Financial Review Debate — New Zealand Security Intelligence Service

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. As the Prime Minister is here in the chair, I just wonder whether, rather than being specific and taking time going through each report, we just say we are doing all the Prime Minister’s areas, then members can speak, I am sure—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am not reading them all out; I am reading out only the ones members wish to speak to, as indicated. The whips have indicated which ones.

No one took the call, but I wonder whether it is sensible to do that, then members can take a call as they want.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes. Is there a call? There is a call.

The report on the Security Intelligence Service is an important one. There is not a country in the world that does not look towards its security and try to have a service or an organisation that will deal with that aspect of its life. I do not believe there is any argument in this Parliament about the need to have a body that is able to detect whether the security and safety of New Zealand is sound and is able to take proper steps to follow up on any wrongdoing or problems in respect of our country’s security.

However, I want to point to a problem that has emerged with the case of Ahmed Zaoui—that is, the lack of safeguards we have to ensure that an organisation such as the Security Intelligence Service, and the related organisations, being the Customs Service, the New Zealand Police, and the Immigration Service, which work with them—all of which have a considerable amount of power and discretion—are used to protect the democratic rights, not just of anybody who comes from outside but of people inside New Zealand. I believe that the case of Ahmed Zaoui is one that we as a Parliament—not just the Government—need to look at very carefully, not just in terms of whether we have a predisposition to believe that the particular individual, Dr Zaoui, is guilty of any wrongdoing, either abroad or, possibly, in New Zealand, but of whether we have used the right methods to determine that. I would say that at the present time we have a very serious problem, because it appears that there was a predetermination not to hear his case but to avoid the facts of it, and that at a very high level in the departments of the Security Intelligence Service up to the director, in the Customs Service, in the Immigration Service, and in the Police an attempt was made to railroad him out of the country before we heard what his case was about.

The events—from the time Dr Zaoui came to the airport and was questioned by a Customs officer, some 15 hours after he had arrived, in a language he did not understand, and had a document fabricated to suggest he belonged to an organisation he does not belong to, to when the police took that document and falsified the material pertinent to whether he should be detained in a corrections system, through to when the Immigration Service ensured that the first hearing he had was only a few days after he arrived, without proper representation and in a very short time, and to holding him in solitary confinement in a corrections institution against the procedures that the Department of Corrections itself set up, and I know that as a former Minister of Corrections—all predetermined to ensure that his case was not heard.

Therefore, the New Zealand public and the standards it expects—that any accusation of wrongdoing will be investigated thoroughly, and that the person so accused will have adequate opportunity to defend himself—went by the by. We put an enormous number of resources into these organisations, and I think we are in the situation where the head of the Security Intelligence Service, the chief executive of the Immigration Service, right up to Assistant Commissioner Jon White in the New Zealand Police, have acted wrongly and improperly in the case of Dr Zaoui. But, because they have acted wrongly in that case, that affects all of us. Either we have a rule of law that applies to all people and use it or we subvert that rule of law.

The other point about Dr Zaoui is that as soon as he arrived in New Zealand and applied for refugee status, he was acting lawfully. He was applying under our law and under international law to ask for his case to be heard. We have not acted properly, or, I would be so bold to say, lawfully. With the report of the Security Intelligence Service, it is incumbent upon us to look at whether the money is being used properly, to ask for a review as a Parliament—and the Prime Minister has stated that will be the case—particularly in terms of the processes, which I take to mean the questions of natural justice, and that we take that seriously and institute such a review.

Lastly, the Crown is in a difficult position, because in all the legal proceedings in Dr Zaoui’s case, the hearings have found in favour of Dr Zaoui. The thorough review of his case by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, comprising over 200 pages, came down to say that this man is a refugee and should be given refugee status in New Zealand. It was severely critical of the Customs Service and the Immigration Service, and of the Security Intelligence Service, as well.

Report noted.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet