui now, so that he can live in our society with his family?
Hon Paul Swain
: No.